---
author: All-In Podcast
date: '2026-10-30'
guest: ''
layout: post.njk
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1Dy4e4ff0s
speaker: All-In Podcast
tags:
- ipo
- super-intelligence
- recursive-self-improvement
- midterm-elections
- ai-regulation
title: All-In播客第295期：Anthropic IPO前景、超级智能争议及中期选举预测
summary: All-In播客第295期讨论Anthropic提交S-1文件拟于11月16日IPO，目标估值1.5万亿至2万亿美元；嘉宾就超级智能术语争议、递归自我改进及美国中期选举政治前景展开分析。
insight: ''
draft: true
series: ''
category: tech-trends
area: tech-engineering
project: []
people:
- David Friedberg
- Chamath Palihapitiya
- Ben Affleck
- Shayne Coplan
- Tim Dillon
- Rahm Emanuel
- Taylor Lorenz
- JD Vance
- Marco Rubio
- Gavin Newsom
companies_orgs:
- Anthropic
- Goldman Sachs
- Morgan Stanley
- SpaceX
- Polymarket
- Vox
- 8090 Corporation
products_models:
- S-1
media_books: []
status: evergreen
---
### 节目开场与“超级智能”假新闻风波
好了，各位。欢迎回到这档当然是全球第一、让所有平庸播客主坐立难安的播客。《All-In》播客已经开播四、五年了。这是第 295 期，Sacks 回来了。Sacks 回来了，Sacks 回来了。兄弟，最近怎么样？
Original English
All right, everybody. Welcome back to what is of course the number one podcast in the world tweaking all the mid podcasters out there. Four, five years running the all-in podcast. It's episode 295 and Sachs is back. Sax is back. Sax is back. How you doing, brother?
Original English
>> Good, good. I saw some fake news that
Original English
Oh,
Original English
>> you guys had stopped using the term super intelligence. You're getting some shade for that.
Original English
>> Oh, I listen, we're we're here for this week in super intelligence right now.
Original English
[laughter] Here we go. I mean, the whole super intelligence.
Original English
>> It was kind of ridiculous.
Original English
>> Oh, are they
Original English
>> and maybe I shouldn't striand it, but they were trying to say that we were using the term AI still instead of SI.
Original English
>> Who was saying that? This is literally what the press is on.
Original English
>> Now, this is why it's such fake news. They have a photo of me. I wasn't even on the October 23rd.
Original English
>> You do look great though. You do look very presidential there, man. If only
Original English
>> look at this fake news.
Original English
>> I mean, they're US most influential tech podcast. Well, that's good. But actually, we're not just a tech podcast. We're the number one podcast in the world. Give us
Original English
>> has cooled on the use of the term super intelligence. And then they tried to say that I somehow was defying the president's instructions.
Original English
>> All right.
Original English
>> But I but I want to clarify I was not on the October 23rd episode. So, got I'll be keeping you guys in line on this from now on.
Original English
>> Absolutely. Well, we will get focused on super intelligence. Uh, with us again this week, your favorite organic farmer, David Freeberg. How's Oh, doing? You've been pretty busy yourself.
Original English
>> Oh, in Kenya this week. Lots of excitement, lines of farmers trying out true potato seed.
Original English
>> Your energy looks pretty good. You look like you got some good energy. And um, speaking of good energy, man, we had a fun time playing cards last week. That was a blast. A great dinner.
Original English
>> You didn't stop talking for seven hours.
Original English
>> Sort of like the podcast.
Original English
>> Yeah. It's like a podcast.
Original English
>> It's unbelievable. It's unbelievable.
Original English
>> Time. Come on. That was a lot.
Original English
>> Talking talk. No. Affleck texted me after. I'd never want Jay Cal on the game again.
Original English
>> I can't out Affleck as a member of the group.
Original English
>> It's going to be Ben Affleck or you and we pick him. So, you're out.
Original English
>> You're never getting out.
Original English
>> I mean, you just kept chirping for eight hours straight. It's unbelievable. He could not
Original English
>> been at the game for a long time. Had a lot of material. I had I had stored up.
Original English
>> It was It was really fun though. It was
Original English
>> so much fun. And Chimat Poly Hapia, everybody's favorite enterprise sales executive from the 8090 Corporation.
Original English
[laughter] How'd you do this week? Did you hit Did you ring the gong? Did you hit your quota? Or are you going to have to work this weekend?
Original English
>> Q4 is off to a good start, but I never want to count the chickens.
Original English
>> Okay, that's that's good considering you whiffed Q3. Um,
Original English
>> no, no, no. Q3 was okay. We whiffed Q2. butchered it. Butchered it. [laughter] Butchered when I all my fault, too, because I I forced these poor. [laughter]
Original English
>> I I forced these three poor salespeople to just only focus on the gigantic deals.
Original English
>> You're learning. You're learning.
Original English
>> I had to learn the hard way.
Original English
>> You want to get those singles and doubles and the people who pay on time and and who start the projects on time.
Original English
>> We'll see in ancest. But like, you know, you can build a ginormous business with singles and doubles.
Original English
>> Absolutely you can. Speaking of gigantic businesses, Anthropic Ant dropped their S1. That's the document that outlines the nature of the business for an IPO, an initial public offering. And got to ask the question, this seems to be the greatest business in the history of entrepreneurship. Goldman and Morgan Stanley are going to lead the round and they are targeting November 16th, right before Thanksgiving for this IPO. We've been waiting for a long time. It's been delayed. The ticker will be Ant N. And they're aiming to raise, wait for it, $100 billion, in other words, like 3 months of compute. And that would make it the largest IPO ever, surpassing SpaceX. They raised 85 billion back in June if you remember. And Poly Market says our great partners at Poly Market say 78% chance Anthropic raises at least 95 billion. The valuation 1.5 to2 trillion. Here's your Poly market. Right now it's saying between 1.75 and 2 trillion market cap 31%. So yeah, assume it's going to be slightly under 2 trillion.
Original English
The revenue is the story sachs 16.3 billion in the first half of 2026. That is 14x year-over-year. So in other words, the first 6 months of 2025, 1 14th of what they did in the first 6 months of this year. Q2 is going to be a whopping 11.6 billion, a 30x jump over the last five quarters and almost as much as they made in the first half of the year. They say the TAM, the total addressable market for their tokens and services is 40 trillion. That's extraordinary. I don't know how they backed into that, but we'll talk about it. And they're projecting 100 billion of ARR by the end of the year. Now unspecified if that's annual reoccurring revenue or their annual revenue run rate which is a rR like a pirate. They've got $112 billion in cash and a very unique ownership structure. Seven founders, yes they have seven, are going to hold 50.1% of the voting power through a single class F share. Saxs, is this the greatest business in the history of capitalism?
Original English
It could very well be. I mean, I think this is probably going to be the biggest venture outcome of all time, especially given the time in which this was created. I mean, this is only a six-year-old company. I think the exit here is going to be on par with SpaceX's IPO, but SpaceX has been around for like 20some years. So, this is probably the fastest value creation of any ventureback company in history. And I don't know if you saw, but there was a a tweet this morning about the distribution of wealth this is going to create among the employees. Hundreds and hundreds of employees are going to be making hundreds of millions of dollars and then thousands of employees are going to be making $10 million plus. I mean, this is going to be an enormous wealth creation event like San Francisco and maybe all of Silicon Valley has never seen before.
Original English
Now, there's a few other data points in this S1 that I think reflected the strength here. So number one is that this $80 billion loss number that we've heard so much about that the media has constantly been pumping and harping on as proof that Anthropic was either a fake business or that we were in this sort of whole bubble. That narrative basically just got completely refuted because it turns out that that $80 billion loss is a phantom number. It resulted from the fact that Enthropic had issued convertible notes to basically their infrastructure partners like Amazon and so forth. And as Anthropic's valuation increased, those convertible notes got recorded as a loss on the balance sheet and that flowed through into the income statement. But it's not a real loss. If they had just issued equity, that loss wouldn't be there. So it was not a cash loss. It's basically a fake number.
Original English
And in fact, what was revealed in this S1 is that Anthropic has been an extraordinarily capital efficient business. So they've raised something like I think it was around 110 billion roughly and they've only spent about 9 or 10 billion throughout the entire course of this this business and they still have like you said Jal about 100 billion left of cash or cash equivalents on the balance sheet. So everyone thought based on the previous reporting that this was a huge loss-making business. In fact, it ended up being a very capital efficient business. And then the other thing that you saw was that their margins have been improving. I think their gross margin is now something like 85%.
Original English
And what you see is that for a given task or capability, they're showing roughly 10x improvement year-over-year in their ability to deliver that task. the cost effectiveness of that task. It gets 10x cheaper year-over-year and that allows them to cut the cost of that model or that task by let's call it 50%. And so the consumer recognizes a huge cost savings, but they are able to realize an even greater savings because they're they're able to capture
Original English
the rest of that efficiency in their margin. And that that's what we basically saw is that again they're cutting the cost of their tokens significantly, but their margins are going up even faster because they're able to produce these models that are more and more efficient and they call them compute multipliers. It's very interesting the way that Anthropic sees their business. The framework that Daario has is that there's raw compute which are scaling very rapidly as well as a result of better and better chips and more and more of those chips and then there's the compute multipliers which are things like algorithmic improvements or better curation of the data or it can be things like uh better architectures more you know architectures things that make all these models more efficient so they're able to give you the same answer for onetenth the cost or they can take those efficiencies and create greater capabilities. So this is what we're seeing is that that business is actually improving and I think it is a little bit of a reputation to all the people who've been saying over the past year that they're getting commoditized away that open models are basically are putting them on a hamster wheel where they're basically going to zero on gross margin or that it's a business that only works because it's heavily subsidized by venture capital. In fact, I think there's a lot of reasons to believe that anthropic has a pretty big lead. And if you believe that recursive self-improvement has kicked in, as they are claiming it has, then their lead could actually grow.
Friedberg，关于大量资本涌入硅谷的影响，以及这种所有权占51%的公司结构，还有这可能对科技行业、风险投资行业，以及美国这里的民主制度产生什么影响，谈谈你的想法吧。我们从未见过这么多资金流向一个非营利组织，或者不管他们怎么称呼这个 Anthropic 非营利实体，但七位创始人80%的股份都会进入某种类型的非营利实体。公益企业，谁知道最终会构建成什么形式。这是可选的，但那是另一只引人关注的落地鞋子。所以，随便你想从哪个方面谈，以什么顺序谈都可以。
Original English
Freeberg, your thoughts on the impact of this massive deluge of capital coming in to Silicon Valley and then this corporate structure 51% ownership and what impact this might have on the technology industry, the venture capital industry and then on democracy here in the United States. We've never seen this much capital flow through to uh a nonprofit organization um or whatever they're calling this anthropic uh nonprofit entity, but 80% of the seven founders shares are going into this nonprofit entity of some type. Benefit corporation, who knows what it's going to be structured as. It's optional, but that's another interesting uh shoe to drop. So, take it whichever way you like, in whichever order you like.
我能不能就 AI 所产生的经济价值发表一下看法？这在其中或许有了一点体现。在 S-1 文件中，Anthropic 展示了他们拥有多少支出在 10 万美元及以上的客户。
Original English
Can I just comment on the the economic value that's arising from AI that kind of perhaps revealed a little bit in this? So in the S1 Anthropic shows how many customers they have that are spending 100K or more.
### AI 价值链与客户支出
>> 如果我们看一下这里的图片，支出在 10 万美元或以上的客户增长相当惊人。2024 年底有 200 家客户，2025 年底有 1500 家。到了 9 月底，有 11,900 家客户支出在 10 万美元或以上。所以我问了一个问题，就是说，有多少客户其 10 万美元的年支出占其年总支出不到 1%？答案是在美国大约有 20 万到 30 万家企业。全球来看略超过一百万家。
Original English
>> If we take a look at the image here, it's a pretty remarkable ramp in customers spending 100K or more. 200 customers in 2024, end of year, 1500 end of 2025. And at the end of September, uh, 11,900 customers spending 100k or more. So I asked the question, you know, how many customers are there for which a $100,000 annual spend is less than 1% of their total annual spend? And the answer is in the US it's about 200 to 300,000 businesses. Globally it's bit over a million.
所以，你知道，如果你单单说，“嘿，你看，Anthropic 那些能够支出 10 万美元或以上且占其总支出不到 1% 的潜在客户，其目标客户群大约是一百万家客户。因此，他们目前大概只达到了总潜在客户渗透率的 1%。”
Original English
So, you know, if you just say, "Hey, look, Anthropic's customers that could spend 100k or more and have it be less than 1% of their total spend, the addressable customer base is about a million customers. So, they're only at call it 1% of total customer penetration potential."
现在，问题在于，这里面真的有钱可赚吗？所以我看了一下那种 AI 价值堆栈，试图找出谁在哪个环节赚钱。结果发现大家都在赚钱。所以，而且我认为我们之前也谈得挺多的。我知道 Chamath 对此有一些看法，因为它与 Neocloud 相关。
Original English
Now, the question is, is there real money to be made here? So, I took a look at the kind of AI value stack to try and identify who's making money where. And it turns out everyone's making money. So, and I think we've talked about this quite a bit. And I know Chimoff's got some views on this as it relates to the Neoclouds.
>> 这图表是什么？这是像 AI 输出的内容、那个还是你自己做的？
Original English
>> What is a chart? Is this like AI output or that or you?
>> 我——我让 Claude 帮我做成了图片。
Original English
>> I I had I had Claude make this for me as an image.
>> 酷。
Original English
>> Cool.
>> 或者我应该直接说，是我公司的分析师帮我做的。
Original English
>> Or I should just say my analyst made this for me in my shop.
>> 你的 Bot。
Original English
>> Your bot.
>> 所以，你知道，我基本上是这样设定的：比如从英伟达开始。英伟达造芯片花多少钱？然后他们芯片卖多少钱？所以每 1 美元的营业成本（英伟达花掉的每 1 美元），都会转化为英伟达 4 美元的营收，75% 的利润率。然后这些芯片卖给 SpaceX。接着 SpaceX 反过来，他们在那笔芯片支出上赚取 83% 的利润率，因为他们大概按 5 年折旧来算。他们在 Colossus 1 上花了 100 亿美元，5 年使用寿命，每年折旧 20 亿美元。
Original English
>> And so, you know, I basically said like start with Nvidia. How much does Nvidia spend to make the chips? And then how much do they sell the chips for? So for every dollar of COGS, every dollar that Nvidia spends, that turns into $4 of revenue for Nvidia, 75% margin. And then that gets sold to SpaceX. And then SpaceX turns around and they're making, you know, an 83% margin on that chip spend because they're kind of looking at a 5-year depreciation. So they spent 10 billion on Colossus one, 5year life, two billion a year depreciation.
所以每年的成本大致是这样，但他们随后在 Colossus 上每月赚取 12.5 亿美元。
Original English
And so that's kind of the cost per year, but then they're making 1.25 billion a month on Colossus.
接着 Anthropic 在这份 S-1 中非常亮眼地展示出——正如 Sacks 所指出的——对于进来的每一美元增量收入，他们能产生大约 85% 的增量毛利率。这显然有一个算力支出的基线，但 85% 大致就是其增量毛利率。所以归根结底，英伟达花掉的 1 美元，最终转化为了 Anthropic 向客户销售所获得的 18 美元。而问题在于，客户在赚钱吗？我们看到客户数量是这样的增长曲线，支出也是这样的增长曲线，客户赚到的钱大概是在他们支出金额的 2 到 10 倍这个量级，因为否则的话，可能就会出现留存问题以及支出下滑。也许我错了，也许现在还处于狂热的早期阶段，大家都在亏钱，我们可以在这一点上争论一下；但总体而言，如果 AI 正在为客户创造价值，我认为这表明 AI 确实带来了真正的生产力提升，整个价值链中存在着如此丰厚的利润空间，一路延伸到客户都在创造如此巨大的价值，而我们或者说 Anthropic 在其潜在客户中只渗透了 1%，每位客户的潜在支出渗透可能还不到 10%。这真的很像 Eric Schmidt 很久以前在谷歌早期常说的那句话——谷歌的目标市场是全球商业。我认为我们有史以来第一次看到一家企业实际上可能开始兑现这一理论：如果你能为客户创造足够的生产力提升，那么你的 TAM 就是整个商业市场。它真正凸显了，借助这套技术栈，也许我们正在将人类劳动力等效扩大 100 倍、1000 倍或 100 万倍。所以我只是觉得，对我来说，非常震撼的是我们目前处于如此早期的阶段，但各方却又都如此极其有利可图，这表明在整个价值栈中正在产生相当多的生产力。嗯，这些基本上是我从 S-1 中获得的最大收获。我不知道你们是否赞同这一点，但你知道，对我来说这一切感觉都挺了不起的。我很想知道你们会不会觉得我有点脑子发热、在解读这些内容时过于狂热了。
Original English
And then Anthropic is showing in this S1 pretty remarkably to Sax's point that they're making about 85% incremental gross margin on every incremental dollar coming in. It's obviously a baseline of compute spend, but 85% is kind of the incremental gross margin. So at the end of the day, a dollar that Nvidia spends turns into $18 that Anthropic is making selling to customers. And the question is, are customers making money? So we're seeing the customer ramp as it is and the spend ramp as it is and the customers are making call it on the order of two to 10 times the money they're spending because otherwise there there would be probably a retention issue and a decline in spend. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's early days of exuberance and people are losing money and we could debate that point a bit but generally speaking if AI is delivering value to the customers I think this shows that there really is true productivity arising from AI that across the whole value chain there is such margin to be had there's so much value being created all the way through to the customers and we're only 1% or anthropic is only 1% penetrated on their customer potential and probably less than 10% of the spend potential per customer um that this really is what I think Eric Schmidt a long time ago in the early days of Google used to say Google's total addressable market is global commerce and I think for the first time ever we're seeing a business actually potentially starting to realize that theory that if you can create enough productivity gain for your customers that your TAM is commerce and it really highlights that maybe you know we're almost growing the equivalency of the human working population by 100x or a thousandx or a millionx X with this technology stack. So I I just thought like to me it was so striking how early we are but also how incredibly profitable everyone is which indicates there's quite a bit of productivity being produced across the whole value stack. Um those were my biggest takeaways kind of from the S1. I don't know if you guys agree with this but you know it all felt pretty remarkable to me. I'd be curious to know if you guys think I'm I'm I'm a little loopy on being too exuberant in my reading of this stuff.
我认为可能最重要的是你写了“假设”的最后一个框，你写着假设的那里，［笑声］
Original English
I think the thing that that is probably the most important is the last box that you said where it you wrote assumption where you said assumption, [laughter]
>> 对吧？
Original English
>> right?
>> 嗯，他们怎么衡量那个？不过顺便说一句，我同意你的看法，但是——
Original English
>> Well, how do they measure that? But by the way, I agree with you, but
>> 最后一个框是我编出来的。我说假设 2 到 10 倍。所以我只是——我根本不知道。但我自己是 Claude 的用户。我认为我们从 Claude 获得了巨大的价值。我认为我们的员工因为 Claude 能够比以往完成更多工作。所以，我们的业务增长更快。我们可以在更短的时间内完成更多的事情。我认为我自己相当规律地切身体会到了这一点。我谈过很多关于转向开源的事情，我们现在也安装了自己的集群并运行着自己的开源模型。但我认为 Claude 所展示的是，他们拥有如此高的利润率。他们在定价上实际上具有良好的弹性。因此他们可以下调价格，你可能会看到他们开始对市场进行一点细分，他们或许可以开始更有竞争力，对较便宜、较轻松的任务提供较便宜的 token，而对高端任务针对智能收取更高的价格，并通过改变价格档位来开始对他们所提供的智能的价值进行分层。我预见到每个人都会朝着那个方向走。Nick，我来给你看个东西。这是针对 Friedberg 所说的每个人在理论上能通过 AI 获得的潜在下游生产力提升这一点。直接把那个放到屏幕上。这是来自微软的财报。我的研究团队整理的。这真的很不可思议。这向你展示了微软的营收
Original English
>> the last box I made up. I said assume two to 10x. So, I'm just I have no idea. But I'm a user of Claude. I think we get a lot of value for Claude. I think our people are able to do more because of Claude than they would otherwise be able to do. So, our business grows faster. We can get more done in a shorter period of time. I think I tangibly experience that pretty regularly. I've talked a lot about moving to open source and we have our own cluster installed with our own kind of open source now. But I think what Claude is showing is that they they have such a high margin. They actually have good elasticity on pricing. So they could push price down and you could start to see them start to segment the market a little bit where they could start to be more competitive perhaps with cheaper tokens for cheaper, easier tasks and then premium tasks charge a higher price for intelligence and start to stratify the value of the intelligence that they're providing by changing the price points. And I I envision that's where everyone's going to go. Nick, I'm going to show you. This is to Freedberg's point about what is the potential downstream productivity gains that everybody can have theoretically with AI. Just put that on the screen. This is from Microsoft's earnings. My research team put this together. It's really quite incredible. What this shows you is that Microsoft's revenue went
从过去四年的 1980 亿增至 3320 亿，而员工仅增加了 2,000 人。我是说，这难道不令人震惊吗？就像在 AI 出现之前，如果有人说：“太好了，在这种规模下，我们要让营收接近翻倍……”
Original English
from 198 billion to 332 billion in the last four years. while staff only increased by 2,000 people. I mean, isn't that stunning? Like, you would have thought in before AI that if somebody said, "Great, we're going to, you know, get close to doubling revenues at this kind of scale,
Original English
>> right?"
Original English
>> You probably would have thought that headcount would have doubled too. And the reality is headcount stayed flat. And we don't know how many people will take this offer that Microsoft just gave for, you know, to leave cuz I think they offered it up to 60,000 people, but this number could be under 200,000 depending on how many take it. And so just the scale and the impact on the productivity to your point, this idea that it creates job loss, I don't think is true. It's more that you're seeing productivity gains at the same number of human input. And I think that's interesting. I went through the S1. You want me to give you my little S1 breakdown?
Original English
>> Mhm.
Original English
>> This is the most incredible business I've ever seen. I hope that they go public after November 11th because it will force them to update with Q3 and then we'll get even more insight into this is like some contraption that I've never seen before. I've never seen a business like this. It's really, really, really incredible. So, let's cross our fingers because post November 11th, you'll see Q3 drop. What people have been whispering is that the revenue growth kind of moderated to sort of like the 50% range. Q4 is TBD, but let's break this down in a bunch of charts because I think it's interesting. Okay, so Nick, start with chart number one and we'll just go through them one by one. Okay, so the first thing that I always read in an S1 is what are the risk factors? And what I had my team do is I said go put together a word cloud. First tell me,
Original English
>> this is really cool. [snorts]
Original English
>> First tell me what are they afraid of.
Original English
>> Okay. And when you look at it, the share of words in the risk factors that are allocated to different risks are very important. And what this tells you is the single biggest risk to the ant business is compute. They mention it more than anything else. And specifically inside of compute, they talk about data centers, power, chips, grid, electricity, hardware, etc. Then a close second but still second is regulation. Okay, they care about government policy. They care about sanctions. They care about export controls. Then it's this idea of zero data retention and privacy and IP. Then it's AI safety. Then it's just, you know, making money. It's then there's their competitors. Then there's governance.
What you notice is what are they not afraid of? They're not afraid of customer traction because they they rarely mention it. They're not really afraid of employees leaving because you'd be an idiot to leave if you were inside and they don't really care about taxes and any of these other things. So this is a business that is very much on the forward foot that understands the binding constraint. So now if you know that the the compute is their biggest risk factor then you double click into that. And I had my team run a further analysis, which is to say, okay, how do they describe these risks, right? How many times do they mention them? How many words are you spilling talking about this? And what you find is that inside of the the the compute problem, their biggest issue is really data centers.
And then further, it's the financing commitments that they have and it's the power. All of these are really important because again it helps us highlight what the binding constraint is to this business. So as goes data centers, as goes power and by the way this is a great setup for the politicians because it very obvious if you're a Democrat as you read this and I'll speak about it in a second what you should be trying to do to win in 28 versus what Republicans have to do in 28. Right? Basically, the takeaway from all of this is I think Ant is emblematic of the entire AI complex, which is to say it's all about data centers, which means it's all about power. If you're a Democrat, the best thing you want to do is slow all of this down so that there's a recession going into 28. The only thing you need to do is slow down power and slow down data centers. On the other side, if you're a Republican and you want to have the best chance of winning in 28, this is the one thing that must be done right. You must get the power, electricity, data center thing right.
Original English
>> Okay. So based on this, your premise is they need data centers. If they don't get data centers, it can't keep growing. However, Saxs, the truth is these are the liberal of all liberals in Silicon Valley. It is the largest amount of money that has ever been made by founders outside of Elon Musk. Uh it would make sense to me perhaps the opposite of what Chamat's saying. Shouldn't the Democrats come in and say we are pro- data center and energy because this is going to help society because they want to see Daario and his group win because they are going to be the equivalent on the left of Elon Musk on the right. Wouldn't it be better for them to steal the um the data center charge and make Anthropic even more profitable so that that 51% of all of their or 80% of all their money just flows into Democratic super PACs
Original English
>> maybe. But I don't think that's the Democratic party that we have today. I mean the old Clinton Democrats I mean Bill Clinton Democrats are long gone. I don't think the abundance Democrats are picking up a lot of momentum. I mean, the Democrat party is, as Gavin Newsome said, is becoming DSA dominated. So, what is their agenda with respect to super intelligence? either to ban it outright as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and AOC want to do. They basically want 20-year jail sentences for developers of super intelligence, and they want corporate death penalty for companies that build super intelligence. or they want to have some extremely draconian regulatory regime that would feature a federal department of AI or federal department of SI that would review and approve every single model before its release. Basically, they want to have a DMV for models. So, look, that is that is that is the Democratic agenda on this. Now, could that be shifted through oligarchs like, I don't know, Reed Hoffman or maybe some of these new anthropic oligarchs like maybe a Dustin Mosuit, something like that. Maybe they can through their massive influence in Democrat circles could effectuate a change. But I tend to think that Chimath is right that Democrats want to do anything they can to sabotage the Trump economy and this whole SI boom is what is driving the Trump economy right now. So I tend to think that's going to be the partisan that's going to be the partisan
Original English
>> impetus. So you don't need to do much. I think free bird to scuttle the Trump economy since the the war, tariffs, and all that other stuff have driven inflation uh and uh all those problems. Wouldn't it be smarter for the Democrats?
Original English
>> Hold on. I mean, just just hold on a second. I mean, yeah,
Original English
>> Jake Al, I think the latest numbers from like Fed GDP now, I think it was 3.7% in Q3 and it was 2 and a.5% in the first half of the year. And you could also look at all the capex that's being spent right now on this buildout and it's roughly 3% of GDP. So you could say that all of the economic growth in the United States right now is coming from this super intelligence buildout.
Original English
>> Concur with that. We can have fun with numbers, [clears throat] but the Trump economy is a disaster according to Trump's own supporters. So let's just call balls and strikes here. his own voters, the independents who flipped over and voted for him, they are very displeased with the economy and that can be seen very clearly in him having the worst approval rating of his entire career and there's been some doozies in that career. Freedberg, what should the Democrats
Original English
>> I don't think even even those critics even first of all I don't know what Trump supporters you're talking about. I'm talking about the America First people who feel uh that he didn't deport the 20 million people that they still have. I'm just talking about that cohort. You could put Tucker in there. You could put Megan in there. You you know all that
Original English
sphere.Original English
>> Yes, there are definitely people who don't like the war and they recognize that there is some inflation being caused by the war. But I don't think they've said the economy is a disaster. Anyway, whatever. I don't want to quibble with you about if you're not an equity holder. I think you look at this economy and say both parties, Biden and this Trump 2.0. I think the the bottom half of the economy believes that both parties don't care about them. That's that's what all the uh feedback uh that you're getting and and we'll confirm it all next Tuesday and see what happens with the actual voting. Chimath, let's continue your tear down.Original English
>> So that was section one, which is you always read the risk factors first. Get a sense of what is management concerned about, right? So again the takeaway is management is concerned really only about compute. This is a compute problem. Okay. The next thing that I always look at is I look at the revenue side of the ledger and I try to understand what kind of business they have. And this is an incredible incredible business. Exactly what Freeberg said. Why? Because at the growth that they have and the revenue that they have they have barely scratched the surface of the commercial working world.Original English
And so this is a little bit more of a nuance chart because what it does, it starts to really break down what we think the revenue stratification is by customers inside of Anthropic. So there's about 40 million individuals and small businesses that are spending under 100K. 40 million. Then there's about 10,000 that spend between 100 and a million. There's about 1650 that spend between 1 and 10 million and only 250 customers spend 10 million and more. So to your point, I think what Freeberg said is right. The setup is is that these folks can negatively churn into these existing customers and grow and attract new customers at an incredible rate, which I think is just crazy.Original English
And so this allows me to think about what is the upper bound of revenue. And you know, you don't need to get to 100% of what's possible. You need to get to 25 or 30%. And then you need to have a reasonable distribution of negative churn assumptions. And what you start to see is that this can be a very large revenue business in the hundreds of billions of dollars in sort of this 3 to sevenyear time frame. Now, what slows that down?Original English
As far as I can tell, and this is more of me putting the 8090 hat on, the reason why you have so much traction in the million and under is when a company gets large enough, they allocate responsibility and budgets down. And at the director, manager, VP level, there are millions of humans running around with kind of million-dollar budgets. And so there's a lot of experimentation that can happen inside of that bucket. They're willing to sign up for three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine things. The minute you sort of transition from a million to like multi-million dollar deals and this data sort of confirms it. It's a much more thoughtful pitch, it's much more crossunctional inside of a company. And you have to show some form of ROI or total cost of ownership advantage. Right?Original English
So, what's interesting about this, Jason, is 1,900 companies have been able to make the case. That's what I would say. I think there's a ton of experimentation and I think about 1,900 companies can clearly see an ROI where they can now start to rip in big checks. Now, of that 1,900, a big portion of those are going to be AI natives, right? Folks that are venture funded. So, you have to strip those folks away. And then what's left over is probably a couple of hundred global 2000 type companies. So, I think the ROI case is still a little speculative, but the potential is there. And as long as the potential is there, I think the market's going to kind of price it up.Original English
So now that's revenue composition. So then the next thing I think about is capitalization. And I said this before. I said Ant needs to have 200 billion. And I really hope that they actually get close to 250. First of all, let me just say the CFO of Ant Krishna Raalo has done an unbelievable job. The fact that he entering June already had $125 billion is unbelievable. And there's a chart I didn't include, but their total net burn to get there is been like $9 billion or 10 billion. It's just infantessimally low relative to the market cap.Original English
So I thought that they had a lot less cash than this. So when I said they need to raise between 200 to 250 and they need to price closer to a trillion, I was assuming they had 30 40 50 billion on the balance sheet, I was wrong. So these guys need to raise between I would say 80 to 120 billion to get to that quarter trillion. And I think in order to do that, the price is probably now going to come in between 1.3 on the low end to 1.7 on the high end. So call 1.5 the midpoint. So, if I had to price the IPO, just eyeballing this, I kind of think it'll come in around5 if I had to if I had to just kind of guess.Original English
And the other thing that I noticed is how much cash Alphabet has and also how much cash Meta does not have. I was shocked to see that Beta had negative 1.2 billion of cash. This must be a mistake, but if you look at the 10 Q's as of the end of September, this is what it shows, which net cash. [clears throat]Original English
>> Net cash.Original English
>> Maybe it doesn't include short-term investments or something.Original English
>> I'm going to take a look at Meta's numbers.Original English
>> Yeah, it doesn't make sense.Original English
>> Yeah, I I'll tell you in one second. Uh your larger point is is right that Enthropic like you said over 100 billion of cash they're sitting on. They've burnt very little of the money that they've raised. Again, their company's been a model of capital efficiency. They're about to raise 100 billion in this IPO. I think they've got about a debt facility with another 80 billion. So you add it all up and this is a company with over 300 billion of dry powder or it will soon have that.Original English
So then you've got all these, you know, anthropic bears who are saying they've made all these capex commitments in the future that they're never going to be able to live up to. Well, actually, this secures those commitments because they've got the capital now to basically back up all of those compute orders, all that forecasted capex spendingOriginal English
>> till, I don't know, 2030.Original English
>> You're exactly right. And because they only have to raise 80, right, or 90 or 100, that's a lot different than trying to raise 150 or 175 or 200, which is where I thought they needed to be. And so the demands they're going to put on the capital markets into the IPO are going to be less, which means that they'll have more pricing power. They'll be able to manage the float better. All of these dynamics, I think, give you a constructive read going into the IPO. Okay, now let's move on because I think here's my biggest take.Original English
>> Metaznet cash is negative -2. It is 80 billion of cash and [snorts] short terms and 82 billion of debt. [laughter]Original English
>> Wow.Original English
>> Okay, now go back to this. What is my big takeaway? It's bigger than Ant. I'm going to build on what Sach said. The entire United States economy is levered to the AI complex. So very narrowly, we're talking about seven or eight companies. That sets the tone for the entire country. And whether we like it or not, that is where we are. Why do I say that? One,Original English
the most important companies in the world are in a massive spending binge. Right? These were highly profitable, highly cash accreative, highly cash flow generative businesses that have said we're going to put the foot down on spending because we believe in what's coming into the future. That's what drives GDP and it's what drives growth. Okay, next chart.Original English
Now, as they do that though, they deplete their cash and they have to raise debt. Okay, and this is what you see. All but Microsoft, by the way, what an incredible job Satya has done. He's haved his debt while everybody else has, you know, just gone to an unbelievably crazy high number. So, the the AI complex now owes 340 400 billion to the market. And you'd say, okay, why is that important? The problem is this.Original English
These companies are raising so much money, it starts to crowd out the capital markets. And the most important part of the capital market that itOriginal English
starts to crowd out is the appetite for government treasuries. And what you can see here is that when you look at these AI firms, the amount of money that they need to raise through the end of 27th, it's 30% of all of what Treasury is about to issue in that same period. So they're whether we like it or not, they are going to start competing for demand. Isn't this nuts? It's like you have seven companies that are crowding out the treasury market. And you know, Chimamath, a lot of people are looking at that number and they're trading these stocks down based on that. I kind of view it the opposite, which is I don't these are smart companies. I don't think they'd be making those kinds of investments unless they thought there was ROI there. And so,
Original English
>> well, there obviously is ROI based on the token usage and the fact that only 1 or 2% of people in corporate America are even using these tools. We are greatly underestimating the uptick here. Claude hasn't even launched a bot yet, a Grock bot. and OpenAI just launched theirs and it's in like a small
Original English
>> use case when a hundred million or 200 million white collar workers who subscribe to say the office suite right the similar office 365ing happens in corporate America everybody's got five agents running
Original English
>> I think the utilization of these things is going 500x the token usage is 500x
Original English
>> that means we're going to have not enough compute and everybody's got the build out
Original English
>> completely wrong there won't be enough and people are going to look back on this moment and say why didn't you build more compute why didn't you spend more on capex
Original English
>> you're absolutely right Jason the problem is the regulatory push back the the amount of approvals and the ability for utilities to find the staff and the ability to actually turn these things on and then the ability to get the capital equipment you need it just isn't there right now so we as a country are sort of clogged up we can't do it even if we wanted to do it
Original English
>> freeberg you know the The other issue here is if we are not spending enough building this out and the country a large percent of the of the country believes in socialism and is against the oligarchs both Republican, independent and democratic oligarchs. This is a this is what they think of us and of the leaders in our industry and other industries. This is really dangerous because we're not going to be able to to build out the compute we need. and and what does that do to the entire industry in the next 3 to 5 years if we if we can't build out this and how do we turn that narrative around so people are like yeah we should have data centers
Original English
I have a view that humans try to organize into groups organizations to try and create power that benefits the members of that group so you know we form tribes We form communities and in a in a sense governments are a form of an organization. It's an organizational coalition of individuals to achieve an objective for in the case of a democracy the majority of the voters and as a result organizations in a in a world of you know call it pseudo limited resources compete with each other for those resources.
Original English
nonprofits, forprofits, governments, they're all effectively competing for resources because the individuals that they represent the interests of are going to be served if they get more resources, get more power, get more influence. So to some extent the power of AI and the influence it enables in terms of media in terms of capital accumulation in terms of changing people's minds in terms of aggregating resources through its competitive capacity productivity etc makes it a bit of a threat to government organizations and so to Chim's point if one of the manifestations of that is that AI is acrewing more interest from capital than governments. Governments aren't going to want to let that happen.
Original English
And the governments, whether they're right or left, are going to fight for the AI to become either part of the government and the government to subsume the AI or control the AI organizations. And this is why I've kind of argued the case. I think that you're going to end up seeing compute get regulated in the future where compute capacity is going to be assigned by government and they're going to pass laws to try and do that post production. That is like meaning they're not going to control the chips. They're going to control the actual compute layer and they're going to determine who's going to get access to what amount of compute. I think for governments to compete and I think one of the ways this is going to play out to Chimov's point is in the near term in capital there's more capital going to the AI organizations and the government. the governments aren't going to want to let that happen. So they're going to try and stop the data centers because then
Original English
>> I've never seen something in my adult working life where a complex of a handful of companies are effectively competing with governments now for capital because you've never seen companies in an organized manner have one very narrow thing that they need money for that is a one-way bet on something that attracts the same amount of money that would otherwise go to a traditional 2 3 4 5 year 10ear bond. bond auction. It's It's kind of nutty actually. And by the way,
Original English
>> the story you're going to hear from both sides is a story of which side benefits the people more. And that's going to be the narrative argument, which is going to be every side's going to say the other side's lying. Because remember, if one side's lying and another side's not lying,
Original English
>> yeah,
Original English
>> the side that's not lying says, "Hey, those guys are lying and they're correct." The side that is lying deacto says that the other side is lying because they're liars. And so you'll hear both sides screaming, "We are the better path for society. We are the better path for humanity." It's either government or private market AI. And that'll be the huge battle that's going to brew over the next half decade.
Original English
>> Well, and we'll see which one
Original English
>> politicians are for sale. And Daario and Anthropic should start buying just like the right did.
Original English
>> Oh, they already have.
Original English
>> I don't I don't see them with champions. Where are their champions? Do they have champions yet?
Original English
>> For sure. Listen, Anthropic even as a startup prioritized government affairs. They were very active during the Biden administration. All those former Biden officials who were doing AI in the Biden administration immediately joined anthropic.
Original English
>> My point, Sax, is that you don't
Original English
>> at the end of 2024.
Original English
>> No, no, I get that. But you don't see them doing what you guys did, hosting a fundraiser for Trump, being out there publicly in front of it. You don't see them.
Original English
>> Sure. They've they they have spent they've created packs and all sorts of entities and nonprofits all NOS's all that kind of stuff and they have been massively funding it. They have a huge government you guys did like in you know getting out there and funding
Original English
>> I don't know what you mean by you I don't know what you mean by you guys I did you have your support for Trump I've never seen publicly come out for
Yeah. Exactly. I'm not I'm not Can you let me explain? I'm not a corporation. Of course,
Original English
>> I'm just one person who has views and yeah, I support certain candidates and I do fundraisers for candidates. I'm not like seeking regulatory capture. I'm just one person.
Original English
>> I'm saying why hasn't the other founders done that? Why haven't they said we choose this candidate, we choose these candidates?
Original English
>> We don't know that they haven't. How do we know?
Original English
>> We know they haven't done it publicly because we've never heard them do it. That's my
Original English
>> Sure. But
Original English
>> they have given huge amounts of money to pack.
Original English
>> I agree. They've done it private
Original English
>> which which is public information and those packs have supported candidates. If they're going to make a run at this, they should do it publicly.
Original English
>> There's a huge revolving door where Anthropic has been snapping up every former official. First, it was the Biden administration. Now, frankly, they're hiring a lot of former Trump administration officials. Oh, really?
Original English
>> And Yo, yeah. This and this is all public information. Yeah.
Original English
>> But they are building a massive government affairs operation. And look, I think you can expect that as they power up
Original English
through
all
of
this
capital,
having
a
$2
trillion
market
cap,
Original English
>> that's
my
point.
they're
going
to
have
even
more
influence
in
Washington
or
they're
going
to
be
capable
of
buying
a
lot
more
influence.
And
I
think
that
is
concerning.
I
one
thing
I
will
say
though
is
that
as
they
go
from
being
a
startup
to
being
a
public
company
that's
one
of
the
top
handful
of
companies
by
market
cap
on
earth.
It's
going
to
be
very
obvious
that
they
are
a
big
tech
company
and
therefore
they
should
be
treated
like
other
big
tech
companies
which
is
to
say
with
suspicion
as
opposed
to
this
being
some
poor
little
startup
that
you
know
has
innocuous
views
or
is
not
the
800
lb
gorilla
they
actually
are.
So,
I
do
think
it'll
be
clarifying
on
that
level
for
them
to
be
seen
correctly
as
what
I've
been
saying
is
that
they
are
the
most
powerful
monopoly
or
or
duopoly
ever
in
human
history,
which
is
they're
creating
AGI,
right?
I've
been
saying
that
for
a
long
time.
So,
I
do
think
that
them
going
public
will
actually
rightsize
them
in
the
public
consciousness.
And
one
thing
you're
you're
seeing
already
actually
is
there
starting
to
be
a
doomer
anthropic
split.
There's
a
very
interesting
article
in
Vox
which
is
this
huge
doomer
publication
over
the
past
week
and
it
was
quoting
a
bunch
of
these
NOS's
kind
of
doomers
uh
that
were
basically
pointing
out
that
you
know
like
anthropic
actually
if
you
if
you
separate
their
rhetoric
from
what
they
actually
do
they
are
the
ones
leading
the
charge
on
recursive
self-improvement.
There's
no
single
company
in
the
world
that
is
uh
doing
more
to
race
towards
full
RSI
than
Anthropic.
They
are
hellbent
for
leather
on
getting
to
full
recursive
self-improvement.
In
fact,
a
lot
of
the
reason
why
they
are
becoming
so
efficient
with
their
compute,
the
reason
they're
able
to
cut
costs,
offer
the
same
capability
at
onetenth
the
price
is
because
they've
increasingly
been
using
their
own
models
to
generate
these
algorithmic
improvements
to
create
these
compute
multipliers.
If
you
go
back
to
August,
Anthropic
published
a
very
interesting
blog
talking
about
how
they
were
using
RSI
and
and
26%
they
had
a
chart
showing
that
26%
of
their
tasks
that
are
involved
in
basically
trying
to
create
the
next
generation
of
models.
They
were
already
were
using
RSI
to
do
that.
Now,
that
was
back
in
August.
So,
who
knows
what
they're
at
now
being
in
October.
So,
look,
they
are
they
are
pursuing
RSI
very
very
quickly.
And
you
know,
one
way
to
think
about
that
whole
pacing
letter
that
Daario
published
a
few
months
ago
is
it's
almost
like
they're
creating
an
alibi
for
themselves
where
they
are
acknowledging
that,
hey,
we
are
pursuing
RSI
as
quickly
as
anyone.
And
it's
almost
like
they're
they're
saying
to
the
world,
well,
we
want
it
to
stop,
right?
Like
we
wanted
to
slow
down.
We
tried
to
get
you
all
to
agree
to
pace,
but
you
guys
wouldn't
agree
to
do
that,
so
therefore
we
kept
going,
you
know?
And
it's
almost
like
creating
an
alibi
in
advance
for
themselves
if
this
RSI
thing
goes
really
bad.
Original English
>> All
right.
Original English
>> But
I
think
that
they
had
to
know
when
they
published
that
pacing
letter
that
they're
not
going
to
get
the
whole
world
on
board
with
pacing.
So
the
whole
thing
was
sort
of
an
exercise
in
virtue
signaling.
But
in
any
event,
I
think
what
it
shows
again
is
I
do
think
that
it's
possible
that
an
anthropic
doomer
split
is
coming
because
there's
no
way
for
them
to
maintain
their
lead
as
the
number
one
super
intelligence
company
without
continuing
to
advance
the
frontier
very
rapidly
and
to
continue
to
pursue
recursive
self-improvement.
And
that
is
something
that
the
doomers
are
most
afraid
of
of
all
the
of
all
the
various
risks,
right?
they
are
most
worried
about
a
breakaway
super
intelligence.
So
I
do
think
that
this
is
the
beginning
maybe
of
a
divorce
between
Anthropic
and
the
Doomers,
but
we'll
see.
Original English
>> Okay,
let's
get
back
to
your
breakdown.
Chimath,
you
had
the
um
the
greatest
uh
revenue,
greatest
business
ever
built,
yada
yada.
They
have a
ton
of
cash.
They
have
the
cash
for
the
buildout.
They're
going
to
raise
some
cash
in
the
IPO
and
they
are
the
all
of
this
bond
activity
is
crowding
out
treasuries
is
where
you
left
off
I
believe.
So
let's
Original English
>> exactly.
So
I
think
I
think
you
have
to
go
to
these
risk
factors
now
and
think
if
you're
going
to
price
the
IPO
or
if
you're
going
to
buy
the
IPO
how
would
I
decide
to
buy
the
IPO?
And
I
think
at
the
14516
it's
kind
of
priced
fairly.
So
there's
no
deal
but
they're
giving
you
a
an
entry
price
into
the
future.
So
then
you
have
to
sort
of
have
a
view
on
the
future
and
I
think
there
are
two
risks.
The
first
risk
was
what
I
showed
you
on
their
revenue
composition
which
is
how
long
does
it
take
for
Ant
to
show
those
10,000
customers
the
ROI
math
that
they
will
need
to
move
from
less
than
a
million
to
single-digit
millions
to
tens
of
millions.
Right?
That's
one
very
simple
thing
that
you
can
check
quarter
after
quarter
after
quarter.
As
those
numbers
swell,
the
reason
they
will
swell
is
that
they'll
have
defensible
use
cases
and
white
papers
and
analyses
that
make
it
very
straightforward
for
a
corporate
infrastructure
to
sign
off,
a
multi-person
executive
team
to
sign
off
on
a
multi-million
dollar
spend.
So
that's
an
ant
risk
and
I
think
that
you
can
price
that
risk.
The
second
though
is
what
I
teased
here,
which
is
the
risk
you
cannot
price,
which
is
this
market
risk.
The
AI
complex
has
gotten
so
big
that
it
now
competes
with
US
treasuries.
Why
is
that
an
important
thing
to
note
and
why
does
that
create
market
risk?
Nick,
if
you
just
go
back
to
the
last
chart,
please.
So
when
you
look
at
this,
what
does
it
mean
for
treasuries
having
to
compete
with
Facebook
and
SpaceX
and
Anthropic
and
Open
AAI
for
money?
Original English
>> Well,
it
means
that
somebody
is
going
to
have
to
pay
more.
Original English
>> Now,
let's
play
out
one
example.
If
it's
the
hyperscalers
that
have
to
pay
more
because
people
believe
the
flight
to
quality
and
the
durational
risk
of
the
government
is
better,
then
all
of
the
money
that
the
the
hyperscalers
and
the
AI
complex
and
anthropic
and
open
AAI
have
to
raise
will
have
to
come
in
at
a
higher
coupon.
If
that's
true,
then
Freedberg's
chart
is
also
true,
which
is
that
those
rates
cascade
through
the
ecosystem.
the
neoclouds
will
have
to
pay
more.
All
these
other
folks
have
to
pay
more.
What
that
means
is
that
you
increase
and
you
pull
forward
the
risk
of
defaults
which
we
talked
about
last
time.
So
you
have
this
negative
reflexive
cycle
there.
Let's
say
the
opposite
is
true.
Let's
say
that
you
know
the
AI
complex
is
able
to
raise
money
at
reasonable
rates
and
it's
the
US
Treasury
that
has
to
actually
go
through
an
auction
and
pay
more.
Now
you
have
the
broad-based
cost
of
borrowing
goes
up
because
every
other
part
of
the
United
States
economy
is
levered
to
the
twos
through
fives
and
10-year
complex.
That
is
a
huge
market
risk
that
I
don't
understand
because
I
ve
never
seen
before.
Original English
>> What
is
the
market
risk?
Explain
it
just
crisply
here
as
we
as
we
wrap.
What
is
the
market
risk?
Original English
>> If
interest
rates
go
up
because
the
US
treasuries
have
to
pay
more
for
people
to
buy
their
bonds,
then
everything
else
in
the
economy
has
a
higher
cost
of
borrowing.
that
has
negative
implications.
If
the
opposite
is
true,
the
AI
complex
has
to
pay
more
and
then
there's
a
bunch
of
negative
repercussions
narrowly
to
that
to
the
complex.
The
problem
is
we're
trying
to
buy
an
AI
stock.
So
many
roads
lead
to
downside
risk
more
than
upside
risk.
Now,
there
are
versions
in
which
this
all
works
out
and
everything
is
off
to
the
races.
But
my
I
guess
my
structural
takeaway
maybe
Jason
is
we're
entering
this
very
weird
Original English
>> phase
in
the
US
economy
where
Original English
>> we've
seen
this
before
and
we're
seeing
it
now
this
complex
is
too
big
to
fail
and
I
think
when
you
start
to
see
these
guys
representing
40
50%
of
all
capital
market
equity
and
debt
flows
which
then
in
turn
represents
30
35
40%
of
all
treasury
issuance
as
well
that
this
competition
happens.
These
guys
are
too
big
to
fail,
which
means
that
there's
a
different
problem
at
hand,
which
is
a
more
systemic
problem.
So,
I'm
not
saying
that
there
is.
Original English
>> I'm
generally
highlighting
this
is
confusing
to
you
as
a
market
participant
who's
on
the
inside.
I
get
it.
What
I'll
say
is
I
you
could
actually
argue
the
Original English
opposite, Shim. This is the greatest business ever created. It's an American business. The American economy is still the greatest economy in the world. You could argue versus China, etc. But we are running the table on super intelligence. And if you look at the history of the greatest franchises ever made, I I I did a little bit of research and just this is the first seven years of revenue to to back up what you're saying here. If Anthropic hits the targets they've set out, you know, ballpark uh here is getting to 100 and then 300 billion dollars in revenue eventually 600 billion in revenue. They're well on their way. They're at about 100 billion in revenue this year, which is like a third of a Google, you know, a quarter of a of an Apple. And you look at the cumulative revenue in the first seven years of the best franchises America has ever made, which would be Amazon, uh, Google search, cost perclick search, uh, Freaker, Alma, and the iPhone franchise.
Original English
It's going to become clear that the three best franchises in the history of business in my mind, iPhone, Google cost perclick search and Amazon, which will this doesn't include AWS. This is just books and retailer. You put the books into the the the AWS into it into later years, it gets even more interesting. It's possible anthropics business is bigger than the top three franchises in the history of business put together. And that is something we've never seen. Which means you have no choice but to buy American debt and this debt. If you're a global participant, where are you going to put your money? In France, you know, in China, you can't put it into China.
Original English
>> I'm confused.
Original English
>> Yeah.
Original English
>> Haven't you been saying for like the past year that open models are going to eat anthropics lunch?
Original English
>> Well,
Original English
>> have you changed your tune on that?
Original English
In the face of new evidence, uh you would have to uh say that they are lowering the prices and the opportunity in the enterprise is um is so great that they're not being dramatically impacted by it. You will see anecdotally startups and enterprises exploring it, but it's obviously not enough now that we know their numbers that uh it's slowing them down. It's not slowing them down yet. I'm not debating revenue risk factor. It's still the biggest risk factor. But if you're
Original English
>> I'm not debating revenue traction at all or business quality. What I'm saying is there are moments where there's systemic risk in markets where everybody goes risk off. And I think that what I am saying very explicitly is I've not seen in the last 15 or 20 years. The last time we came close to this was in the GFC where you have a narrow part of the economy represent basically all of everything that's happening in the capital markets and all that means is that everybody has to pay a lot more attention. Doesn't matter what side of the AI trade you're on whether you're long it whether you're short it that's not I don't think that's important. I'm saying something more structural which is about 10 companies collectively to fund one thing will be competitive with global governments on borrowing. I don't know what the implications of that is because I have not seen that.
Original English
>> To the point Saxs that you made and challenging me which is great. Their revenue is slowing down dramatically. You know they their their quarter overquarter revenue is decelerating. So obviously it's on a big number. So
Original English
>> we don't know Q3 yet. I mean the scuttlebot on X and who knows if we can totally believe this is that things did slow down in Q3 a lot but some of that may be attributable to the fact that they eliminated 99% of distillation right so they voluntarily took a big hit to their revenue
Original English
>> from people stealing from them
Original English
>> yeah to prevent the copycat models from from basically distilling them so there was that and then I think the scuttlebutt is that since they cut their token cost considerably uh which was done pretty recently. Now the demand has reacelerated. So
Original English
>> yes, you haven't found in full effect. Yeah.
Original English
>> Yes. It seems like they're back to resuming their previous growth after a couple of hiccups in Q3. But I think the thing that's really impressive is just that the way they're able to cut their token costs, it it's not just because they're giving up pricing power, right? It's not that they're losing margin. They're actually gaining margin. The reason they're able to do that is because of all the algorithmic improvements they're making
Original English
>> in order to make their models much more efficient.
Original English
>> Yes. And
Original English
>> just just to dovtail with that, Sax, what's happening with the models is even more impressive.
Original English
>> The they're lowering the price of tier 2 and tier three models, right? Your your sonnetss, your opus, those are getting cheaper.
Original English
>> But enterprises are saying that's enough for me. So as they make that cheaper, then businesses get more value. They solve more problems out of it. And they don't feel the need to be on the latest greatest fable. If you're a hollow, maybe you need that to do science. If you're a mathematician, you need it. If they can keep making their second and third run models this much cheaper, 10x cheaper each year. The Jebans paradox is going to get even more pronounced because enterprises will use it more.
Original English
>> Token cost matters, right? We're sitting here with the token maxing cost. Look what what we're seeing is that I mean we we keep seeing Jevans paradox play out at every level which is as you cut the cost of tokens or more and more use cases enterprises use it more and more and the the net result is that the total demand just keeps going up and the total revenue and market size keeps growing. Also, just to reiterate a point that you made earlier in the program, the new applications that are coming all consume a lot more tokens than the ones that we started with, right? Like agents use a lot more tokens than prompting and cyber defense is going to use a lot more tokens than just doing, you know, a pen test once a year, right? You're going to need continuous monitoring of agents, attack surfaces, all that kind of thing. So all the new applications are going to be using exponentially more
Original English
>> 50 to 100 times the number of tokens.
Original English
>> Yes,
Original English
>> exactly. So the price will keep going down but the market size keeps increasing. I think the biggest risk factor to anthropic I do think it is some version of the open source models maybe not catching them but sort of saturating intelligence at a low price point for
Original English
>> commoditizing it is commoditizing it for things like coding or you know where there is a big chunk in the market that is still a risk I would say sort of a second order risk is that in order for anthropic to stay ahead and to keep making their models more and more efficient they have to keep using more recursive self-improvement, right? You see this in the charts that they publish that they are using their latest models more and more to discover these compute multipliers to discover these new algorithmic efficiencies. So they have to kind of push the limits of what they themselves call risky activity. I don't know if I fully believe in the doomer story about RSI, but they themselves say that RSI is very risky, but they have to keep pushing RSI in order to keep delivering these algorithmic improvements in order to stay ahead of the open models. And I just wonder how sustainable that is. At some point, do you get a breach with the doomers that becomes irreconcilable? Do the doomers want to basically shut down RSI or basically slow it down to the point where then the open models truly do catch up? I don't know the answer to that question. It's sort of just a more nuanced take on this idea of open models catching up.
Original English
>> Yeah, and I think um this chart is super illustrative. Uh, if you can pull it up, Nick Gallup's been um keeping a survey of who's using AI at work daily versus frequently defined as a few times a week. And you know, the people using it like frequently versus daily, we're still talking about 10 and 20% here. It's nent. A lot of the top enterprises are not letting their employees use this in an unconstrained fashion and they're certainly not letting them connect their email, their knowledge bases, their notions, their slacks. Big corporations are not letting people actually use the power of AI because they're scared
Original English
about cyber. So once the cyber threat shimoth gets mitigated, this is going to go from 10% of people being daily users to 60 70 80%. There's so much growth left here uh when every single employee has an agent. I saw just last week Uber bought open a open AAI chatbt for every employee. That's going to be the next shoe to drop is do you buy these things for every single employee. Okay, I think we beat that one to death. Congratulations to the anthropic team and all the investors on making an incredible uh business extraordinary. And uh yeah, shout out to Sachs who predicted this would be the greatest business ever uh on multiple programs. Turns out you got that one correct. And uh we'll see. We'll see what happens. Uh
Original English
>> but like I said, I I said two things. Number one, best business ever creating this AGI monopoly. Second, they're going for regulatory capture and we should definitely not allow that to happen, especially in light of number one, right? It's just kind of unsemly and gross for them to be seeking red capture when they already have such a good business and they're in such a dominant position. And I think actually that this IPO will be very helpful and clarifying on that because again once they're seen as a big tech monopoly or part of a you know huge duopoly the arguments for giving them like reg to make this market more competitive break up anthropic movement break up anthropic separate the from the tokens from the subscription. It will like if and the who said it? Gavin that they were claiming they were building the last business ever. You know when you look at the other franchises
Original English
>> Dario said that
Original English
>> well Gavin said somebody said Dario Gavin said that Dario said that and then actually
Original English
>> but Dario did not deny it. Remember
Original English
>> he had this lengthy response kind of said. Yeah. So yeah, I mean I I think they obviously believe it and if you look at that chart I made with the other franchises, they they obviously have an incredible franchise that's theirs to lose when we get the open AI data. Man, then we're going to have all three of the major uh players in this space um disclosing the key information we need. That's going to be really interesting when we have all of the hands turned over in this poker game when OpenAI files.
Original English
All right, Google got smashed on Thursday, 10 15% down. We we record on Thursdays obviously Q3 earnings wiped out about 500 billion in market cap. Why? For two straight quarters, Google missed on search revenue. Even though searches are growing massively, the people clicking on the ads is not, which leads to a little bit of shenanigans and trying to get people to click on more ads. They're negative on free cash flow. Even though cloud is ripping, cloud doubled year-toear, 30.7 billion. That's the AWS business they have. It's called Google Cloud. It's quite nice. And overall revenue is still shrunk. They're growing 25% year-over-year. The issue is people are looking at that Google cost perclick advertising network and saying well obviously that goes away at a certain point if you just give people the answer right chat GPT anthropic rock they just give people the answer and in some cases they go solve their problem if it's an agent so that is pretty disruptive search business uh is what pays for everything and that grew 12% down from 17% so it's decelerating but it's still growing nicely free this is your alma mada you witnessed the cost per click greatest business ever. This was the previous one that we said was the best business ever created along with the iPhone franchise. What are your thoughts here? Are you worried about that franchise or do you think they've done a good enough job with the other businesses Google Cloud and uh YouTube come to mind? Android in terms of diversifying their revenue. You worried about Google as a buy opportunity or is this stay away?
Original English
It's a complicated story. I think the core services, the core Google ad revenue is uh a real challenge right now in terms of can they keep the momentum up. Overall, the business trades at roughly 21 times operating income and you get that sort of a multiple based on reliability of future cash flows and and effectively growth of those cash flows. I think the Google cloud business is looking, you know, really tremendous. I mean, I don't know if you guys remember, it wasn't too long ago when this thing was not making money. Last year, the Google cloud business for this quarter was generating three and a half billion of operating income. This quarter, it's over 11 billion of operating income. And this is a lot like the SpaceX AI story where the value of the compute infrastructure that's been built is just tremendous. The question is, does Google actually have the models that sit on top of it? And in many cases, they do. So they can make a higher margin on that piece of the stack. So when I say it's complicated, I think there's a story you can build in the cloud business that shows the next couple of years of really progressive growth in that business. The core Google services, I think, is when it becomes challenging where over the last year grew from 33 and a half to 39. And as some people have pointed out, this may largely be driven by a change in the pricing algorithm for ads and how Google is now in some cases over earning for those uh for those clicks and over time advertisers will see that they'll experience that they'll reduce spend they'll attract some dollars and it won't look as good of a business. So the question then is do they have a consumer AI business that catches up and accelerates to support that? That's the thing I think everyone needs to be watching is what does the AI replacement look like on the consumer side for Google's core business,
Original English
>> the core cost perclick advertising network when you type a search into Google, that's the core business you're talking to.
Original English
>> That's the core consumer business. So the question is, is there an consumer AI alternative that starts to generate meaningful revenue to replace that revenue? And what does the revenue ramp look like there relative to the flattening or decline that may arise in core search? and how quickly does that happen? That is a dynamic and challenging question to answer. Now, internally, I think there's a bit of turmoil there's a bit of like what are we? Not just overall as a company, but just even within the business segments. What is Google search? Is it AI? Is it search? What is Google Cloud? Is it the models? Or is it just the compute, the rental of the compute? And I think we saw this battle play out recently where Jeff Dean and others left Google. And I don't know this for sure, but the theory is that the computer scientists that have been building models at Google maybe aren't getting the resources that they had hoped to get because Google can make so much more money renting that compute out to others. And so it's a really hard question of what do we want to be at Google right now. And I don't think that they have a great answer. And I don't think it came across well in the
Original English
>> ear. It didn't come across well obviously and people reacted Shimoth but they did know this was coming. They did plan for it. They renamed the company Alphabet and they said they got this great CFO. Let's make all these other bets. Fend for themselves. The Whimos of the world have to make their way in the world raise outside capital. So they they did prepare for this in fairness to the team over there. YouTube surging, Android surging, you know, Google Cloud surging, and then you have the the franchise slowing, searches up, but revenue growth slightly down. So, do you think they can fix this or should they just do a bending spoons and get as much money as possible out of the search and put it into other things like consumer AI, corporate AI, and their future models and hosting of other people's models? What are your thoughts here, Jim? I don't think that's what bending spoons does. And not everything is an analogy to bending spoons.
Original English
>> Well, no. I'm saying manage it. I'm saying manage search. Let me be clear. I'm saying when I say bending spoons, I'm saying manage it for earnings, not for like growing it necessarily. Just just get as many dollars out of it as possible.
Original English
>> I think that's what they've been doing in the last quarter.
Original English
That's why pe but people didn't like that. I mean, there was a very interesting tweet, Nick, maybe you can put it up here. I think a lot of the conernnation came from people reacting to what Max Anderson wrote, which got five million views, by the way, and he wrote this through the lens of somebody, and this is these are his claims, so I don't know if they're they're true or not, but spending half a million dollars or more a month on Google for for years, and he itemized all the ways in which things have changed. And the most important thing that I pulled out of here was what Freeberg mentioned, which is the change in the auction model. So typically in a Victory auction, what happens is Freeberg bids, I bid. If I'm the under bidder, what happens is Freeberg gets filled at my price because he was the high bidder. And so it's a really great way of doing price discovery at Facebook. When we built the first ad system, that's essentially what we copied. We copied Google's feature for feature.Original English
But if now what they're doing is they've abandoned the victory auction, Freeberg's right, you're over earning. And if the market starts to smell that out, they're going to start to wonder what's actually happening underneath the hood. So these claims, which are now well syndicated, have been out there since July.Original English
And I'm not sure that Google IR has necessarily nipped these in the bud because I think what happened was the at least the information war that happened post earnings was recirculating Max's post here and saying this has been going on for a while and when you look inside the comments it's a bunch of other people seconding his analysis as accurate. So without knowing the details, Jason, cuz I don't spend money in the Google ecosystem, I think it's really important for Google IR to get in front of this because I think if this momentum builds, this idea that this franchise is essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul, like pulling money from the future into the present to kind of smooth out earnings, the market will react badly to it. You're seeing it today. But then this other problem starts which is to your point the composition of ad revenue as a percentage of the overall will fall below a threshold and then they do look like more of a structured conglomerate where now you'll have a YouTube revenue block a GCP block and other bets block and a search block.Original English
none are dominant, which in some ways I actually think is better because then you're more diversified and you're less levered to any one single business, but they'll have to go through this complicated process where a bunch of folks may not want to own that kind of a business and there's a different buyer pool. So, you have to go through transitioning out the folks that wanted to own a single stock bet on search or ads or whatever it was and now have to move to this other kind of business model. And when you switch buckets like this, a bunch of folks kind of say, "Oh, it's too complicated." So problem number one is what I would say is if you were Google IR, please read this and refute it or try to figure out how to get in front of it because every analyst now will will try to figure out whether this is true. The second though is uh very narrow. How do you keep Demis at Google?Original English
That's it. That's the only task.Original English
>> Okay. UhOriginal English
>> there's there's there's nothing else. pay Thomas Curry in whatever he wants. How do you keep Demos at Google?Original English
>> Sax's looking at this uh business. It's been obviously a journey for the past 10 years to make Alphabet have resiliency in revenue streams, diversify the revenue streams. You think there's uh some great risk here and would you be long, short, or neutral stock? Well, I'm seeing people post that Alphabet's Google search revenue drop below 50% of total revenue for the first time. And they're making it sound like that's a catastrophic situation.Original English
Basically playing into the narrative that the search business is going to be disrupted by SI. And that's what it seems like on the surface, but when I dug into the numbers, it didn't really seem that bad at all. So it's true that Google search's relative share decreased, but its absolute revenue still increased. So if you look at Google search revenue year-over-year, it was still up 12%. It increased from 56 billion to 63 billion. So still a roughly $7 billion year-over-year increase in Google search. So Google search is still thriving. I think you could say it's not growing that fast relative to other businesses, but you're not seeing it deteriorate yet. And again, the reason why the share fell below 50% is because other Alphabet businesses are simply growing much faster. And the main one is Google Cloud, which basically doubled year-over-year to 30.7 billion. So, it's the rise of the Google Cloud business that has made Google Search seem like it's on the decline, but I tend to think it's a good thing that Alphabet is now finally getting some of these other businesses to really work and to really grow fast and to finally diversify the revenue.Original English
Diversifying from search has been something they've wanted to do for a long time. They now have all these other segments. You've got YouTube, you've got G Suite subscriptions. So in any event, I tend to think Google's a little bit oversold on this news today.Original English
>> I agree.Original English
>> Although I'm not certainly not telling anyone to buy anything.Original English
>> Since inception and uh maybe past 10 years, you can pull both charts up. We'll go through them real quick here. But this is just this franchise, the number of searches is still going up. The revenue per search a and that issue uh is obviously the one people are concerned with. But the other side of the coin is absolutely correct, David. the other businesses that they're now only 50% dependent on this business and that will continue. So for me, I just literally bought some shares. So I'm long. I just bought more shares of Google while doing the show.Original English
>> Just remember, Alphabet owns 6% of SpaceX and like 15% of Anthropic as well.Original English
>> I think 85% of Whimo as well, right? Like that's the um the other piece of this puzzle. Amazon also owns a big piece of Anthropic. They're going to be a big winner. All right, listen. That's our time here. Do you guys want to talk about the election ahead of Tuesday night and predictions or anything like that?Original English
>> You've been shephering this. Go ahead.Original English
>> What are you guys watching on the midterms? Anything you're keeping an eye on, Chimoth? Any big contrarian predictions on what might happen on Tuesday?Original English
>> It's so interesting. I'm like really confused. I've started to stop paying attention just because there's so much misinformation that I I thought that we are going to have and I still think what Sachs called a spritz. [laughter] you got a little spritz.Original English
>> I think it's more of a Democratic spritz,Original English
but when you look at some of the the early data, you know, and I don't know if Brett Bearer was doing this just to kind of hedge his bets or not, but he did a clip which went viral on Acts where it just looked like it was going to be a bloodbath for the Republicans and they were going to lose both sides, both the Senate and the and the House. I think it's still set up to have the um Republicans keep the Senate and the Democrats to have a narrow majority. And just going back to maybe where we started, the mandate from the Democrats then becomes obvious, which is how do you introduce FUD?Original English
And there's one way to do that which is to start subpoenaing everybody and start to do disclosure discovery release document after document after document and let you know the the masses start to churn through this stuff going into 28. So number one create FUD and then number two is I think a economic slowdown benefits the Democrats going into the 28 election cycle and so whatever they can do to kind of like influence power permitting and data centers because as we talked about earlier that's the lever bet. So to me it almost doesn't matter what happens at the federal level except for the FUD part. I think we now should be paying a ton of attention to what's happening in these governorships and some the some of these other races. Sax, has your view changed?Original English
>> Look, I think that you can't trust any of these polls. First of all, a couple of these pollingOriginal English
firms have come out and admitted that they are fake. I mean, we literally have a couple of
Original English
>> Oh, yeah. There was a hoax, right?
Original English
>> Fake polls. There was literally a hoax and and those fake polls were included
Original English
>> in, you know, those averages. So, some of the polls are outright fraudulent. And then the rest of them are well known to have a bias. Patrick Rafini did a study of the last three elections and found that threearters of the polls all, you know, aired in favor of Democrats. So, we see this as a recurring pattern. We saw this in 2024. You had an Seltzer, who was supposedly the gold standard, say that Trump was going to lose Iowa by like 10 or something like that, and it turned out to be total nonsense. So, the pollsters have a history of bias, of fraud, or you could just say, for some reason, oversampling progressives in their polls. So, I think that people should shut that out. I think that some of them are a tactic designed to depress and suppress turnout and Republicans should just go out there and vote. That the economy is not a disaster. That is total fake news. We know what the growth rates are. It was two and a half% in the last quarter and it's tracking at 3.7% right now. Median household income is almost $90,000. It's at an all-time high. Poverty is at an all-time low. I think the percent of people below the poverty line is like 12%. It's the lowest it's ever been. It's not just a K-shaped recovery. You're seeing real wage growth in real terms by the average household, which was not true during the Biden years. So, I don't think people should get psyched out by this media operation to make people super depressed about what's going on.
Original English
>> Jell, any views?
Original English
>> Oh, well, I agree. The polling data has been, you know, a suspect for a long time now across many elections. Wedgewood uh did this like they're claiming performance art, but they were kind of serious. I I don't know who they're working for or what the shenanigans are, but I do trust Poly Market. I think when you look at the poly market pretty clear what's going to happen here
Original English
>> by the way poly market was wrong on Balsinero although I think maybe he got robbed it was wrong on net and yahoo so poly markets are just a reflection of public sentiment or public sentiment that's willing to place a bet and they could be totally wrong so they were totally wrong about about those two national elections by the way I'm not I'm not predicting some sort of you know miraculous Republican win here it would be very unusual for the Republicans to win a midterm election when they're in the White House, right? And you remember that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both suffered horrendous midterm losses. Bill Clinton, remember, lost in 1994, he lost to, you know, new congrats, the whole contract with America. That was the first time Republicans took control of the House for the first time in 40 years. With Obama, you had one of his midterms was the shellacking. So, it's quite customary for the out of power party to do very well in the midterms. I'm just saying that the media is already portraying this as a tsunami or a bloodbath. And I think it might be a more normal midterm result. That's all I'm saying. So, I in any event, I think people should just go out and vote, not get depressed or psyched out by whatever the media is telling them because the media has a long track record of being wrong and biased. and JL any view um that's different than where we've been in the past
Original English
>> I think poly market is going to get it right I think uh Democrats are going to win the Senate 68% chance right now on poly market I believe that and house obviously everybody believes that 92% chance so when that happens uh and the reason I'll back that up is if you look at the the net approval rating of Trump uh all-time low the country is very upset and the libs are going to come out in force to vote anti-Trump. the uh the the moderates are either not going to show up and they're not going to be Trump curious like they were for the second term and you know Okamala was such a disastrous candidate they were like okay I got to try something else here and and they went for Trump reasonably if you were going to have a choice between Kamala and Trump I think Trump's the better choice for most Americans and then you have the fractured uh Republican party where the American first people feel really like they got rugpulled by Trump because of the economy inflation didn't solved. The wars didn't get solved and he started another war. So that group's kind of pissed off. So when you put all that together, I think it's a very easy sweep for the Democrats. Then I think, you know, if you want to look at what the next two cards are, if you look at impeachment, you know, that that process, from what I understand, is a a House and then Senate and it's a a legal proceeding. I think we're going to go right back to Trump being impeached and then both houses are going to do that. It's going to be absolute chaos and then the Dems are going to start putting legislation out there and force the Republicans to vote against it in order to scuttle JD Vance's chances. So, this is obviously going to be a chaotic two years and I let me finish. Hold on. Let me finish before So, what's going to happen is it's going to be a chaotic two years. Uh, and I think what will come out of that ultimately is we're going to need some new candidates on the Republican side and they're going to put the the the Trump um they're going to put the the the Trump era to bed. And then I think that means they put JD Vance uh and Marco Rubio to bed. And they're going to need a new champion that is more populist and actually executes on the populist agenda which they feel Trump represented but didn't execute on. That's my and that's not my personal belief. That's just my analysis. Go ahead.
Original English
>> No, I I think what I'm saying is you think there's going to be a Democrat FUD campaign. They could control the House. They're just subpoena everybody.
Original English
>> They're going to subpoena everybody. They're going to look into every single accusation of grift
Original English
>> they can think of and ones that are valid, ones that are not valid, everybody in between. And so, uh, yeah, and then I, you know, um, we have a really good group, uh, by the way coming. So, join us for the all-in midterm live stream 8 to 10 p.m. YouTube X and Poly Market. Shane Copeland, Tim Dylan, Rahm Emanuel, Taylor Loren. It's gonna be chaotic. And
Original English
>> Taylor Loren, she's on a redemption arc, I have to say.
Original English
>> Loren,
Original English
>> she's actually been great on certain topics lately.
Original English
>> What is going on redemption arc, I have to say. [laughter]
Original English
>> Wow. Base Loren coming on the pod. Love it. It's going to be a fun time.
Original English
>> I love Tim Dylan. He's coming on.
Original English
>> I'm not going to be there.
Original English
>> Are you not? Where are you going to be?
Original English
>> What? What do I need to do? a a midterm live stream for
Original English
>> cuz you're going to lo your party's going to lose so you're not coming.
Original English
>> If we outperform, I'll pop in and spike the football. Otherwise, I'm not showing you.
Original English
>> That's not cool. [laughter] Everybody wants to hear you.
Original English
>> Come on.
Original English
>> We could We could drink We could drink some tequila. We'll have fun with the sacks. Come on. You can't cry. We should all be drinking the tequila.
Original English
>> Chimoth, maybe maybe we should get together at Chimoth's house and drink and do it live. I agree with a lot of your analysis about what will happen if the Democrats win JCAL because
Original English
>> they have not changed their stripes. Okay. People are just forgetting who the Democrats are and what they were like during co all the lawfair that they perpetrated all the crazy woke stuff. It's all there ready to come back. They have not really analyzed why they lost in 2024. They have not really changed or adjusted anything. If anything, they've become more extreme. Right. the DSA is ascendant in their party as even Gavin Newsome acknowledged. So I think that if the Democrats do take Congress, you're likely to see how nutty they are and the American public will be reminded of that and that will be really interesting to to see. So,
Original English
>> you know, so that's why there's a pendulum in politics, right?
Original English
>> There is a pendulum. Um, I think we need to
Yeah, I mean I I'm
Original English
wondering who the champions are. If it's not JD and um Ruby, I wonder who the champion on the right will be. I think it's going to be somebody we can't even name right now is going to emerge. And I think the same thing on the left. Anyway, it's going to be exciting. We're going to get Sachs to show up. And uh we'll see you all next Thursday night for our live stream. Love you besties. Byebye.
Original English
>> Byebye.
Original English
We'll let [music] your winners ride.
Original English
>> Rainman David and it said [music] we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.
Original English
>> Love you queen of kin. [music]
Original English
>> Besties are gone.
Original English
>> That is my dog taking notice your driveways. [music] Oh man, my habitasher will meet the sun. [music]
Original English
>> We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy cuz they're all just useless. It's like this like sexual tension that we just need to release somehow. [music]
Original English
>> Wet your feet. Wet your feet.
Original English
>> Your feet. [laughter] We need to get our [music] all in.