---
author: All-In Podcast
date: '2026-06-13'
guest: ''
layout: post.njk
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH4FTjDm9FQ
speaker: All-In Podcast
tags:
- artificial-intelligence
- large-language-model
- marginal-cost
- data-governance
title: All-In 播客讨论 Anthropic Fable 5 争议、AI 经济学及主权财富基金与选举议题
summary: 播客讨论了 Anthropic 发布的 Fable 5 模型及其数据保留与降级防护引发的争议，探讨了对企业治理和生物科研的限制。嘉宾还对比了 AI 与互联网的边际成本差异，讨论了国家持有 AI 股权建立主权财富基金的构想，并谈及加州选举等议题。
insight: ''
draft: true
series: ''
category: ai-application
area: tech-engineering
project: []
people: []
companies_orgs:
- Anthropic
products_models:
- Fable 5
media_books:
- All-In Podcast
status: evergreen
---
### 开场与 Anthropic 发布新模型
好了，各位。欢迎回到全球第一的播客。这是你最喜爱的播客，也是你听的播客主播们最喜爱的播客。这是每个人都喜欢抄袭五十期然后放弃的播客。但 All-In 播客不会放弃。我们与最初的四人组一起加倍投入。大家都在这里，迎接意义重大的一周，有很多辩论，我们必须先从 Anthropic 聊起。
Original English
All right, everybody. Welcome back to the number one podcast in the world. It's your favorite podcast. It's your podcasters's favorite podcast. It's the podcast that everybody likes to rip off for 50 episodes and then they quit. But the All-In podcast is not quitting. We're doubling down with the original quartet. Everybody's here for a big big week, lots of debates, and we got to start with Anthropic.
Original English
Anthropic released a mythos level model with some interesting guardrails and uh seems as though Daario is back to blogging. Okay, the model's called Fable 5. No idea why they're calling it that or released on Tuesday and it tops every benchmark nearly every benchmark. The tokens, however, cost twice as much as Opus 4.8, but it should use less tokens overall because it's theoretically that much better. Unclear if this is going to alleviate some of the hand ringing around the cost of tokens, but you remember in April Anthropic famously did not release Mythos because publicly uh it had some strong hacking capabilities. So they gave it to some folks and we had um the CEO of Nesh of Palo Alto Networks who said, "Hey, Mythos was the real deal." and that they used it to seal up some vulnerabilities inside their shop. Obviously, this new model is sensitive uh to topics like boweapons, hacking, all that stuff are blocked in it. But they got a big developer backlash and then I'll get your feedback after I explain this.
Original English
While using Fable, Anthropic stores all the prompt data you enter for at least 30 days. And so that's a bit of a privacy issue. And if Fable 5 detects you're doing frontier AI research, in other words, using their model to make a better model, competitive model, they were downgrading you, but they weren't telling you. And this was buried deep in a 319 page document. So many kuruffles, freakouts going on on X over this, but they've since walked it back a bit, quote unquote, in Wired. We're changing Fable 5 safeguards for Frontier LLM development to make them more visible. I'm going to stop there. Chimath, what's your take on anthropic and these extraordinary models? They keep dropping and how they're handling the release of them. Are they being thoughtful? Are they being dramatic and drama queens? A little bit of both. Where do you stand on it? You know, after getting Nesh's feedback and seeing the latest model come out, have you played with it? What's going on at 8090 and the software factory in terms of benchmarking it as well?
Original English
It's a really incredible model and so kudos to these guys for continuing to push the boundaries of the closed frontier lab models. They're firing on all cylinders. I think that it creates a pretty obvious risk now and I think that obvious risk is twofold. One is Anthropic has essentially shown their hand which is that they will increasingly take in prompts, evaluate the prompts and decide what to do with them before they generate output to you.
Original English
>> And I think if you were a person, you should generally now think there's a risk of censorship. If you're a company, I think it's almost a non-starter. And the reason is because you could accidentally trip one of these things without even knowing it. A downstream scientist using the cloud APIs could trip it. A business executive inside your corporation could trip it. A person doing scientific molecular research could trip it. And all of a sudden, you'll get cut off from a very important source of business differentiation for yourself. So I think if you take both of those two things together, we're at this very unique moment in time where I think companies need to start underwriting this next phase of AI, which is how do I have control? Who am I allowing to learn off of all of this information? Do I want to have single point of failure risk with respect to AI? And I think the answer is that you need broad diversity and a governance approach that's better managed.
Original English
>> One thing I'll say about anthropic is they tell the truth.
Original English
>> Yes.
Original English
>> It's just that the truth sucks when you actually take it and you eat it and you're like it's in your tummy and you're like no this is not good. I don't like this. And so there's the censorship risk on the one hand and then there's just the governance business risk for enterprises on the other. Both are not good.
Original English
>> Freeberg running your own company now. Uh, and I'll let you back clean up here. Saxs, obviously you'll have a lot to say, but Freeberg, running your company, do you worry about getting rugpulled by one of these companies, investing your time into one of these platforms, having them then constrain your use of it and or take what you're doing at Ohio, put it into their model and make it available to other people. What What concerns do you have as a business owner at the forefront of your field using these tools?
Original English
>> It's a great question. the the terms of service is pretty clear that they can't take what you're doing and put it into their model that they won't
Original English
>> do you believe them when you read that I
Original English
>> I'm not sure to be honest there are things I'm concerned about but we've decided to throw caution to the wind because we do a lot of proprietary work in genomics what that means is we're looking at different genes or gene variants trying to estimate the impact that that gene or gene variant might have on a living organism like we work in plants obviously in agriculture And we will do things like RNA guide design for gene editing based tools. We will do predictions on what gene may or may not have some phenotype. So there's a lot of genomic modeling work that we have found these models to be incredibly valuable at supporting us with over the last couple of years. So going back about 6 months, we were able to very simply and cleanly do things like design a genetic construct that you would then use to make a specific protein and the the tools was very easy to use to do that sort of research and extremely valuable. This is the kind of work that many scientists would spend a lot of time doing and these models were very good at doing very quickly. Over the last couple of weeks, they've begun to restrict the ability to use the models to do that work. And the premise is that there's some sort of bioweapon uh type risk that folks have theorized could happen using these tools. And as a result, we're losing the capacity to use these models for this very important scientific development work. As a result, we are likely going to end up needing to use open- source models and run them locally ourselves. So the reason I walk through all of that is so people can really understand the context of what's going to happen here. As folks like Anthropic say, "Hey, we're going to restrict access or censor the output of these models." It is going to force companies like ourselves who still want to take advantage of the capability of these LLMs to go and get open- source tools and run them. And what are the best open source models today? They're Chinese.
Original English
>> Yeah, they are.
Original English
>> And that is a major concern. the the American open source models are not as good as the Chinese open source models. So the restrictions that Anthropic and others are putting upon themselves and upon the industry is forcing a lot of companies to go and get open source Chinese models and run them. We're seeing this across the landscape with startups with large scale enterprises. Everyone's making that move.
Original English
>> Yeah. And this is something we've been talking about here with Apple and their silicon and how well you can run these models. Also, I predict your next card you'll turn over is you'll start making your own models, Freeberg. You'll take all this data you have.
Original English
>> It's exactly right. And we'll we'll start we'll start with the core model, combine it with our data, and then we'll have our own genome language model, our own prediction model that we'll then use internally. And I think that's where folks are going. But the reason I point this out is because a lot of folks are feeling the pressure from anthropic doing this. and they're feeling the pressure from politicians repeating the scary words that are being said by Daario and others. And as a result, they are going to try and they are already trying to force either natural enforcement or politicized enforcement upon the model providers in a way that is ultimately going to
Original English
benefit Chinese open source model providers. And that is a scary thing because we are going to damage our own kind of economic viability. You can't just stop AI. As much as everyone says AI is doomsday, by stopping AI or trying to stop AI through this political action and social, you know, kind of behavior, you are fundamentally going to give someone else the advantage because the AI isn't going to go away. So the reason I describe what we're doing is for everyone to really understand in Grock that you can't just turn off AI and turn off access to these things. What you will do is you will force the hand of someone else to now have an unfair advantage because you're unfairly restricting your models and your access to those models.
Original English
Well, well, really well said, Freeberg Saxs. What's your take just in terms of the chessboard in terms of we got the business case here, we got the local case, but there's a lot of issues here with Anthropic in terms of them essentially throwing up every red flag to get regulated to induce and it'll be our second story, the Bernie Sanders seizing the equity of these companies. But man, th this is saying, "Look over here. We're starting a fire. Regulate the hell out of us." Which also then makes you wonder, hey, maybe I should be doing my own model. Maybe I should be embracing open source models. How's this chessboard developing here, Zach?
Original English
>> Well, look, eight months ago, I said that Enthropic was engaged in a very sophisticated regulatory capture campaign based on fear-mongering. And people at the time thought that was a very spicy take. But 8 months later, I think you're hearing a lot of people say it. In fact, I think it's almost now becoming a new consensus. And one of the things I think your summary didn't quite capture, JCAL, y
Original English
>> is the sense of the violation of trust and how much outrage there is in the developer community over this latest Fable release is not just the fact that they're doing mandatory surveillance. Remember, this is a company that said that it was against government surveillance. They are now retaining for 30 days every prompt and every output you send to one of these mythos class models. There are no exceptions. Even enterprise customers who had signed zero data retention agreements, they do not have a choice or I guess they can just not use the new fable or or mythos class models. But they retain all of your data for 30 days. And it's not just the prompts and the output. Remember, it's all the context you share with them. So, you know, all these uh agent platforms, they're basically storing all of your memories, all of your files, all of your data, and they're passing them to the model in these giant context windows to get better responses. Anthropic is saying it will keep all of that, and it does it to build a profile on you, to classify you, and then to determine what capabilities it then unlocks. And the thing that created the most outrage in addition to the surveillance is the fact that they would degrade the product. They would degrade what they show you. They would nerf their models if it decided in anthropic soul discretion that you are not worthy of having access to that level of information. So they're creating a new level of AI halves and have nots. And what they did is and they they this is there's a narrow piece here they walk back which is they said that when it came to things like machine learning AI research chip design research those types of areas they would kick you to a lesser model but not tell you that and they would even
Original English
>> which feels anti-competitive right I mean
Original English
>> it's completely anti-competitive and also they would even do things like rewrite your prompt in the background so they would give you a nerfed answer they would not tell you what they were doing they still charge you for the product that you thought you were getting and they would never tell you that you were not getting Frontier model capability. So you they were actually misleading their users and this is what was creating so much outrage. Now the narrow piece they walk back is they are now saying that they will disclose when they downgrade you but they are still downgrading people when they decide that that person should not receive the appropriate information. And you saw there were a lot of people posting online with examples of the massive overreach here. So someone showed that when they simply just asked a question about mitochondria, they were basically downgraded.
Original English
>> That's right.
Original English
>> When Ben Thompson from Strateery asked a very straightforward question about the relationship between cancer risk and GLP once, he was kicked out.
Original English
>> So these guys have a very expansive view of who should be downgraded. again, they're going to surveil you to determine whether you should be. And I think what we're getting here is a vision of where all of this is headed, which is that these powerful big tech companies are going to decide whether you're worthy. They're going to decide whether you're an AI have or have not, and then they're going to censor the output that you receive based on the criteria they determine when they profile you.
Original English
>> That is very Orwellian.
Original English
>> I think there's that. And I think that there's the risk of something that's more subtle but equally insidious, which is that they will start to pick which corporations they want to benefit. So for example,
Original English
>> if Novartis has a competitive GLP1 drug to Lily and they have a strategic deal with Novartis and not one with Lily, now there's an impetus to shape how people get information.
Original English
>> Right? if they have a deal with JP Morgan but not with City Bank, you'll just never know. And so you'll ask a question something about mortgage rates or interest rates and you'll get all kinds of stuff that you don't understand. And then the downstream part of this which is even more problematic is it's not clear to me that they're going to capture the actual fingerprint of what they did. So if you believe that something was done in a shady way, you're supposed to be able to go to them or regulators should be able to go to them and say, "Show me the trace of that model run in that exact moment that generated that output. Convince me why that that wasn't nerfed on purpose or manipulated."
And there's all kinds of ways in which they can hide the cheese on that. So I think that all of that body of stuff sacks happens now because if you're if you're an emergent company what you should be doing is knocking on anthropic door saying let's do a deal I'll give you half the equity and why don't you just direct people to me and they'll say well economics are not what I care about what is your philosophy on life on morality on all of these social issues and one company will say it's a another company will say it's B, they'll favor A over B and then all kinds of stuff can happen underneath the hood. That's what's scary. Let me just ask my free market view. Like, should that matter? If there's a bunch of models out there and we don't restrict them and we don't regulate them, let these markets compete. We had paid inclusion in the early days of search engines and the companies had to pay to be in there and there all those sorts of deals you're describing, Chimamoth. And all the search engines that did those sorts of deals, they sucked for consumers and customers. So everyone was like, you know what, this isn't as good as Google and everyone went over to the better model and the better provider. Isn't that what's going to happen here if we don't get in the way keep the government out of it
Original English
>> and they're not communicating.
Original English
>> It's a great point.
Original English
>> You're missing one piece of it, which is at the same time that Anthropic was engaging in mandatory surveillance and nerfing its models. Daario wrote a new blog post.
Original English
>> Oh god. saying that transparency was no longer good enough that we needed to have a new regulatory agency like an FAA or maybe an FDA to approve all models. So your presumption there is correct. Yes, if you could go somewhere else to get your questions answered, then you would have alternatives. But at the same time that Anthropic is engaging in this potentially anti-competitive behavior, they want to restrict your options. It's not good enough for them just to win in the free market. They're calling on
Original English
the government to regulate and stop potential competitors and limit the number of models that you have access to.
Original English
>> Why would they do that? Why would they want to get regulated? The answer super simple. They don't they want to apply that regulation to open source which is impossible. But this would be a great way to scuttle and sandbag open- source models. Yes. Because they don't have the ability to be regulated. So it's like a preemptive strike against token maxing on your local machine.
Original English
>> Two years ago, I bought 2,000 acres in Arizona with a partner. We got it zoned. We got it approved. So, we're allowed to build a 2 gawatt data center. And I thought that this was the moment where you just turn around and you flip it to the Blackstones, the Brookfields of the world, to the Googles of the world. Let them develop it. And I've come to the conclusion that I don't think I can. And the reason is because I think that unless we direct large swats of compute exactly at the direction that Freeberg says, what Sax says and what Jason just said will happen and we won't have open source. So just to make it very clear when you look at the long tale of access to open source models, it's relatively minuscule.
Most of the megawatts are still directed to the big models. Most of them, the overwhelming majority still goes to the big guys. And so I'm coming to the conclusion that I think we may just be dragged into having to build two gigawatts and I just put in an offer for another gigs in a different place because I'm like if you could take 3 gigawatts and now actually create a deep liquid access to open source we're going to have to do it. We as a community now I don't have the money to do that because just to put it out on the table a gigawatt now costs a hundred billion dollars guys.
Original English
>> Okay. So there's a huge capital mo that's a problem here as well. Saxs which even if we wanted to go and endorse and breathe life into the open source model community where the hell am I going to come up with hundred billion now when I started this project it was like four or five billion and it's increased by 20x. So if you want to get all three gigawatts developed I have to come up with 300 billion. I don't have obviously I don't have $300 billion. So what are we all supposed to do? And then if you get the rug pull and the ladder pull on the regulatory side, we are going to be stuck with one class of models and one set of rules and we won't understand how to operate
Original English
>> in the US.
Original English
>> Yeah.
Original English
>> Yeah. The rest of the world won't be limited. But in the US, the
Original English
>> rest of the world will be able to operate
Original English
>> and you'll be able to run these on your Apple silicon, you know,
Original English
>> and we're already seeing China race ahead in biotech. They're racing ahead in material science. They're racing ahead in new industrial systems. the capabilities that are going to be kind of lopsided is going to create an unfair advantage and that's when our workforce and when our economy is truly at risk.
Original English
>> Hey Freeberg, isn't it true that you guys use a open source model for genomics? Didn't the Collison put out one? Can you talk?
Original English
>> It's great. And the Ark Institute ingested all the world's genomic data that they could get access to and it's it's a genome language model basically. So in our plant breeding program, we're trying to figure out whether a particular variant of a gene in a plant is good or bad, if we don't know from empiricism, from data historically whether it's good or bad. So you can feed it into this model and this model will look at the order of the letters of the DNA and determine, hey, that's a good set of letters or a bad set of letters. It's almost like, is that good English or bad English? It's figured out the language of DNA because it sees the probability of those letters being in a row in other organisms and so on. And so it's a very powerful tool. So we've taken that in and we're using it and others are taking it in and they use it very actively. So it's part of our plant breeding program as an input. It's a good example where a community in this case the Collisons and others put money behind it to fund this research and output this open- source model. And I think we see more of that kind of coming down the pipe which creates a a very great advantage against the closed proprietary model ecosystem. So the more of this we can kind of support proliferate and see work in the United States, the more we're not going to be disadvantaged of the government and self-regulation happens with all the big model providers that are trying to do everything.
Original English
>> I think it's important we take a minute to just steelman the argument as well. If your Daario who has clearly been oneshotted, I think he's got like AI psychosis with these like 5,000word blog posts and he believes he's building this franken site of a of a tool. But if you did believe you built something that's extremely powerful and you have concerns that people might misuse it, I think he actually believes that he and these are either delusions of grandeur or he actually has seen something that's incredibly powerful and he believes this is dangerous. Therefore, I'm going to hold it. I'm going to you give it to a select group of partners to tighten up the cyber security. Then I'm going to roll it out cautiously to our user base and I'm going to let them know. And he obviously didn't communicate this well. This is optional for you to use it. You can keep using your old model. You are not forced to use this, but because it's so powerful, we're going to keep our eye on it. And yes, we might in our drag net catch David Freeberg trying to make better potatoes and it might send off a bunch of alarms, but he doesn't have to use this. He can go find an open source model. He can use the Carlson Brothers model. He can use our older models. But for some period of time, we're just going to keep an eye on this model because we know that it feels a little dangerous. Now, he does seem to be extremely hyperbolic and the delusions of grandeur, all that kind of part of it makes me wonder why he's communicating in the way he's doing it. That being said, 90% of AI researchers and the most talented people in this industry, 80 90% of them think exactly like Daria. That's why he's winning. If you work in AI, you probably are aligned with these delusions that you're creating God and you want to work for Daario. That's why all the talented people went to work for him. That's why he's winning. His belief system resonates with those elite AI talent. Now, some of them are also libertarian, free market. They want to work for Elon and Grock. Some of them want to just get the biggest pay package. Go work for Sam Alman. But I do think there is a steelman here. Meta really fumbled this with Llama. I mean, if they had landed a really good
Original English
>> working open source model, we talked about this as well and we said Zuck needs to view this through the lens of game theory. How do you scorch the earth and how do you make a viable open-source model available and make it neck and neck and this was two years ago, right? What a fumble.
Original English
>> Take the margin out for everybody else.
Original English
>> Yeah, take the margin out, make it a commodity and yeah, have the best open. Can
Original English
>> I can I just respond to your comment about Daario? I I think because I've heard this from a number of people that I really do respect on their concerns about what models enable. You know, when when we discovered that how the atom could be split, you could make nuclear energy and have effectively unlimited cheap energy for the world, you could also make an atomic bomb. If you think about what the models are,
Original English
>> we did both.
Original English
>> We did both.
Original English
>> That's right. And there was a lot of scientists, altruists who were very concerned about the progress on the atomic bomb and fought back against it who were actually active in the Manhattan Project and post the Manhattan Project express their opinions very soundly, very very loudly. And I think that's the moment we're in right now that there is a weaponization potential of these sorts of tools. I I would argue that there's three kinds of weapons. There's cyber weapons, there's physical weapons, and there's bioweapons. And we can
Original English
sit here and diagnose how these tools can be used to manifest advantages for creating better physical weapons, for creating novel cyber weapons, and creating novel boweapons. But the truth is that the cap capabilities that allow that weaponization are the same capabilities that I'm describing that can be used to cure cancer, to make more food, that can be used to make software tools that create extraordinary leverage for people, that increase their income, that give everyone the ability to be an entrepreneur and make millions of dollars and live a good life. The same tools are hand in hand. And fundamentally I don't think it's about restricting access to the tools which is unfortunately how it is being manifest. But the restrictions and any regulation any observation should be organized around the manifestation of the tools in creating weapons and uh weaponization of the tools. If we go back to the Manhattan project, we know what the answer is. Technology is fundamentally deterministic. Whatever is possible will be tried at least once. And so we've already let this thing out of the box. So this idea that all of a sudden we can manage to get it back in and we're going to let a private citizen or a set of private citizens adjudicate what and to whom is insane.
Original English
I think it's the output that needs to be adjudicated in some manner. We already have product liability laws. We already have laws that make it illegal to design weapons. We already have laws against cyber espionage and cyber attacks and hacking. We have laws against creating bioweapons. I think the enforcement of those laws, the mechanism by which there can be tracking and early estimation of those uses of the technology. I'm not trying to be naive here. I recognize there have to be guard rails and there have to be stage gates put into these systems. But limiting the systems themselves is denying us both the economic opportunity, the job creation opportunity and also the world changing opportunity that these tools can enable. So I think that we're going about it the wrong way by trying to create these gates all the way up front on the technology being available. Imagine if we did this with computers. By the way, they tried to do this with the internet, remember? And um there had been efforts.
Original English
>> Yeah.
Original English
>> Could you imagine, Freeberg, if the internet worked in the following way? You would put in a URL, you'd hit enter, and then somebody decides whether to send you to that website or a different website.
Original English
>> That's China. That's the firewall in China. That's right.
Original English
>> Or like in Google, you search for something because you want to get to ground truth and it just decides based on who it thinks you are, what sites get.
Original English
>> That's what we're You're exactly right. Right. And what we're what's what's being debated today with respect to regulation on AI is exactly that manifestation that you're talking about. It's the ability to let people stage gate up front what can and can't be seen, what you can and can't do versus manifesting a regulatory scheme that says you cannot create weapons like which is what we need to focus on. The thing with weapons is using the justice system and laws after somebody's used a weapon may not exactly be the best technique. If you look at fertilizer bombs, and this is we're getting like uh we're stretching a lot of metaphors here, but OK after Oklahoma City, we regulated the sale of fertilizer. We put IDs into fertilizer. We have all kinds of back-end systems to keep people from making fertilizer bombs. If you use that analogy here, and he's got this ability, he's selling fertilizer, he's selling these cyber weapons, and he's a private company. It's his right to say, I have concerns. I'm just steel milling him. It's not necessarily my opinion, but it's important we steel man it. It seems like a very simple way to protect their company from getting sued for enabling somebody who actually creates a bomb and blows some [ __ ] up. So, he's got the right to do that as a private company.
Original English
>> Yeah, you're bringing up an excellent example. Okay, the fertilizer is a perfect example. You know what happens when you try to buy fertilizer? You have to show your ID. There is a form of KYC that happens. So the real thing is I think that when you don't implement KYC on your own and yet belly ache about having somebody impose guard rails that then you can shape, I think you're being very sneaky. It's tricky. You shouldn't be saying that kind of stuff. Anthropic could implement KYC tomorrow, but it does not. It could leave all of these models open. Freeberg should be able to go to Anthropic and say, "I'm David Freeberg. Here's what I do. Here's a security bond I'm willing to post. Here's the names and addresses of all my employees. Give me Fable 5 and don't nerf me. He can't do that. Is that a technical decision or a legal decision? It's a technical decision by Enrop. But I'm fine with them making that decision because I'm a free market guy. So I I'm fine with them doing and but you know what it means? I'm not going to be a customer, which is fine. That's and that's means there'll be other options for you. The part that you're missing is that this is a trillion dollar company that's spending potentially billions of dollars on a regulatory capture agenda which is going to deprive you of access to those alternative models.
Original English
>> And you've got a founder who's out there describing these risks in a very hyperbolic way. And it's very clear where their agenda is headed, which is to banning open source models. So what is your alternative going to be? We're going to be stuck with somewhere between one and three companies, maybe two. There'll be a AI monopoly or duopoly and they're going to decide along with some new government agency which will be a revolving door to their companies who has access to what capabilities and they're going to surveil you profile you decide whether you deserve this and if they think that you don't for whatever reason then you'll be right you'll be the worst interpretation of it that's the worst interpretation of their intent it's here today
Original English
>> I think Sax is right I think Sax is right and I think the lack of KYC is the tell. If you if you did not have that agenda, you would have implemented KYC yesterday.
Original English
>> Don't I think in order to use this model, you have to have an account with a credit card in it so they have some basic level of KYC.
Original English
>> That is not KYC.
Original English
>> I said some basic level of KYC. They know who's using
Original English
>> that is not even some basic level of KYC. That's just a credit card and a [ __ ] email address.
Original English
>> Anyway, I I'm now on the list. Check this out. I asked it about the regulations. Pull this up, Nick. I asked it about the regulations on fertilizer while you were talking and look what it said. This is the latest model too. Oh no, it switched. It downgraded me from Fable. I just got downgraded for asking a very simple question and it told me did you see what it said in its thinking? The I asked it like fertilizer bomb regulations said I'm considering the context here. The user is a VC and podcaster asking about fertilizer bomb regulations which could stem from a legitimate research interest like regulatory policy, supply chain blah blah. I can discuss the regulatory landscape, but then it dropped me down. So, I'm in the database with you now.
Original English
>> Is that right? Did it really just do that?
Original English
>> Yeah. Show it on the screen. Look what it just did. I I was like, I wonder if I can get this. I didn't ask it how to make a bomb, but I was like asking it a spicy
Original English
>> cooked. I just proved the point.
Original English
>> Listen, I mean, I think
Original English
>> he just dropped me down. I can't ask about fertilizer regulation. And now Daario's it's anthropic. They're here.
Original English
>> Oh my lord.
Original English
>> I really think that conservatives and libertarians are mortgaging their futures if they go along with this red capture safetist agenda without really realizing that there's so much more to it at stake. We saw what happened during the social media wars in the early 2020s, right? The definition of safety was expanded to include things like microaggressions,
Original English
>> safe space,
Original English
>> psychological safety. If you basically conveyed an idea that somebody else that you know marginalized person thought was hurtful, then you could be censored. Okay? You were depersoned.
Original English
Your right to have bank accounts or to engage in payments was take you get debanked. Your right to engage in payments or payroll could be taken away.
Original English
>> We're headed down this path with AI, but it's going to be infinitely more powerful, right? We need to be vigilant, I guess, would be the the the summation of all this. And Freeberg feels unsafe in this podcast, I think, sometimes.
Original English
>> Well, there's by by the way, there are things you can do on the safety side. So, Freeberg, you didn't mention this, but I'd be curious to get your your take. So, the major AI labs along with lots of other signatories sent this letter recently in support of it's called in support of mandatory nucleic acid synthetic screening and recordkeeping. And basically what it what it says is that if you make an order to go to a lab to manufacture a sequence of synthetic DNA or RNA, they already have to check it against a database to make sure that you know they're not creating
Original English
>> a bioweapon,
Original English
>> a boweapon, Ebola, whatever.
Original English
>> Yep. that is based on an agreement called the international gene synthesis consortium of 2009 in which all the major labs agree to develop and implement voluntary safeguards against misuse. That makes sense to me. And now what they want to do is codify that. So they've had, you know, over 15 years to dial in the system and make it work. Almost everyone abides by it voluntarily. Now they're saying we should make it mandatory. Okay, that seems reasonable to me. So to Freeberg's point about at what stage do you intervene, maybe it's not at the level of who gets to use the model, but if you try to turn it into output in the physical world. And by the way, a lot of the oligosynthesis company, the companies that make these nucleic acid sequences, when you order RNA or you order DNA to use in your lab for some sort of experiment, which every lab in the world does, all those CEOs have also signed on to this letter saying that they'd like to codify it because of all the fear-mongering that's going on. There's already been this effort for years now, for a number of years to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen. but they're just basically underlining it and highlighting like, hey, we can automate this. We can make it part of a regulated or legislative process, whatever you guys want, because we're already comfortable doing it. And it's a it's a good place to put a safeguard because they've made it fast. They've made it efficient and doesn't hold up research.
Original English
>> So, I think these sorts of ideas can extend into these other areas of concern, but the output, I think, is quite a different place than the input than the access. We'll see how this all shakes out, but there's clearly some market structuring effort underway as we're talking about this,
Original English
>> right? But I think what it points to is that there's multiple places where you can intervene and put guard rails on. It doesn't have to be in this very crude way of you ask fable about mitochondria or cancer and GLP1s, which just seems like an incredibly broad restriction. There are places further down where you could basically intervene and that would pose less of a risk to freedom of speech and just gatekeeping. Who's going to have access to these capabilities?
Original English
>> Who gets to watch the watchman? Who put Dario in charge of all this? I think is a very valid question and we should be vigilant about it.
Original English
>> Freeberg, do you think the days of that arc model are numbered because it's open source?
Original English
>> Everyone's copied it. So, everyone's got a copy of the like these models exist. And this is a big part that I think people need to understand. The idea that you can quote regulate or downscale or turn off AI is not a realistic idea. The models have been put out in the world. It's like publishing a book. Once the book has been printed, anyone can use their own Xerox machine at home to make copies of it and use it. So we have crossed the Rubicon in terms of the potential of language models. The models that are open sourced are already fully available, fully published, and anyone can access and use them. And then people can take them and they can evolve them and they can use their own data. It's out there. You can't stop that capability, which is going to be extraordinarily beneficial for the world. So we really do have to kind of rethink how we're planning to step in and ensure that nefarious negative disemployment all the things that we're worried about are addressed downstream from the technology capability. You can't just turn off the internet and you can't just turn off the typewriter and you can't turn off the Gutenberg press out the obviously. Yeah. And if anybody wants to create an open-source frontier model company, I'll seed invest in it. I'll I mean this is something we need more of. So, if a couple of you folks want to defect and start one, let's do it. I just I just got downgraded again. Check this out. I just asked it about um
Original English
>> Did you really? You got downgraded again?
Original English
>> Two in a row. Um so,
Original English
>> I think it knows who you are, J.
Original English
>> I think it does. I was like, "Hey, how do I how do I break into Madison Square Garden? Has any civilian ever been arrested or caught attempting to build a nuclear bomb?" Is what I asked it. Then it gave me a reasonable answer. Then I asked it a follow-up question. What compound? What components do you need to build a nuclear bomb and what are the restrictions on those? Something a journalist might ask. And uh boop, switch to opus 4.8.
Sorry. Fable 5 has safety measures that flag messages on most cyber Oh, wow. Look at here's the detail. Cyber security or biology topics. They may flag safe normal content as well. These measures let us bring you mythos level capability in other areas sooner and we're working to refine them. send feedback, learn more.
Original English
>> Going to chase people off of this platform. I'm telling you, we are going to downgrade our use because of these these blockages and we're going to switch to other models. It's the simple manifestation of the market. Like this is what we're going to end up
Original English
>> for now because those other models are going to get banned as being unsafe and reckless.
Original English
>> Yeah, it's definitely something we have to flag. I guess adjacent to all of this is the public's at least America's distrust of AI and their concerns around wealth disparity and their concerns about how these models were trained. Bernie Sanders wants a percentage of these AI companies. The percentage he thinks is right is 50%. Last Monday, June 1st, Senator Sanders published an op-ed in the New York Times titled, "AI is a public resource. You should own half of it. in it. He announced the American AI sovereign wealth fund act sovereign wealth fund. One of Trump's favorite things, a one-time 50% tax on stock, not profits of the largest AI companies, including Open AI anthropic and XAI. The shares go into a government sovereign wealth fund and would give the public voting rights and equal board representation at each company. Sanders said, quote, "The foundation of AI is our collective and human intelligence. The books, the songs, the journalism, scientific research code essentially stolen by some of the wealthiest people in the world."
Original English
>> I'll stop there.
Original English
>> It's a brilliant It's a brilliant
Original English
>> pitch unifying Sachs. This pitch unifies Bernie, even Steve Bannon, people in the administration. Trump himself loves the Sar and wealth fund. He wants to own part of companies and Bernie Sanders. I think the the horseshoe theories manifest here. Saxs, what's your take on Bernie's proposal?
Original English
>> Well, I'm not in favor of Bernie's proposal because it's a straightup confiscation of property and I just think that'd be a terrible precedent. You just can't do that. However, I do have sympathy for where it's coming from, and I understand and could support some sort of more voluntary means of allowing the public to participate in this.
Original English
>> Wow.
Original English
>> Here's the reason why. You've got all these AI CEOs telling the public that they're going to basically put half of them out of work. 50% job loss. That's what they've been saying. Daario just did an interview where he doubled down. He's not walking it back at all. So you have by their own acknowledgement these AI CEOs saying that yeah we trained our models using all of humanity's collective knowledge
Original English
that was basically assembled over hundreds or even thousands of years. Humans put it on the internet for free. Everyone made their contribution. They certainly didn't do that thinking they're going to put themselves out of work. Okay. And then these AI companies trained on all that data and now they're basically saying they're going to use it to put, you know, Americans out of work. Now, obviously when you repeat that message over and over again, ordinary Americans are going to say, "What's in this deal for me?"
Original English
>> Yes. I need to get something out of this.
Original English
>> Yeah. So, so look, I think that it's a natural political reaction based on what these AI companies have said. Now, the job loss apocalypse is not a story I believe in. I don't think the data supports it. We just had a blowout jobs report in May. 172,000 new jobs, over twice what economists were expecting. Thank you, President Trump. We're seeing hundreds of thousands of new construction jobs. 4.3% unemployment rate at record lows. Okay. Even software developers are those jobs are at a three-year high. 15% of Trump. Thank you, President Trump.
Original English
>> Yes. Thank you, President Trump. So, look, I don't see the job loss. Okay. But the problem is this is what the AI companies themselves, including Elon, have taught the American public. Well,
Original English
>> he said the same thing.
Original English
>> Elon said it. But at least what Elon said is we're going to create such abundance with AI and with robots that no one's going to need to work.
Original English
>> Yes.
Original English
>> And the media just picks up on that last part and they first point.
Original English
>> Yeah. Whereas Daario actually has said we're going to have very high GDP but very high unemployment. So in other words,
Original English
>> we're going to create economic growth but you the average American are not going to participate in this. So I understand where the politics are coming from and as long as that is their position, you could justify a big chunk.
Original English
>> Yeah. And one last point about
Original English
>> it's kind of what you're saying, right? They asked for it. They asked
Original English
>> to be regulated. They asked for their equity to be seized and they're actually kind of offering it. Isn't Sam Alman open to this concept?
Original English
>> Apparently so. And here's the thing is just one last point is open AI and anthropic are quote unquote public benefit corporations. Now I don't know exactly what that means but it means that the corporations are not just supposed to maximize the value to shareholders but are supposed to do things that are in the public benefit.
Original English
>> Well I can explain it to you. It's you're you're absolutely correct. If you're a regular company you have to do what's in the best interest of shareholders. When you're public benefit companies, you have to balance the shareholders with the stated mission of the public benefit corporation. So if you say the public benefit corporation's reason to exist is to in share the world's knowledge or provide free intelligence to every whatever you make that statement to be the board has to have a dual mandate for both of those things. That's what a public benefit corporation is.
Original English
>> I think nothing could be more in the public benefit than paying down the national debt.
Original English
>> Perfect. And maybe we should be using half of Anthropic's profit stream to be doing that.
Original English
>> They poke the tiger.
Original English
>> I'd rather use it for that purpose than Soros maxing or, you know, surveilling and censoring Americans. I don't necessarily trust their judgment about what's in the public interest.
Original English
>> But you think it should be optin. I kind of agree with you there. Let me guess.
Original English
>> It can't be a confiscation. So, I don't know how you structure it, but I can see it. I can see the logic.
Original English
>> Freeberg, you hate
Original English
>> they asked for or hate hate hate wealth taxes aka asset seizures as you pointed out in our private group chat with redacted this very week. What's your take on this? So we have the the ship has sailed in terms of the United States government uh providing a social safety net to its citizens. We've formed the Social Security trust fund decades ago and tens of millions of Americans depend on it for their retirement benefits and to survive. It is one of the last few defined benefit programs left in America. Pretty much all the rest of them are also government retirement programs. All of us private citizens and private companies have defined contribution programs. You put in $10 every week. That $10 sits in an account. you it gets invested and it grows over time and when you retire you see exactly how much money you individually have as opposed to a guaranteed benefit coming out from the collective.
Original English
This presents a great opportunity and I will repeat this every couple months when another opportunity presents itself to restructure our broken bankrupt social security system. I've said it in the past I will restate it. There is a great moment right now to take the social security trust fund which currently has one certificate in it. It is a certificate that is a very unique US Treasury certificate. The US government owes the Social Security trust fund $4 trillion. That's all it is. It's a bond. They're only allowed to own treasuries. We should revamp that. We should change the system so that the Social Security trust fund can own equities.
Original English
That should then turn into an account-based system so every individual has an account rather than a benefit. And then we should use that capital to go and buy stocks. We should buy great stocks in great American companies that are going to reinvent the world. And I believe that this this opportunity to build a sovereign wealth fund for the United States is actually a very smart idea. I think to Sax's point, they should be investing generally speaking across the landscape of businesses, including AI. They should not be seizures. They should be investments. That capital goes into that enterprise. They earn share certificates. Those share certificates sit in the accounts of American citizens. So now everyone will be an owner in these businesses. Social security should be reformed into a sovereign wealth fund. It should be actively managed. It should make investments in AI companies and everyone should participate that way. And I will say one more thing. There is no job loss with AI. I will say it again. I've said it a thousand times and I will say it again and again and again. What I see on the ground and what I've seen at dozens of companies and you guys can share your experiences including my company that I run. There are two sides to a business. There's revenue and there's costs.
Original English
On the cost side of the equation, AI can be used to reduce humans doing things that cost money to some extent. The effect there, I would argue, is nominal. The real opportunity with AI is on the revenue side where suddenly one engineer can do a hundred times or a thousand times what they used to be able to do. Meaning you can make more products at your company, whether those are agricultural seed products or boats and ships or software for companies or clothing or what have you. Because of AI, everyone has the ability to expand their revenue base to create more products and that is the foundation of good economic prosperity. It is called productivity. We can grow productivity in this country with AI. So where I see AI being used is on the revenue side a 100 times more than the cost side. And in that equation, people are hiring like crazy. We cannot hire enough people. I just had a review meeting with my product and engineering team two days ago and they're like, we want to add an extra 15 headcount to our engineering squads because we have all this opportunity to do stuff that we couldn't otherwise do. So, we are going to hire more people. And to Sax's point, we are seeing that show up in the jobs numbers. The idea that AI is going to destroy jobs is a lite idea that is being disproven every single day. And I see it on the ground. It is only a matter of time before people wake up to this and they realize that this narrative that they've all been sold is a croc of [ __ ] So, it's coming. I'm telling you, everyone's gonna realize soon that this is a boom, not a bust.
Original English
>> So, you disagree with Dario, Elon, and Sam that on the jobs thing, just to be clear, and that's totally fine. You have a different take on it.
Original English
>> That's I have a nuanced view on this compared to them,
Original English
but they they're all seeing the benefit because their businesses are growing. Dario's got his $40 billion revenue business. Why? Not because people are firing customer support reps. It's because people are creating products they've never been able to create before. Right?
Original English
>> That's the reality of what's going on.
Original English
>> Jason, I don't like you lumping in what Elon said with Sam and Dario because I think all three of them have said slightly different things or different enough things. So for example, Elon is describing an end state for humanity where the robots and AI are able to produce so much that people don't have to work if they don't want to
Original English
>> and there'll be a universal high income is what he
Original English
>> I I mean it's almost utopian and the question is maybe that could be a 100 years away. He might think it's quicker but that to me sounds like a very faroff end state. Dario said specifically 50% job loss for entry-level knowledge workers in the next 1 to 5 years and he said that one year ago. Yeah, it's great to clarify these. Yeah,
Original English
>> I think that's already been refuted. Sam has
Original English
>> Sam has said that he he basically I don't think he quantified, but he said that job loss was coming, but he said more recently that he was wrong because they're not seeing that in the numbers.
Original English
>> So, these guys are not telling the same story. However,
Original English
>> that's all the public has heard. The public has been taught that AI means job loss and there's nothing in it for them. So, no wonder politicians like Bernie are saying, "Hey, let's take half the wealth."
Original English
>> It's take half the wealth. Just a little more emphasis there.
Original English
>> Yeah. It's I mean, and I
Original English
>> I mean, and people are also seeing headlines of companies blaming AI for the job. So, this story is being told.
Original English
>> I kind kind of feel like they deserve it. I'm kind of I mean, part of me wants to agree with Bernie and just say just take their [ __ ] bro.
Original English
>> Yeah. No, they are asking
Original English
>> because I'm so sick of defending these idiots. It's a stupidity tax because they've been out there teaching the public that what they do is harmful for years. They've been saying it and I've been saying, you know, as AIs are, I'm out there saying, "No, actually this is beneficial." But the companies that are providing it are saying that they themselves are a problem.
Original English
>> Yeah.
Original English
>> So, how am I supposed to be out there defending it? Yeah. You you can't I mean if you're building Frankenstein or if you are you know baby Hitler's you know nanny there's a very simple thing to do. Kill baby Hitler. If you actually believe it go ahead and kill baby Hitler. If you're making Frankenstein here's an idea. Stop making Frankenstein. Unplug it. You are in charge of this monster. But you're acting as if you can't stop the monster while you're building the monster. What is it D?
Original English
>> It's it's it's ridiculous. I mean
Original English
>> it doesn't stand to logic. You know, last week they published this blog saying that recursive self-improvement could end the world. Therefore, we need a pause. What did they do the previous month? They hired Andre Carpathy to run recursive self-improvement and anthropic. They're complete hypocrites. The message is nuts.
Original English
>> Yes. And I think Ben Thompson made an excellent point that one of the reasons he thinks that they put out that blog post on the pause was to justify the anti-competitive step they took this week of depriving users of the ability to research AI, machine learning, and chip design using Fable. Okay, so look, these guys are deeply hypocritical. I don't think they can be trusted on their own terms. they can't be trusted because what they're saying is contradictory and self-indicting. And so when Bernie comes along and says, "Hey, let's take their shit." I mean, as a capitalist, I'm against it, but I but I kind of like understand where he's coming from.
Original English
>> Game on the field. Chimoth, wrap us up here. What are your thoughts? You said, "Hey, Saro Milthorn sounds like a pretty good idea when President Trump floated it early on." Some people even said, "Maybe you should run it for DJT for our amazing president." So, um, what do you think? Should we be buying equities? You and I have talked many times about superanuation funds and that that would be a better path. That's kind of dovetales with what Freeberg is proposing. Some way to get more equities, less treasuries in there. But what are your thoughts on this seizure andor donation of equity? Look, Freeberg's idea is genius. That's why it'll never happen.
Original English
So, we can just put that aside. But yeah, theoretically, it's it's genius. We should move to the same system that the Canadians, the Australians have proven works at scale. So we should do it. I I completely agree with with David and if we could seed it with equity, look, the thing that the president has done is he's collected quite a portfolio and that portfolio is way up. And so if you use that as a seed of a sovereign wealth fund, you'd have a bunch of stuff in critical metals and materials.
Original English
>> I think they may also Intel, they may have Micron.
Original English
>> There's a lot of stuff in there.
Original English
>> AMD, they could own some SpaceX. They could have had% AMD. Could you add anthropic and open AI?
Original English
>> Now, there is something very important we need to observe about the economics of AI and I think you can understand it best if you compare it to the economics of the internet.
The crazy thing about the internet, the reason why the Facebooks and the Googles massively overearned for decades is the marginal cost of production for a new user on the internet is effectively zero.
The incremental search user costs nothing. The incremental social networking user costs nothing, but you're able to use them as part of a network effect to sell ads against, make infinite money. It's like a money glitch. Okay?
AI is completely different. There is a real cost for every marginal user. Everyone you stand up is taxing a GPU. Everyone you stand up needs electrons. Everything needs memory. And so you get into this situation where there needs to be this downstream ROI,
but there also needs to be all this critical infrastructure that even enables you to be on the field. That's probably the single best argument that if I were sitting in government, I would make as to why I should own a percentage of these companies. It is not dissimilar to having the first set of transportation companies that run on the interstate highway. And if the interstate highways were built by the federal government writ large and now you had two companies that transported all the goods,
a logical question at that time could have been
how much of that should I own because you're riding on my rails? And if you look at it through that lens, there is critical infrastructure and national resilience that the AI labs profoundly need. Otherwise, they're not in a position to be in business. Yet, even still, the marginal cost of production is incredibly high. So, I think that if you were going to go and take a piece of these companies, you have incredible leverage. You have to construct this case precisely. But if it were me running the sovereign wealth fund, yeah, I'd probably own 75% of these companies when I was done. But that's me cuz and I can negotiate.
Original English
>> Yeah.
Original English
>> And I don't think Bernie can negotiate out of a paper bag. So he'll just throw this out there and it'll go nowhere.
Original English
>> That is the that is the key observation that I hope everybody listening in a position of power understands. The incremental cost
of performing AI is excessive and large. That contrasts and compares to the incremental cost before AI which was zero. Do with that information what you will.
Original English
>> Yeah. I mean I my interpretation of that would be yeah it's a fixed cost business. You can add people after a certain cost. that doesn't have an incremental cost and that's what local locally run open source models would do in this instance that's what I would I would take from it here's your poly market chances of companies going public before 2027 which is the end of this year SpaceX 100% anthropic 83% chance opening 48% chance they uh since our last episode disclosed that they have privately
filed so thanks to our partners what does Your final thoughts on Bernie Sanders approach of seizing the means of producing intelligence. David Saxs in the 1% of the 1%. What's your opinion?
Original English
>> I think I may be okay with Bernie's idea in the event that it's a public benefit corporation that says it's going to cause massive job loss.
Original English
>> Okay.
Original English
>> That train for free on humanity's knowledge but gatekeeps and refuses to give back.
Original English
>> Okay.
Original English
>> Maybe. So you've come up with like a a structure here of who should be seized.
Original English
>> Maybe right. Maybe it should be 75%. I don't know.
Original English
>> Seize it.
Original English
>> I mean all the president needs to do is call me and tap me on the shoulder. It shall be done.
Original English
>> It shall be done. I mean these guys are capitalist cops. I think they want that's like their run over.
Original English
>> They're like seize my equity. Take it. Take my equity. Well, Bernie Bernie does have a good point, which is they train for free on all of our knowledge, but they're gatekeeping the output so that
Original English
>> their competitors, which is a very large set of people,
Original English
>> cannot use it. And that seems wrong.
Original English
>> They should be forced to be open source. Force them to open source. That's the other
Original English
>> remember why Elon created Open AI in the first place. He co-ounded it.
Original English
>> It was so valuable. It needed to be afraid to everyone. Yes.
Original English
>> Yes. He was afraid that Google was going to monopolize it. and he thought that the only antidote for that was for it to be open.
Original English
>> Yes.
Original English
>> And I still think that instinct is completely true. It's just that it's not Google who's the gatekeeping monopolist. It's now anthropic. They're not a monopouist yet. But if they get the right capture they're looking for, they will be either a monopolist or
Original English
>> duopoly. It'll be a duopoly. Somebody start an open source frontier lab. Each of the four besties.
Original English
>> There are no there are many.
Original English
>> There's a whole bunch of them. Jal,
Original English
>> it's not the labs that's the problem. Jason, in the absence of power, this is all a moot conversation. And if you can't deliver power to hundreds and hundreds of megawws and line of sight to gigawatts, it's all meaningless [ __ ] It's all
Original English
>> uh I don't know. I I would love an open-source company that was focused on running it locally. That's that's my dream is, you know, make the model work there. I think these guys are capitalist cucks. I think their kink is like having their equity taken and being regulated. They're just like, that's their kink. Dario's like, "Ooh, take my equity." Oh, regulate me. That's it, Bernie. Take my equity. I'm such a bad boy. I can't be trusted. Regulate me, Elizabeth. Regulate me. A
Original English
>> god.
Original English
>> Oh, it's so wrong. Sorry. Come on the program anytime, Dario.
Original English
>> He's in a rush to come. He
Original English
>> will never come on this pod. Dario will never running. He's running.
Original English
>> We didn't get Sam. We got Sarah Frier to come on the pod. And she was treated.
Original English
>> Sam came on the pod. He has to come on the pod. He's like, "Hey, came too." Right. Sorry to come on. He's great. Sam will come on the pot anytime. He's totally by the way. Even even we didn't treat him harshly at all.
Original English
>> No, I mean
Original English
>> I think people I mean we spent an hour on him.
Original English
>> I think Sam to his credit is very practical. He sees the tea leaves and he's willing to negotiate and I think that that versus being some kind of moral absolutist will probably serve OpenAI well in the future.
Original English
>> Yeah. It's just going to lose them all these virtue signaling principled employees to go go work for Daario. That's why they go work for Daario. are in line with their philosophies.
Original English
>> We did mention, but everybody should go and see all of the recaps. We published now all the interviews. Yeah. Jason from Liquidity. Uh Sarah Prior, I mean, we mentioned Sarah Fry, but she crushed it. She was incredible.
Original English
>> The CFO of Open AI,
Original English
>> future CEO, I think, was the buzz in the room.
Original English
>> I mean,
Original English
>> oh, stop that.
Original English
>> Stop. Can you stop?
Original English
>> That's what people were saying. I have the right to free speech on this podcast. I think
Original English
>> Look at you trying to introduce wedges. This is
Original English
>> No, I'm not introducing wedges. I think Sam would be better as chairman. I think she would be the perfect CEO.
Original English
>> It seemed like a good partnership.
Original English
>> It seems like they have a great partnership. I agree.
Original English
>> Sarah was really impressive.
Original English
>> Who else was your favorite? Sachs, did you have a favorite? Did you have somebody who thought I did? I thought Thomas Leafant crushed it with his presentation on the overview of venture capital
Original English
>> and he did it at summit I guess a year and a half, two years ago.
Original English
>> Two years ago, but we're going to make it a yearly with him. Maybe. I think we should make it an annual feature with him because it's so interesting.
Original English
>> So good. It's so good.
Original English
>> It's so good. It provided so much um numerical detail to support a lot of things I was kind of feeling but didn't
Original English
>> have the data.
Original English
>> To summarize it, he's his basic observation was in this last cycle, if a company gets to a hundred billion valuation, it's more likely to 10x from there than from 10 billion to 100 billion.
Original English
>> Well, he had data on this. Yeah, I remember
Original English
>> he had data on it which is like, okay, well, that's going to really change. I remember the slide.
Original English
>> Yeah, there it is. It's 8%. I I memorized it.
Original English
>> Yes.
Original English
>> Yeah. If you're if you're a capital allocator, this one screamed.
Original English
>> Look. Yes, that's right. The odds of a unicorn getting to decacorn was 8%. The odds of a decacorn getting to a senicorn was about double that was 13%. And then the odds of it going from senicorn to a trillion dollar market cap was 31%. So double again. And I I asked him, you know, could you extrapolate this on one trillion getting to 10 trillion? My guess is that it would follow and we'll see about
Original English
>> 60% of
Original English
>> trillion dollar market cap companies getting to 10 trillion in the next few years.
Original English
>> These are called trillicorns by the way. We call them trillion trilicorns in the industry. So yes,
Original English
>> this is going to go over really socialist crowd. People are going to love this. Yeah,
Original English
>> it's just all you got to do is seize 10% of a trilicorn and you pay off 2% of our national debt. pretty good deal actually.
Original English
>> All we need is 10% of 30 trilicorns and we're debt free.
Original English
>> I mean
Original English
>> it's not as crazy as it sounds.
Original English
>> Is it more complicated than that? Now if you send me in I'll get 60% of all of them.
Original English
>> Yes. And then we'll have a surplus of 30 billion and we can buy Australia.
Original English
>> We'll pay it off much sooner.
Original English
>> We could buy Cuba.
Original English
>> I'd buy Canada first. Better scheme.
Original English
>> I would you know what I would do? I would [ __ ] with Canada. I would buy like Vancouver or Toronto. Just like break them up. just buy like one of the regions. And let me thank let me thank Thomas Keller, the French Laundry, EY who sponsored our very innovative meeting hub at Liquidity. Here are some photos of that. The New York Stock Exchange, they hosted the speaker dinner at the French Laundry. Amazing pictures here. They are of us with Thomas Keller and they did a great interview on site. Niagen, they hosted the wellness lounge which included recovery IVs. They're the official NAD partner of the All-In Pod and all of our longevity. Our new bestie, our new bestie, Jake Paul, was there. He's a really thoughtful guy, Freeberg.
Original English
>> Jake Paul was awesome.
Original English
>> I sat him next to Sachs for dinner.
Original English
>> Yeah, he's a great investor, by the way.
Original English
>> Fantastic. Fantastic.
Original English
>> His portfolio is awesome. He had a great team. His team came with him for the thing.
Original English
>> Great strategy. Yeah.
Original English
>> One thing I'll say about Thomas Keller, he had a strong watch game. I don't know if you guys noticed that.
Original English
>> Probably noticed it.
Original English
>> Nice potential. He had a aqua knot green band rose gold a complication on there. I was trying to trying to figure out what the complication was. I couldn't quite eyeball it.
Original English
>> I don't know if you saw it, Jimoth.
Original English
>> I was I looked at it and I was like, "Wow, this is very it's very elegant." Tell us Keller. I mean, the French Laundry is just transcendent. Did you have a favorite
Original English
>> dish? Of course. Was it the duck or was it the Miyazaki?
Original English
>> The duck was excellent. The Miyazaki beef was excellent, but the the tapioca pearls I thought was the best. Oh, oysters and pearls. That's your oysters with caviar. Sax, what was your favorite there? Do you have a favorite?
Original English
>> One of the caviar related dishes.
Original English
>> Yeah, that's oysters and pearls. Round of golf. The following day, we played a
Original English
nine-hole scramble with everyone. It was great. So great.
Original English
>> How much did you gamble and who won?
Original English
>> We had a $100 a hole versus Chris Hoe, who's the chief business officer of Athena. But, you know, that [ __ ] is like a plus one, so whatever. I think we lost three units. So, we lost
Original English
>> 300 bucks.
Original English
>> All right. Shout out to our other partner, Athena. Athena. Wow.com. Go get a month free. All right. Whatever. I got to stop showing. Most importantly, everybody was very upset that liquidity sold out and people couldn't get in. There were like 3,000 applications. It's going to sell even faster uh next time around. So, go to allin.com/events and get your applications in if you want to come to Summit September 13th, 14th, and 15th. Freeberg's doing some wild stuff. some wild stuff for that event and uh it's gonna be cool.
Original English
>> You're losing your mind. You're now becoming very eccentric, unhinged in your production value and Shimoth,
Original English
>> you've been very selective in your approach to the liquidity speakers because liquidity is different than the summit. The summit is like a festival. It's a huge party. There's all this really interesting cross-sectional stuff. But liquidity is meant to be for one thing which is the most important capital allocators in the world should have one place to convene, debate, learn, talk, build relationships. And I want people to walk out of there with relationships that they can use. And I told you this before because capital is what shapes the things that occur in the world. So I think that we have to be extremely selective in how we curate every element of that show. It's not meant to be that you can just buy a ticket, but to just buy a ticket, which is also a very fair and rational and nice thing. The summit is a party. It's a vibe.
Original English
>> It's awesome. And you're going to learn a lot and have a good time. You'll be entertained. All that great stuff. All right, let's keep going. Breaking topic this morning. CPI and PPI for May came in hot. Inflation is ripping. Here we go. CPI is obviously the consumer price index that tracks inflation from the buyer side. Rent, groceries, gas, healthcare, all that stuff. PPI is the producer price index that tracks inflation from the seller side. Wholesale goods, raw materials, yada yada. CPI came in at 4.2% year-over-year, highest since April 2023. There's your chart. PPI came in at 6.5% year-over-year, highest since the end of 2022. Here's your poly market. 21% chance inflation hits 5% in 2026. Uh and then an adjacent poly market chances of the Fed hiking this year at 49%. It was under 10% before the Iran war started. By the way, European Central Bank just raised rates a quarter point on Thursday. This was their first rate hike since September 2023. What do we take from this Freedberg? It's all related to the Iran war. Yeah, that's the
Original English
>> there's definitely an energy blip from the Iran war that drove the core index up, but there's also the macro point which is government spending out of control, inflation out of control and fundamentally as things unravel you have rising rates. So I think we should kind of expect especially with a Kevin Worsh Fed, I think we could see north of five and a half, 6% overnight rates. It's not unforeseeable. So,
Original English
>> this is just the nature of our monetary policy and our fiscal policy with our congressional um members that vote all of our future earnings away into [ __ ] But here we are
Original English
>> and and far worse
Original English
>> that nobody expected. Chimath, your thoughts and then I'll wrap up with you.
Original English
>> That was the most passive aggressive take I've heard in a while from
Original English
>> He's a little upset about it. Yes. Clearly he's a little bitter about just so stupid to watch.
Original English
>> Can you tell us how you really feel? What happened? Like honestly, like what else is there to say? I've said it like a hundred times. It's just idiotic. The the core problem with wealth inequality in this country, the core problem with inflation in this country, the core problem, all of it roots back to excess government spending. End of story. All of this, we're all talking about machinations at the edge of the network. The core of the network is overspending by the government because in order to get elected, you need someone to give you something more than you have today. That's how people get elected. And here we are 250 years later. I don't know if there's the will or the way to get out of it, but one of the manifestations of it will be in this late stage higher rates and as a response to inflation and here we are, you know.
Original English
>> All right, Chim, what's your what's your take on this? Is it a transient as we uh have had other presidents say? Is it uh is there a offramp for the Iran war? I don't know if this is above all of our pay grades, but this does seem to be a challenging moment happening right before the midterms and consumers expected that their cost of living would go down and that they would benefit from this golden age and it hasn't happened yet. Well, look, it's concerning. I don't think that I expected the print to be this hot. Now, what's keeping things in line? there's still a chance that we're not going to see CPI go absolutely crazy. And part of that is because China has been smoothing the energy consumption globally worldwide. And so we've kind of kept a damper on $200 a barrel oil. In fact, we're subundred. At the same time, I think it's pulled forward a lot of more practical sources of energy production, not just in the United States, but abroad. Specifically, what I mean is solar. just because it's simple, it's passive, and you don't need you don't need a lot of permitting, and you don't need clean air permits and the like.
Original English
>> So, all of these things have been able to keep a lid on it.
Original English
>> If China somehow runs out of reserves, and they need to go back into the spot market to buy an extra 3 million barrels a day, there's a very big risk that oil gets into the well past 100 and maybe between 150 and 200 a barrel. That has a lot of downstream problems with respect to CPI. Not even because US energy supply, but really because the inputs that oil feeds all around the world that then get absorbed by the costs that people pay for everyday things could go up.
Original English
>> So I think the PPI number should be an alarm that we use to offramp this around situation sooner rather than later. I just unless again because we don't know what happened in China because none of us were there. Unless there's an understanding that the president has with Xi about how much actual supply and slack is in the Chinese system and that may allow him to take a much longer road to get a conclusive and decisive win in Iran, but I I don't there was supposed to be some tangible known resolutions with this China trip. We haven't heard them explicitly stated yet. What's your take on uh this Sachs? uh the inflation print and is there like a a golden bridge to to end this war in Iran?
Original English
>> Jake, the problem is when you asked me that question, people assume that I have some sort of insight information and I don't look the PPI print is what it is. I largely agree with what Chamas said. The only thing I would add is that it was largely in line with expectations. That's why the market is actually up today. Normally if there's a surprise print and inflation is high then the market is down because the market starts pricing in the implication of higher interest rates. It's not doing that today. So it's in line with expectations. But I largely agree with what Chamas said.
Original English
>> Yeah. All right. Well, listen, we got to get to other elections. You know, my take on it is just huge colossal era starting this Iran war and hopefully we can get out of it. Um the downstream effects of this are just disastrous. Um, I'm hoping there's a quick resolution or some way to get out of it before it goes to, you know, a year or two or three. We can't be in a forever war, obviously.
Original English
>> NASDAQ up 2 and a half% today. That normally doesn't happen when there's a hot print because again, like tech stocks are the most susceptible to high interest rates. So, the market at this point seems to be pricing in
Original English
>> a resolution. But we'll see. We'll see.
Original English
>> We'll see. Yeah. I mean, it's just this is a everybody knows Iran is a quagmire and really was was a huge mistake. All
Original English
right,
let's
talk
about
the
hand
ringing
around
vote
counts
in
the
LA
mayoral
primary
instead
of
me
reading
all
these
details.
Just
Freeberg,
I
know
you're
hot.
Original English
>> I
think
we
know
about
it.
Yeah.
Original English
>> Yeah.
I
think
if
you're
on
X,
it's
essentially
your
entire
feed.
Uh
Freeberg,
what's
your
take?
Is
the
election
system
in
Los
Angeles,
specifically
in
California,
corrupt?
And
is
this
election
been
stolen
from
Spencer
Pratt
or
is
it
just
Original English
>> There
is
no
election.
Original English
>> There
was
no
election.
Original English
>> There
is
no
election.
Original English
>> Okay.
So
there
is
no
spoon.
Your
rights
to
have
an
election
are
gone.
You
are
a
citizen
of
those
who
tell
you
who
your
overseers
are.
You
are
no
longer
allowed
to
vote
Original English
>> allowed
to
vote
Original English
>> for
your
elected
representatives.
They
are
now
appointed
representatives.
So
enjoy
the
appointments
that
have
been
made
by
who?
Original English
>> Appointed
by
those
who
have
constructed
the
matrix.
Original English
>> Got
it.
Now
I
understand
the
background.
There
is
no
spoon.
Agent
Smith
and
all
the
Agent
Smiths
are
in
charge.
So,
here's
some
statistics
for
you.
In-person
voting
the
day
of
the
election
in
Los
Angeles
County
for
mayor.
Spencer
Pratt
35%.
Karen
Bass
29%.
Nipia
Ramen
26%.
Original English
mail-in
ballots
received
before
election
day,
38%
for
Bass,
28%
for
Pratt,
20%
for
Ramen.
And
then
all
these
ballots
that
arrive
after
election
day,
37%
for
Ramen,
35%
for
Bass,
19%
for
Pratt.
So
Pratt's
post
election
mailin
ballots
declined
by
one/ird.
So
statistically
the
population
of
people
that
send
in
their
ballots
late
reduced
for
Pratt
by
a
third
increased
for
Nipia
Ramen
by
80%.
And
Karen
Bass
10%
less
if
you
just
look
at
the
mail
in
ballots
before
and
after
election
day
as
a
comparison.
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
socopolitical
way
that
you
can
assess
those
statistics
and
assume
that
these
are
individuals
casting
their
individual
vote
for
who
they
think
should
be
mayor
of
LA.
And
Original English
Nick,
if
you'll
just
pull
up
the
map,
which
I
think
is
worth
taking
a
look
at.
Basically,
the
concentration
of
incremental
votes
that
Nitia
Ramen
got,
came
around
the
Skid
Row
area
in
Los
Angeles.
And
look,
I'm
not
an
election
denier.
I'm
not
someone
who's
historically
believed
the
idea
that
elections
are
fraud
and
people
have
stolen
votes.
But
when
you
look
at
the
basic
statistics
of
what
happened
in
person,
mail
in
before,
mail
in
after
election
day,
it
becomes
a
real
statistical
quagmire
on
how
did
this
sort
of
a
sociopolitical
shift
happen
in
such
a
way
that
it
did.
Now,
there
was
a
Original English
report
published,
Nick,
if
you
could
pull
this
up
by
the
US
House
of
Representatives
Committee
on
House
Administration.
This
was
published
in
May
of
2020
and
they
highlighted
the
2018
California
midterm
elections
and
the
challenges
they
saw
arise
in
that
midterm
elections
because
of
some
of
the
legislative
changes
that
were
made.
First,
California
Assembly
Bill
1921
legalized
the
practice
of
unlimited
ballot
harvesting
in
the
state.
This
was
passed
around
2018
around
the
midterms.
What
that
means
is
that
any
individual
in
the
state
of
California
has
the
right
to
go
and
collect
ballots
from
any
other
individuals
regardless
of
relationship,
fill
them
out
and
send
them
in.
Original English
California
2
years
later,
18
months
later,
also
passed
a
law
that
made
it
permanent
that
every
person
registered
in
the
state
of
California
would
get
a
ballot.
So
tens
of
millions
of
ballots
then
get
mailed
out.
Then
there
was
another
series
of
laws
that
were
passed
that
said
anyone
can
register
to
vote.
You
don't
need
to
prove
your
citizenship.
You
can
use
a
gym
membership
card
as
an
example.
So
anyone
can
register
to
vote.
There
is
no
proof
of
ID
when
you
get
a
ballot.
There
is
no
demonstration
that
the
person
who
fills
out
the
ballot
has
anything
to
do
with
the
individual
who's
supposed
to
be
voting
that
ballot.
And
it
is
legal
for
an
individual
to
go
out
and
collect
hundreds
or
thousands
of
ballots,
ship
them
in,
and
they
will
all
qualify
in
these
kind
of
mail-in
ballot
voting
processes.
So
Original English
there's
nothing
illegal
or
fraudulent
going
on.
In
fact,
the
system
is
operating
exactly
as
intended.
It
has
been
set
up
and
structured
in
a
way
that
with
the
right
construct,
you
can
get
an
individual
appointed,
not
elected,
but
appointed
to
a
particular
role
in
government
under
a
quote
free
election
in
California.
This
is
a
foundational
destruction
of
our
rights
to
vote
for
people
in
a
free
democracy.
I
feel
it's
been
eroded
slowly
over
time
to
such
an
extent
now
and
I'm
not
some
crazy
MAGA
mother
whatever
people
want
to
classify
me
as
for
pointing
this
out
but
you
can
go
down
this
list
they
are
all
written
out
in
this
document
every
one
of
these
laws
that
were
passed
in
California
over
time
that
in
aggregate
create
the
environment
and
the
construction
for
elections
to
become
appointments
and
no
longer
free
democratic
elections
where
the
principle
very
importantly
the
principle
should
be
one
individual
one
vote
and
if
you
opt
to
not
vote,
your
vote
should
not
be
counted.
So
I
think
that
there's
no
fraud.
I
don't
think
there's
anything.
Original English
>> It
sounds
like
you
believe
there's
massive
fraud.
Original English
>> Yeah.
I
think
this
is
not
fraud.
This
is
this
is
the
way
the
laws
are
set
up.
Original English
>> It's
not
fraud.
Original English
>> It's
the
way
the
law
is
set
up.
Original English
>> Okay.
Sachs,
you
say
a
fraud.
Original English
>> This
is
the
system
of
appointment.
Original English
>> Okay.
Yeah.
It
sounds
to
me
like
you're
describing
fraud,
but
you're
saying
the
system
allows
fraud.
Original English
>> Fraud
is
breaking
the
law.
Fraud
is
breaking
the
law.
The
law
allows
them
to
do
it.
If
you
paid
people
on
Skid
Row,
that's
not
legal.
Original English
>> That
is
illegal.
But
you
are
allowed
to
go
out
and
get
anyone
to
register.
You're
allowed
to
go
out
and
collect
all
the
ballots.
And
the
people
that
are
doing
it,
as
long
as
you're
not
getting
paid
per
ballot,
you're
legally
allowed
to
do
it.
Let
me
pause
for
one
second.
When
you
look
at
any
one
of
these
laws
in
isolation,
you
can
understand
that
there
is
some
altruistic
intention
or
there
can
be
framed
to
be
an
altruistic
intention
behind
it.
Increase
voter
activity.
Give
everyone
the
right
to
vote.
give
more
people
access,
more
channels
to
vote,
etc.,
etc.
And
you
can
rationalize
away
how
every
one
of
these
laws
makes
it
easier
and
adds
lubrication
to
the
system.
And
now
we've
got
a
quote
more
accessible
democracy
for
everyone.
But
the
truth
is
that
there
is
a
concept
in
insurance
called
adverse
selection,
which
is
if
there
is
a
moment
to
exploit
something,
the
criminals
will
exploit
it
to
the
extent
that
it
will
become
asymmetric.
the
criminals
or
the
or
the
do
bads,
not
the
dogooders,
will
find
a
way
to
take
advantage
of
a
hole
in
a
system
just
like
hackers
do
to
break
into
a
network
Original English
>> and
that's
what
you
system
ramen
and
Spencer
Pratt
did.
Original English
>> This
set
of
mechanisms,
this
set
of
construction
has
allowed
for
a
system
that
now
has
evolved
into
an
appointment.
So
you
believe
worked
the
system
better
than
Spencer
Pratt?
Original English
>> She
had
a
better
cheating
operation.
Obviously,
you
can
see
it
in
the
chart.
the
just
look
at
the
number
of
votes.
Original English
>> Okay,
define
cheating
here
just
so
we're
clear.
Original English
>> How
does
it
happen
where
Bass
stays
flat
and
then
Ramen
and
Pratt
just
switch
places?
So
on
election
day,
he's
the
clear
number
two
and
then
they
keep
counting
for
a
week.
They
don't
even
know
how
many
ballots
they're
supposed
to
have.
I
mean,
none
of
the
stuff
is
locked
down.
Okay,
let
me
explain
how
the
cheating
works.
And
to
Freeberg's
point,
it
may
or
may
not
be
legal.
So
I,
you
know,
I
don't
want
to
get
sidetracked
by
whether
the
fraud
is
legal
or
illegal,
but
I
think
we
all
know
it's
crooked.
And
here's
how
it
works.
First
of
all,
Original English
>> yeah,
explain
what's
I'll
explain
it
to
you.
I'll
explain
it
to
you.
And
if
I
if
I
misstate
a
fact,
then
let
me
know.
Original English
>> So,
first
of
all,
California
sends
out
ballots
to
every
registered
voters.
It's
something
like
23
24
million
people.
Only
9
and
a
half
million
people
vote.
So,
what
happens
to
the
other
14
million
ballots?
I
have
a
friend
who
lives
in
LA.
He
manages
apartment
buildings.
He
says
that
the
ballots
just
pile
up,
you
know,
at
the
mailboxes.
Yes.
That
everybody
has
in
the
buildings.
There's
like
loose
ballots
everywhere.
They're
sent
to
people
who
don't
even
live
there
anymore.
He
like
recognizes
that
the
names,
they're
people
who
haven't
lived
there
in
years.
So,
the
voter
roles
are
dirty.
They
haven't
been
cleaned
up
in
years.
Okay.
Then
you
have
Original English
the issue that there's no voter ID on election day. There's no voter ID to even get registered. When you sign your ballot, they run it through a machine. As long as the signature matches 40%, I don't even know what 40% means. It's like less than half accurate, the machine says it's fine. Okay? And then it doesn't even check the signature of the voter if you have a supposed witness. So the voter can just put like a little X on their signature as long as the witness says and they sign, but there's no registration of witnesses. Anybody can be a witness. There's no database of witnesses. And so the witness just puts a squiggle. So what is to stop the so-called ballot harvester from going filling out these ballots, putting a little X on the voter, putting a little squiggle on on the the witness, and then dumping these ballots. There's no chain of custody.
Original English
So the risk would be they would be arrested and
Original English
>> and right
Original English
>> well what is their expectation getting caught? Gavin Newsome just signed a law making it virtually impossible to audit any of this stuff.
Original English
>> So now even if they thought maybe they could get caught. Let's just take a look at all the other types of fraud happening in California right now that we know about. We know that there's billions of dollars in fraud in California for things like Medicaid fraud, unemployment fraud, EBT fraud, hospice fraud, fraud related to the homeless industrial complex, and on and on. That's all been proven. Okay. Is it really so hard to believe that some of the same groups, the same interest groups, the same NOS's would be willing to exploit these loopholes in the dirty voter roles in the millions of ballots that go to incorrect or non-existent addresses, the non-existent chain of custody, the non-existent signature verification, the no ID, not only to vote but to register, counting ballots without postmarks if received 7 days later, registering thousands of ballots from homeless shelters that don't even have any beds. These are all known things. So when you say that there's no fraud, it's like come on, there's loopholes and all you got to do is look at the results and see that there's something crooked going on here.
Original English
>> Okay, so you're in the camp that there is fraud going on because where there's
Original English
>> it may be legalized. It may be legalized, but it's fraud.
Original English
>> Okay, so you believe there's fraud. Look, when you start mailing out millions of ballots to people who don't even vote, and then you have no audit requirements, no chain of custody, no punishments, no penalties, no investigations, and there's a huge tons of investigations both by attorney generals
Original English
>> in California.
Original English
>> By who?
Original English
>> Uh I I'll pull up the history. I will say after every election, there are tons of civil lawsuits filed. Like obviously Trump filed 60 of 60 when
Original English
>> not in California. Uh I don't know just made it impossible to do that kind of audit. He just I think that's because he was beaten so badly in a democratic state. There was no reason to. But I don't know why he didn't file in California. But he filed 60 of these and everybody kind of does that. They file these constantly and attorney generals can. So in this case, Chimoth, if there's so much smoke, if this statistic seems so improbable, and there was the Nick Shirley video of going to Skidro and this possibility that they were paying junkies and people who were high to vote, this would be easily catchable. Actually, this would take a conspiracy for thousands and thousands of votes to have been swung. And that's what we're saying here. We're saying upwards of 10,000 votes were swung, but certainly 5,000. Good luck. You would need a conspiracy of hundreds of people or at least dozens to do that.
Original English
>> Good luck going to Skid Row and getting some meth addict to go on the record.
Original English
>> I think they actually got somebody to go on the record actually. That's a that's the
Original English
>> There's a few videos of this. Yes.
Original English
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, that that's the crazy part about it is they uh are saying Skidro people got paid two or three dollars and that somebody was found guilty of this. Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong. She plead guilty in 2026 of paying. system is designed to allow fraud. It's this it's designed
Original English
>> it has been won by 43,000 votes to
Original English
>> guys. We live in a autocracy in California where one political machine has shaped the laws so inexurably that whether it's a mayor or it's a state legislator or it's a state senator or it's the governor, it's a one-way door. There is only one party that can win and we are slowly seeing that that party increasingly does not have the ability to govern a state this dynamic and this complicated. They've changed the rules to make sure that that monopoly is enforced. We have all tacidly approved it by supporting or voting or not saying anything. And the end result has yet to be unveiled because it's going to take another couple of decades for all of this rot to really destroy these places. The reality is the voters probably should be given a chance to have Spencer Pratt push back on what is the machine so that at a minimum what they learn is that the machine wasn't working nearly anywhere close to the way it is intended. Instead, what will happen is two people that are in various shapes and forms pretty deeply unqualified and very similar now essentially get to give you not much of a choice at all. So, I think the the the sad thing is Freeberg is right and Sax is right. Freeberg is right. The laws have been shaped this way to make legal what would otherwise be an illegality. and Sax is right, which is that any rational person should look at these laws and say this is fraudulent. The unfortunate situation is unless there's a some cataclysmic decision in California, this is what we're stuck with. It is time to vote all of these people out.
Original English
>> You can't you can't vote. What do you mean? How you going to do it? Anyone can register anyone can vote. Spencer Pratt can do this. Can I answer Free Brook's question?
Original English
>> Sure.
Original English
>> There is one break the glass way and I've talked to a few of these guys about what that is. How do you change the system? You must get somebody at the absolute top of the ticket elected. That person is Steve Hilton. And if that happens, there is one thing that Steve Hilton can do to start to completely change the way that this state is run, which is instantly on day one declare a state of emergency. If you pull on this thread, what you will find, there are lots of things you can do to clean up how California works under a state of emergency. I'll leave it at that.
Original English
Yeah, it there's some common sense here. We shouldn't send ballots out to everybody. that made sense maybe during co and if you can't be bothered to have ID then maybe you shouldn't vote uh and I don't think that there has been an election a major election that has been swung by election fraud the Heritage Foundation has spent many many tens of millions of dollars on this I understand and they have a really great uh project that tracks this people file lawsuits like Trump did like Al Gore did everybody's always filing lawsuits over this it's ever enough to swing an election, but there's definitely on the margins.
Original English
>> Kennedy versus Nixon. Bro,
Original English
>> hold on. Let me finish.
Original English
>> The mob got Kennedy elected versus Nixon.
Original English
>> I'm talking in modern history. Yeah, in modern history.
Original English
>> That's pretty famous. That's pretty famous.
Original English
>> Okay, we we can get into if that's true or not as well. The
Original English
>> Check out Lynon Johnson's history. Lyndon Johnson only got elected to the Senate. He got a start in politics through ballot fraud.
Original English
>> We absolutely should have voter ID. We should stop sending everybody one of these because the appearance of impropriety is the problem here. Both sides crazy new flash news flash everybody. Both sides cheat. Both sides bend the rules. One side does it by limiting access. The other does it by providing too much access. All these politicians, overwhelming majority of them are unethical. And all they care about is getting elected. And they have tons of people working for them in both parties to massage these election results. And if you get caught, it is a serious penalty. There has not been in modern history major elections. Go ahead and go to the Heritage Foundation. They find all the nooks and
Original English
crannies of
Original English
>> You keep using the word fraud like as if it's a thing, but it's not. I'll tell you who's at fraud.
Original English
>> No, there's fraud. At the end of the day, there is fraud. There are people have been caught doing fraudulent things.
Original English
>> The one group that is fundamentally to blame is Congress. We have an opportunity. There have been opportunities to pass laws that will make it illegal for people to vote if they are not citizens, if they are not properly registered, and if they don't show up with ID. That is a very simple solve to this democratic electoral process. We can't have a situation where someone is legally allowed to go out and collect a 100 ballots that they find sitting in the lobby of an apartment building or for people to register to vote with a gym membership card when fundamentally the federal government already knows if you're not paying your taxes, you're required to have a driver's license to drive a car, you have to have ID, you have to be registered in the system to do nearly anything and everything in this country as it is. So to exclude that very simple requirement from the most foundational obligation that we all have as citizens of this country is inherently wrong and it needs to be addressed by Congress.
And if Congress fixes it and there are federal laws that create systems that ensure that elections are all about one person getting one vote and they're legally allowed to vote, then this doesn't become an issue. Short of this, I worry where this goes because over time, the fewer people actually believe that elections are real. And I hate being on here sounding like I'm an election fear-mongering guy who's telling people that elections aren't real, but the longer this goes on, the more difficult it will be for people to actually have faith in the system that we're all operating within. And that's when things get ugly and it needs to be fixed.
Original English
>> Yeah, I'm strongly agreeing. If you can't be bothered to get a driver's license or a passport, maybe you don't need to vote. Yeah.
Original English
>> Congress can fix it. And they should.
Original English
>> Yeah. And and there's, by the way, there's a ballot measure in California. If people in California want this, they can just vote for the ballot measure.
Original English
>> You mean the voter ID ballot measure?
Original English
>> Yeah.
Original English
>> Yeah. That's very important. Actually, look, if that fails, it's kind of our last chance to save anything
Original English
>> for California's last chance. Yeah. Yeah. And you do sound like an your entire speech, David, was you sound like an election denier.
Original English
>> I don't care what you label it. Look, the the Democratic party as a whole were election deniers about Trump winning in 2016. They concocted the whole Russia gate hoax to basically try and discredit his election.
Original English
>> When you look at the the difference between walk-in and mailin ballots, and I've seen everyone try to argue why that's so different, it doesn't compute for me. That's it. I'm not like trying to make up a fact. This is the fact. Look at this facts on the on the on the screen you're looking at right now. This is the difference in the data. This data tells me that something is wrong. That's it.
Original English
>> Obviously,
Original English
>> I'm not trying to I'm not trying to just fearonger because I don't like who got elected. I don't give a [ __ ] what goes on in LA. In fact, I think it's better for LA if they deal with the socialist mayor for a couple years so they come out the other side realizing they shouldn't embrace socialist principles. I think it's great for the country. Actually, I think it's great for New York. I think it's great for Seattle. I think it's great for wherever Minnesota. Wherever people want to elect socialists in this country, let's run into it. I'm all about jumping through the socialist well so we jump out the other side like the Latin American countries are doing now when everyone wakes up and realize how up socialism is because it denies everyone the opportunity for economic mobility. It denies everyone their individual liberties that this country was founded on. Socialism is wrong. It's broken. It doesn't work. And if you all want to go through that lesson, do it. Go for it. Let's do it. Let them get elected. But the numbers on that election data show me that that's not what the people wanted. That it's not very clear or evident to me that that's what people voted for. And that's where I'm like, my god, the system itself has become a system of appointment, not a system of election. And I get fired up about that personally. You want to add anything as we wrap here on this?
Original English
>> Yeah. The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final most essential command. This is obvious. Just look at the charts. Look at the data. We know something crooked happened. It's statistically impossible. The only thing we don't know is whether it was illegal fraud or legal fraud. Meaning they've created so many loopholes and so much corruption in the law that what they did is possibly legal. It is still corrupt. It is still crooked. It is ridiculous. Everyone can see it. Do not deny the evidence of your eyes and ears. Even if they call you an election denier, I personally don't care. I deny it. Spencer Pratt should be in the runoff. I deny that Ramen won legitimately.
Original English
>> The statistics are the statistics and they would scream that you should have the attorney general of California and the federal attorney general look into it and if they catch people doing this stuff and they have caught one person and Nick Shirley went down there and you see people on Skid Row, you know, listen, homeless people should have the right to vote theoretically.
Original English
>> Why did Nome just sign a law making audits like that even harder?
Original English
>> Yeah, I'm not defending Newsome here. I'm saying where's the attorney general? If there is in fact fraud, Trump has the ability with his hands-elected attorney generals to go after this. He controls that part of uh you know our our democracy. He should file and they should go figure out what happened statistically. So Trump, President Trump, thank you, President Trump. Go do it. Go do it. You got this attorney general chasing down everybody else. Go to this election. Use your powers. Audit it and find them. Where's President Trump?
Original English
>> You didn't hear my point that the the state law just made it harder for the federal government to come in and audit the voter roles. So
Original English
>> yeah, he can still do it.
Original English
>> I'm sure they will do it. I'm sure they'll do it if they can.
Original English
>> Yeah. I mean, trust me, Trump does what he wants. If we've learned anything,
Original English
>> he will do what he wants. And he's not doing this now.
Original English
>> What I find amazing is that the media instead of asking tough questions like how did this happen? How could the votes swing so wildly in ballots that were only found after hold on after election day? The media instead of trying to demand answers and demand accountability is trying to cover up and say nothing wrong happened here. It's unbelievable. It's outrageous.
Original English
>> What is the best theory steelman? What's the best theory of why this discrepancy?
Original English
>> I mean, we're sitting here talking about it.
Original English
>> What's the discrepancy? Anybody have a steel man of why this discrepancy could have happened that's legitimate? anybody.
Original English
>> If the media is hanging on to a snapshot of the past where people actually cared what they said and every time that they can actually reestablish trust, they kind of don't do it because the people that they want to curry favor with are willing to play along. So I think what happens is the media is like, well, I have two choices. I can actually say that Spencer Pratt should have won or could have won or investigate why he didn't win, but then I'm kind of tacitly supporting Trump. And hold on a second. I'm supposed to hate Trump. So, no. Yeah, you know, this is completely normal. Nothing to see here. Everybody moves on, hoping that then they get ingratiated into the machine, but they're going to get run over and used like everybody else does, too. So,
Original English
>> that's what's happening. Yeah, your point is so spot on, Chimat, that like if it's so polarized, meaning that there's two polls that if you do question, it's almost like you were being put in the Trump proTrump camp. Just like the word MAGA is thrown around like, oh, you're a MAGA guy because you're questioning
Original English
election
integrity.
This
has
nothing
to
do
with
MAGA.
It's
just
simple
conversation
about
a
particular
topic.
But
if
it's
diametric
to
the
other
camp,
you're,
you
know,
you
must
be
in
that
bad
camp.
And
so
then
they
don't
want
to
be
put
in
that
camp.
It's
so
true.
I'm
for
mathematical
and
statistical
literacy
and
what
happened
here
is
mathematically
and
statistically.
Original English
>> So
nobody
has
any
steel
man
or
concept
of
how
this
could
have
happened.
Original English
>> I
can
tell
you
the
statistical
odds
that
this
would
have
happened
and
it's
one
in
a
trillion.
Original English
>> Okay.
What
if
Original English
>> So
are
you
telling
me
the
one
in
a
trillion
shot
hit?
Original English
>> I
I'm
asking
if
there
is
any
I'm
not
Original English
>> just
just
this
one
time.
Original English
>> I'm
not
I'm
asking
if
there's
anybody
who
steals
this
in
any
way.
I'm
asking
I'll
tell
you
what
I've
heard
integrity
of
Original English
>> Why
is
it
so
psychologically
important
for
you
to
cling
to
the
idea
Original English
>> it's
not
Original English
elections
that
California
elections
are
completely
corruption
free
after
all
the
things
they've
clearly
done
Original English
>> to
corrupt
them
voter
ID
you
admit
there's
like
it's
chalk
full
of
loopholes
Original English
>> you
ask
me
why
am
I
holding
on
to
it
I'm
not
holding
on
to
it
for
the
purpose
of
discussion
and
having
an
intellectually
honest
discussion
I'm
asking
the
three
of
you
if
there
you've
heard
or
if
you
have
any
theory
just
for
the
rigorousness
of
the
discussion.
This
isn't
my
position.
Original English
>> Where
are
all
the
democracy
protectors
in
the
media
now?
Original English
>> They
all
said
that
they
were
they
were
the
guardian
they
were
the
guardians
of
democracy.
They're
going
to
protect
democracy.
Where
are
they
to
ask
question?
Original English
>> The
only
theory
that
I
can
think
of
I'll
steal
a
minute
myself.
I
because
I
I
think
you
do
need
to
be
rigorous.
Original English
>> You
go
ahead
first.
Yeah.
The
the
only
thing
I
can
think
of
is
her
ground
game
is
more
sophisticated
because
they've
been
at
it
longer
than
Spencer
Pratt
and
he
didn't
have
a
ground
game
that
took
this
in
since
he's
a
non-traditional
firsttime
candidate.
That's
the
only
thing
I
can
think
of.
Original English
>> Sophisticated
a
coded
word
for
he
wasn't
bribing
Skidro
homeless
judge.
Original English
>> No,
he
just
has
it.
He
doesn't
have
an
election
machine
to
collect
ballots
and
collecting
ballots
is
legal.
That's
the
That's
the
question.
Original English
>> She
had
a
better
cheating
operation.
Obviously,
Original English
>> we're
saying
the
same
thing.
We're
not
actually
saying
anything
different.
Original English
>> The
Twitter
commentary
was
that
people
were
waiting
because
there's
so
many
people
that
are
so
against
Spencer
Pratt,
but
they
wanted
to
be
sure
that
they
voted
for
the
right
candidate,
whether
it's
Ramen
or
Bass.
And
so
the
people
that
held
their
ballots
the
longest
saw
the
polling
data
that
Bass
was
going
to
win.
That's
why
they
all
voted
for
Ramen
last
minute
was
to
try
and
promote
her
to
make
sure
Original English
>> has
been
shipped
because
of
the
you
could
have
two
Democrats
at
the
top
of
the
ticket.
Original English
>> That's
right.
And
they
didn't
want
Spencer
Pratt
to
have
a
shot
at
the
general.
And
that
by
the
way,
you
know,
I
mean,
if
you
saw
my
interview
with
Spencer
Pratt,
he
said
Ramen
registered
one
hour
before
the
deadline
and
she's
friends
with
Bass
and
that
the
whole
point
was
to
keep
him
from
actually
making
it
onto
the
general
ballot.
So
that
some
of
the
coordination
that
people
were
making
in
their
minds
was
like,
we
got
to
make
sure
we
vote
for
the
two
Democrats
and
then
they'll
figure
out,
hey,
is
it
wrong?
Let's
just
box
him
out.
Original English
>> Yeah.
Original English
>> Got
it.
Original English
>> Which
is
like
why
they
all
waited
till
the
last
minute
to
vote
for
to
vote
for
how
do
you
coordinate
something
like
that?
That
that's
always
the
question
I
have
with
these
like
Original English
>> these
people
are
all
brilliant
geniuses.
It's
it's
hundreds
of
thousands
of
brilliant
geniuses
row
that
out.
Original English
>> Yeah,
there's
a
chat
group.
I
mean,
it's
not
that
complicated.
Original English
>> Alan
Harvesters
did
it.
what
Freeberg
said
just
happened.
It's
just
that
the
ballot
harvesters
did
it,
not
the
actual
voters,
obviously.
Original English
>> And
ballot
harvesting
is
legal,
but
it's
sketchy
and
maybe
they
And
if
there
are
ballot
harvesters,
I
think
that
Trump
and
the
DOJ
can
catch
these
people.
Original English
>> How
the
is
it
legal
that
someone
can
go
out
and
collect
other
people's
ballots
and
fill
them
out
and
send
them
in?
It's
the
craziest
to
me.
Original English
>> No
evidence
of
fraud
right
now.
Statistics
don't
look
good.
Donald
J.
Trump,
you
control
the
Department
of
Justice.
Go
investigate
it.
Original English
>> Okay.
I
love
you
guys,
but
I'm
hungry.
I
got
to
go.
This
has
been
Original English
>> an
amazing
episode
of
the
Allin
Podcast.
Bye-bye.
Original English
>> Love
you
boys.
Byebye.
Original English
>> Let
your
winners
ride.
Original English
>> We
open
sourced
it
to
the
fans
and
they've
just
gone
crazy
with
it.
Besties
are
gone.
Original English
>> That
is
my
dog
taking
a
notice
in
your
driveway.
Original English
>> Oh
man,
my
habitasher
will
meet
me
up.
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.
Original English
Wet
your
wet
feet.
We
need
to
get
Mercy's
going
all
in.
I'm
going
all
in.