Anthropic's Digital God, Pope vs AI, Job Loss Narrative Flips, Open Source Crackdown Coming?

on this most holy day, the day, the all-in podcast drops. Many topics, AI data centers, China, justice, human dignity, Dario on winding these SPVs

hasn't been good for the Vatican, we got in at 20 billion, that was a 50 bagger for us.

So let's get started. Jason, I'm pretty sure you believed you were the vicar of God before the encyclical, so this is nothing new for you. The smoke has risen from the poca room. He's staying in my pool walls, he's been there for the last three days.

It's been magnificent, he didn't know what I understand where O.J. was coming from. You put Keto Kale in your house for long enough, you just lose your shit, it's something. Somebody's getting whoacked. All right, enough with the shenanigans, but it's been great staying at the house because there's actually, Chamanth is not aware of the solution, iPad and the kitchen, and that's logged into

Uber E store dash, Instacard, Amazon, Laura Piano, there it is, it's literally every

single service and I told the house manager, like, listen, any packages that come in the next 72 hours right to the pool house, if it says J-Cow, right to the pool house, so all these packages have been coming, then I really able them, gave them back, send them to the ranch, and now the house manager setting that stuff to the ranch, Laura Piano wants to know, one might inseam went from 36 to 12.

>> I went from 32 to 36.

“>> All right, welcome to the program, everybody, David's access here, how are you doing, David?”

>> Okay. >> Chamanth, Paulian Hoppetea, is back at the 80, 90 office, I was at the 80, 90 office the last couple of days, and it's a five. >> It's a five. >> It's a five.

>> It's a five. If you're a bestie and you show up at that office, though, everybody there is a huge fan of the pod, so I was like, it was like being royalty, it stopped by everybody, I'm a developer here, I'm a big fan of the show, thank you for giving it to Chamanth. We can't give it to him, because he pays our mortgage and everything, but every time you

stick it to Chamanth, we love it. We're cheering for you in the secret slack room, and there's no secret slack, but there is

“definitely a secret slack room going on.”

>> Nobody was great. The vibes were awesome, you're building a lot of software, a lot of young talent, I don't want to say that where your secret sources, but there's a secret source of talent you have, and man, those are some smart kids. >> I'm happy to say it, look, when I was at Facebook, we became the most aggressive recruiter

of water look collapse, and so I went back to the well, yeah, we recruit more interns every quarter than we have full-time engineers, which we do on purpose, because it puts a ton of pressure on the product actually being good, we have 400 people apply this quarter for internships. >> Wow, it's a very interesting with us sitting in for a freedberg, who's busy with

some potato seed this week, doing great stuff at Ohio, but one, the only bill, girlie is here. He's been running down a dream.

If you haven't bought the book, get the book, it's incredible, and you're off book

to us right now. You have time for us, yeah? >> Yes. >> And you know, I told you, if you ever talk about the Pope, I'd love to hop on. >> Yeah, you were like, well, you know, bills and evangelical, I'm a Catholic, so we do have

some common ground here. When's the last time you were at church, Bill? Have you thought now that you're, you know, I've been chasing out, get sacrilegious, I got him on there, and make sure Jake Hald doesn't get out of line with the Pope. >> Listen, the Pope is God's messenger on earth, we should give him a base level of respect.

By the way, that's not demonstrating Bill, girlie, it's not actually Bill, girlie, just for those of you listening. You think they were confused. >> They were, really, they weren't confused, we don't want to put words in your mouth, but just point of clarification, but hey, everybody knows, you know, you, you, you, you

hand it the baton over at Benchmark after a very successful couple of decades in venture capital.

“You wrote the book, you've now got a nonprofit, you're doing your own spin, I think, on maybe”

what Peter T.L. does with his fellowship, you started your own running down a dream fellowship,

>> Yeah, it's targeted at a different demographic, it's called our dad.org, running

down a dream.org. There's a website, we can give a link to, we're going to do $5,000 grants to people who want to chase their dreams, but need some help. And so there is an application process like T.L. Fellows and other programs, and we've been out talking to those people, but we're, we're

actually live, we went live last week for the application. So if, you know, people who have read the book and are inspired and need some help, have them apply. >> Yeah, all right, folks, and good for you, yeah, great, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Two other, so I did a TED talk which will come out soon, that's related to the book.

I, there's a professor in Miami that's built a course around the book, which I'm excited about. And he's, he's doing it in a kind of an open source way so that other people can borrow that as well. And so if there, anyone out there, I'd love to help them do that.

>> What's your take on all of this doomerism, like if you're a young person in your and college or you're in high school, is this, is this much to do about nothing or how do you run down a dream in the face of something like that? >> Yeah, well, I, you know, I started the book before this happened, and I've been asked to question a lot and it, it came up in the TED talk.

I, I fear that a lot of people and jobs, they actually don't care about that much. And there's a Gallup poll that backs this up. They came up with that word quite, quitters, they're like 59% of people they surveyed, are kind of ambivalent about their job. And when you're ambivalent about your job, you're not high agency.

And so you don't lean in, you know, if you, if you look at how Jason talks about all, how they implemented AI in all of his, his different working groups, you hear that enthusiasm and that high agency and then you want to go try these things.

“And I think the best way to protect yourself from AI is to be the most AI enabled version”

of yourself, you can be, but if you're ambivalent about your job, you're probably not doing that. And you could be, you know, a sitting dog. So I think it's the mindset that's the problem. >> I created an associate and training program for my firm because we want to like help people

get into venture capital and we gave them a choice of assignments. One of them was to write coverage of one of our portfolio companies that's breaking out micro one is the name of it.

And just give us like, hey, here's a competitive landscape, basically write a deal memo

and coverage of that company and then we give them another option to vibe code, a very specific project I've wanted to have for our venture firm for a long time, you know, on competitive intelligence. And I would say, I think like maybe 80% of the students applying, and we had 4,500 people apply for six positions, 80% of them did the vibe coding.

And I was shocked. I thought it would be the exact opposite. Anybody can write anybody can throw shit in chat, chat, ET, and get some output, but they actually built software and that's the scary thing. The students who graduated, at least as my perception, Chimoff, the students who graduated

like 5, 10 years ago before AI, they're not AI first, they feel lost in a drift, they don't have agency. But the group coming out of college right now that cheated their way through school, using chat, GPT, doing their assignments, like using those tools, I'm joking, cheating, but I mean hacking.

>> I agree with that. >> So they were totally clicked. >> Yeah. And they're just like, I know how to use these tools to get through my finals. >> Yeah.

“>> I think you're saying something super important.”

I said this last week, which is nobody asks the warehouse worker to Amazon, whether they actually want that job. And so to your point, job satisfaction isn't some external person judging your job to be valid and saying you must be able to have it. I think it should be, asking the person that does the job, do you like it and do you want

to keep it? Those are two very different questions. >> Yeah. I think that all of this AI doom and gloom was a lot and too much, frankly, of the former and not enough of the latter. And now this whole lie is kind of getting undone.

I think Sachs posted about it this week as well, the Goldman Sachs CEO said it. And now in this crazy twist of fate, now that we need to have to really end all the IPOs, the entire front of your labs are all like, wow, it's going to be a banana of jobs. >> Mark Cuban had a great quote, he said there are two types of people in the world, those

that use AI to learn faster than they ever could before, and those that use AI to avoid learning altogether.

“And I think it's this notion of high agency or not.”

>> That's pretty good.

>> Are you leaning in and using this stuff to be ever more powerful and what you try and

accomplish, are you using it as a cheat code? And if you're in the ladder, yeah, you're probably at risk. >> You get asked a lot about how to educate yourself, if you're a parent of kids. So you can put them on a path to launch and do well in Chase their dreams. >> Well, good answer for that question.

>> I mean, the second chapter of the books, all about lifetime learning, and it's kind

for free if you're fascinated with something like you just constantly soak up into power,

new information. And I do think that a lot of kids get exhausted because we've made high school and college such a grind that they think the learning ends the day they walk out with their diploma. And as we all know, the best and brightest in all of our fields are on a constant learning journey.

And when something new comes out, they dive in and try and figure it out. And so every single person in the book that we profile has that kind of attitude about their craft, and every day.

“And so I think the real test is if you're not proactively self-learning, then you're probably”

not tilting against something that you really adore and are fascinated by. >> Sachs, you wanted to jump in there? >> With respect to new college grads, I was going to say that I think the single most marketable skill in the economy right now has got to be proficiency in Claude. If you're going into a firm right now, and you're the only one who knows Claude would

be like, you're the only one who knows how to work at spreadsheet, you know, or word processor. The advantage would be enormous. Now I think that that's probably a short term arbitrage because eventually everyone's going to have to figure out how to use these tools. But as a young college graduate right now, you have such an advantage if you're an AI native

disknowing how to use these tools. And this thought partially occurred to me when I saw what our producer Nick has been doing with using Claude for, you know, he's been creating this daily briefing document. >> We've been doing it for three months, actually.

>> I just ran it for the first time.

>> Yeah. >> And you've been existing. >> Yeah. Well, I just, you know, I thought it would just be AI sloppy and it would just kind of give me a round-up of news that I was getting in my X-feed anyway, but actually the thing

that was really impressive about it was that it predicted topics that I would specifically be interested in based on my previous comments on the pod. And also it went back and looked at previous transcripts and what I had said and then had updates to those topics based on specific things I had said. So again, it was highly, highly contextual.

But then I asked Nick, how did you generate that and he showed me the custom prompt that he designed for Claude and then the skills document and they were very long and detailed documents. They weren't written in code, but they were very technical. And I just realized, looking at that, that the average person is not going to generate

this. I mean, this is why this idea that you're just going to be able to like virtually AI into an organization and this is magically going to generate value is not true.

“You have to know how to get value out of it.”

I mean, maybe we could just show these documents on the screen. >> Yeah. The interesting thing, uh, sacks is you can, you just have to ask your AI, you ask Claude or Chatchee BT or whatever you're using. Hey, I want you to make me a mega prompt and you have like a mega pint, like, it could

be a mega prompt of your producer of a podcast. These are the four characters on the podcast. What would be a great prompt for me? And it will actually suggest a prompt and then you can refine the prompt. So you actually have a dialogue about a prompt as opposed to writing the prompt.

yourself. And so I've started doing this and it is extraordinary like, well, Nick, can you show on the screen to scroll through the training rules? And then also there's the skills document that was written on how to be a producer for this podcast, which I thought was really impressive.

>> But do we, David, what you said, I think is true of almost every single job type. Like, it's not just tech or programming. If you're in marketing, if you're in legal, if you're in accounting, like, it any role you might have at a firm sales. If you're the most AI savvy person of all your peers, you are golden.

>> Yeah. >> You're golden. >> Yeah. >> In your topic.

>> And it's more valuable than the next person who's not, basically.

>> Yes. Yes.

“And I think that, I don't think it goes away because I think you learn how to get better”

at it over time. So having an early advantage, I think, will extend for a while. Because you can learn more and more things you can accomplish. >> Should we let producer Nick describe what you're just looking at. >> Yeah.

>> Yeah. I've got to produce what it, producer Nick explained in the process. >> Yeah. Once we got access to Claude Coerck and it had that, like, further expanded memory access, I thought it would be interesting to just start feeding every transcript into it and seeing

if it could actually contextualize new stories that were coming out, based on past things that you guys have said. And I gave it, like, a general prompt of what I wanted. And I said, how would you write a skills file or some training rules for this, and it wrote all of it for me?

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. >> I thought you wrote. >> It's a hack. >> It's a hack. >> It's a hack.

>> It's a hack. >> It's a hack. >> It's a hack. >> It's a hack. >> It's a hack.

>> It's a hack. >> It's a hack. >> It's a hack. >> It's a hack. >> It's a hack.

>> It's a hack. >> It's a hack. >> It's a hack. >> It's a hack. >> It's a hack.

>> It's a hack to make the skills.

“>> Oh, this is going to wipe out all the jobs.”

No one still has to supervise, iterate, validate, you know, all those kinds of things. >> Yeah. And it's, it's really interesting that the people who are coming into the workforce right now are super aware of this, and they're putting the tools to work, and it's much easier for them to get a job.

I mean, I literally looked at the top nine candidates for this associated and training program I have, and we're going to do it every year, every summer we start it. We do it for a year, we pay you to learn, and it was just extraordinary how you could tell immediately if the person had systems thinking facts, like they understood the process of venture capital, that there was a structure to it, you had to source deals, you had

to make decisions on which ones to invest, and you had to do diligence, you know, you

had to double down on investments, they just understood the process, and then when, if you

just talk to one of these LLMs, it will tell you what to do, so you can say, I don't know what I'm doing, what should I do next, and then it actually tells you what to do next.

“So for people who are intimidated about this, and maybe think like, I'm, I'm already too”

far behind, and I encourage you to pop up cloth, go into co-work, and say, what can I do to be better at my job, and just start talking? And literally, if the more you talk, and you can use voice, you know, text of voice, I use whisper flow, is a really cool program for this, and I have a foot pedal to do it, you just ramble and ramble and ramble and keep adding stuff, you don't have to be structured.

It will build the structure around the two or three paragraphs that you give it as instructions. That's the thing people are getting caught up on now, is Bill, they think they have to type. When, in fact, if you just blather on and on, a scale I have a unique ability to do, you just blather on, it's a superpower, you blather on and the thing makes sense of it, it is

unbelievable what the blather on prompt can get in terms of output, thanks for coming to my TED Talk. All right, let's get started. There's a lot to talk about, and we got a big docket today. We're going to start with the Pope, the Pope is dope, and the Pope Leo, who's the 14,

least his first encyclical encyclical on AI, and it was long, 235 pages over 42,000 words, just to give you an idea Bill Garland, did you write it? Do you think, when did he put that together?

“Well, I think he used chat GBT, that's what it says here.”

No, no, I mean, I'm guessing how long did it take for him to write this in between all of his other tasks? I think it's a six month process to do this, but I'm sure he had collaborators, Bill, your book, I'm assuming was 60, I'm sure there was a team that wrote it, but Bill, your books, 60, 70,000 words, I'm guessing, so this is almost a little book, right, in terms

of how long it is, and it's called Magnifica Humanitas, or Magnificent Humanity. In it, he warrants business leaders to safeguard humanity from AI.

This core argument is AI is not inherently evil, but technology is never neutral, and that

technology takes on the characteristics, wait for it of those who build, finance, and control it. And I don't think he thinks super highly of that group of people, the Pope called for regulation of AI companies. Obviously, we're going to have that debate here.

As some of the things he called for, I think, are not very debatable, and there's a lot of consensus around worker retrainment, safety for children and guardrails, a ban on autonomous weapons that's the SkyNet rule, don't build terminators with your her AI, but he was joined by in-profit co-founder Chris Ola, I don't know how many co-founders there are of this company, but apparently there's dozens, and Ola is not Catholic, according to a vanity

fair profile, he was raised even jellicle, and now he's an atheist, the folks at Amazon Google and Meta lobbied the Vatican on April 29 to soften the language in his misive, and he was not swayed. His central question, SACS, is will AI be used to concentrate power in the hands of a few, or will it serve everyone something you brought up when you mentioned Monopolys, Duopolis,

et cetera, two weeks ago on this very podcast. What's your take on the Pope and his interest and his misives on AI, and promoting a bit

Well, I very much agree with the Pope that the biggest risk of AI is a centralization of power, and then it's misuse against us in some more woolly in way.

“I think it's a government that's going to do that, not necessarily an individual actor because”

it's governments that ultimately have the power. So I do worry about the potential for AI to be used to surveil us, censor us, control us as a well-described in 1984. So if that's where the Pope is going with this, I very much agree with him. The, I may be where we end up in different places as he thinks that government regulation

is the way to prevent this. And I would just say that we have to be careful not to empower government too much, because if you give government the power to regulate or approve AI development, if you create saying FDA for AI as many people are calling on, that will give government the power to approve models and therefore give notes to model developers, and very soon this definition of safety

will expand, because the government always takes an expansive view of its powers.

And we saw this during the social media wars where the definition of trust and safety expanded to issues like psychological safety, microaggressions, disinformation, transphobia, and so on that, again, the social media companies were told that they had to stamp out all of those threats to safety and it ended up becoming a censorship agenda. So I get very worried about what if some government agency can give notes to the model

developers and they start telling the model developers that your definition of safety

“is not expansive enough, you have to, again, protect the public from disinformation or psychological”

harms. So again, I think we just need to be careful not to aggrandize government because that's going to be the most likely culprit in terms of the centralization of power. And I know the Vatican likes Latin, this is a problem of political philosophy that goes all the way back to soccer.

This is called Quis, custodiet, Ipsos, Custodays, which is who will guard the guardians. In other words, if we entrust a set of guardians to protect us from a bunch of threats, what's to stop them from becoming tyrannical and from becoming the new threat against us? And I mean, this is a central dilemma of political power. Who watches the watchers?

Who watches the watchers? Who watches the watchers? Who guards the guardians? Who's going to protect us against our guardians if they turn against us?

The genius of the American founding, by the way, is that it was a second order solution

to this question. The founders of America very much understood this. And what they came up with is we have to have the guardians guard against each other. And so they came with the idea of separation of powers. We'd have separation of federal and state.

We'd have the three branches of the government, even within the legislative branch was a bicameral legislature. So they divided up the powers in a way that hopefully the guardians would check against each other as opposed to becoming tyrannical against us. And that is kind of my view on AI is that, ultimately, we have to have a solution of checks

and balances. If the AI market becomes monopolized and falls into the hands of one or two companies, I would use antitrust law very aggressively as a check and balance against their power. Right now, we have a very competitive market. We have five frontier labs competing very aggressively.

“As long as the market is competitive, I would use that because I think competition generates”

the best outcomes and helps us win against China, but it also protects the population because these companies, if they get out of line, there's some competitor that can offer something better. Consumers can opt out of it if they don't trust each other, if they can use antitropic, or if they don't trust antitropic, they can go to a grock.

So you had the number one rated talk at the All In Summit in history, 851 miles. You have been famously against regulatory capture. In light of the pop scommens of, hey, regulating, what do you think is common sense because AI is everything. AI can help people make bio weapons.

It can also help people get their term paper in or do, you know, be a better salesperson at, you know, oracle. Like, we're talking about paper, like we're talking about oxygen here. This is like a fundamental horizontal technology. So where do you think there is a case to regulating AI, if at all, and where do you think,

hey, yeah, free market will figure it out. Well, I have, I have two takes, one on the pope and one on antitropic. So you're question. You're question.

Which one's going to be powerful?

Let's go with the more. Let's go with the more. Let's go. Let's go. Let's go with the more.

Let's go with the more. Let's go. Let's go.

and cyclical was was mirrored after one done by Leo the 13th and 1891 and he invoked that he even said he chose the name because he's so enamored with Leo the 13th. Leo the 13th and cyclical warned that the industrial revolution was going to be bad for people. So let me tell you what happened from 1891 till today.

The work we went from over 60 hours to 34 hours globally. Real wages went up 8 to 10 acts adjusted for inflation. The media worker now earns more than a doctor did in 1891. Global GDP per capita went from 1500 to 20k. Child labor in the US went from 18% to 0.

Workpilly deaths fell by 40 acts. Life expectancy went up 60% and global poverty went from 75% of humanity to under 10%. All those things happened because of technology, innovation and capitalism, which is exactly what Leo the 13th was warning against.

So he got it dead wrong. He got the whole thing precisely wrong. So it's an interesting thing to say you're borrowing from. Yeah. So now on to comments.

Yeah, anthropic and just comment sense around, do you think there how would you regulate

“and/or protect against, maybe we'll broad in the term here?”

Protect against, no fair issues of the technology. Obviously we all want children to be protected. We want to have truth and honesty in terms of facts and all of us sharing some basic truths. And we obviously don't want people using this technology for bio weapons and the terminator

scenario. I have to tell you that anthropic is a mystery to me.

I've never ever seen a company that is both leading their field and the most negatively

outspoken commenter on what they do. I've just never seen it. And my initial theory was the regulatory capture theory that they just want to ensure there's regulation. And quite frankly, I think they're very close to achieving that.

They have stirred up a panic, but position, especially in America, American consumers are definitely afraid of AI.

“I think I've talked to you guys in the past about the book that Jonathan Heights written”

about social media. And there's a whole bunch of state legislators that think we should have regulated social media. And so now they're destined to want to get in front of it. And we know that anthropics, one of the most aggressive lobbying companies, start-ups

of all time. You know, the amount of effort that they're putting in the amount of money is state-by-state basis.

So that was always my first theory.

But then they just, they got so loud that I've literally in the past 30 days read everything I can about anthropic. And I've come up with a new theory, this is my new breaking theory. I call it the Dr. Frankenstein theory. You remember when Elon had that conversation with Larry Page where Larry called us literally

sitting next to him when he called the explainer story real quick? Well, we're at birthday party. And Elon was like, listen, humanity needs to be protected from the stuff at DeepMind, because at DeepMind, they had an example of the AI having tried to break out to jailbreak out of its computer and not be turned off and had some sentience or some inkling of sentience.

And he said, you know, we have to protect the human species.

“And he said, well, Larry said, well, what do you think?”

That's species, because you care about the human species over AI. This is at least 15 years ago. No, this is right before Elon co-founded, uh, open AI rise back to that scene before that. 15 or something. The actual story here is, Elon had Elon and Google had backed Demis in the team at DeepMind

when they were an independent company, then Elon was like, oh, my God, Google is going to buy this and remember having the conversation with Elon about this. We have to figure out a way for DeepMind not to go to Google. We have to block this somehow and he begged those folks to not sell to Google because Google was running the table on everything and he wanted this technology to be independent and he was

on the board of the company. And he also said this was his motivation to launch open AI.

And on Google, God, and he said, we, this is this technology is too powerful for anyone

person. So like once again, you got to give Elon a lot of credit. He saw the writing on the wall. If one person can, and he saw 15, 20 years ago, and him and Sam Harris used to debate this over dinner, you know, what happens if somebody controls this and they run away with it?

It would be extremely dangerous. It has to be available to all the people. Essentially, the Pope's position, it has to be in the service of humanity, not ruled

It's far too powerful.

“So the reason I call this the Dr. Frankenstein theory is the more I dig.”

I've met people who I dare say, think it's their responsibility and they're excited

about building a species that's superior to humans. And I would just encourage people to read, you know, as much as they can about anthropic Crisola worked on this thing called the Constitution. It's about 80 pages. It's hard to get through.

But I would encourage you to read it. Amanda Askel, who is the chief philosopher, started doing podcasts. I would encourage you to listen to him and listen to it, language. And then Dario wrote this blog post called Machines of Loving Grace. Yes.

And it was based on a poem, and a poem is kind of weird. We should put a link to the poem, it's quite short. But the last stand of the poem says, I'd like to think of a cybernetic ecology where we are free of our labors and join back to nature, return to our mammal brothers and sister. I don't know what that means.

Like we're going to go live in the fields where the mammals live, and then the kicker and all watched over by Machines of Loving Grace sounds like overlord to me. And then in Dario's post, he says, near the end, and it's very long. You read it. I mean, Machines of Loving Grace is very long, but he's talking about in the future

what are humans going to do, because he believes in the massive abundance in UBI, and we won't have to work. I don't believe in any of those things, but he does. And then he says, it could be a capitalist economy of AI systems, which then give out resources to humans based on some secondary economy of what the AI systems think makes

sense to reward in humans. So that's envisioning a deity of sorts that's going to break ties and to serve decide what humans do. It's a computational reward function for humans. It decides how much you're worth.

Yeah, so I don't think they think they're running software.

“But I think they're mid-wifing a deity here, and I don't know which one I'm more afraid”

of, the regulatory capture or the second theory I call the doctor Frankenstein theory. It's more scary to me. I think the second thing. These are dilutions of Granchor. Let's call it what it is.

They believe that they are so intelligent. I know some of these folks, the Burning Man sort of offshoot of it, transhumanism.

They believe that they're so powerful, these individuals, that they can create God.

And that by creating God, they are like this promethias kind of species. It literally is the ultimate level of narcissism and delusion of Granger to think you can create God. And that then the God you create, like you're saying, Bill, is going to be so benevolent and perfect.

You constructed the perfect God that will give you your pellet, will give you your little skinarian. I just would correct you. I didn't say it. Darios.

Right. But do you have a point of like just taking them out there word? They actually believe that they can create God, and that they'll create a God so good that it's better than humanity, it's actually your thoughts. Well, I guess the question then is why are they pushing for the, let's call it right

capture agenda, where... I know why. Go ahead. That is very reductive game theory.

“So, if you want to be unexploitable, I think the best thing that you could do if you're”

trying to build a super God is have three or four entities in a room close the door behind you and then dominate those other three or four entities and then you set the rules. And because your counterparty is unable to track at the level of technical capability that you would have, you create this massive asymmetry that allows you to exploit them. That's just simple game theory optimization.

And you know what Bill said is so powerful. I've read these things and it's laborious and it takes time, but every time they put these things out, just take the time to read it. And what I have said before, Bill, I don't know your point of view on this, but I initially thought that this is mostly game theory that a lot of their reactions, I thought were less

rooted in their dogmatic beliefs and more rooted in a GTO approach to either raising capital or putting pressure on competitors. Either way, both could be true what your framing is in my framing, although mine's more tactical than yours to be fair.

Because I've always thought that these moves make sense through that lens.

How do you absorb most of the capital? How then do you make sure that you are in a position to disproportionately affect the rules and how do you create an oversight body that is less capable and intellectually aware

Because referee is don't understand the game, right? If the refstone understand the game, you'll run over the game. Yeah, right.

“By the way, one thing they have achieved by doing this is I think that if you pulled the”

outlet, let's just call it the intellectual elite, so everyone in the media and what not and the professors and all those, and they were to rank the different AI players by who they think is most caring.

I think they probably put an anthropic first because they've been out with the doomerism talk.

And so it's given them a halo with the people that may matter to what they want to accomplish. It's simultaneously creating a lot of trouble. With the data centers and whatnot, like there's negative RAM with K. What you're saying is so important because on the one hand, they create empathy and then they write these documents that expose what they think. And nobody actually connects the dots.

Yeah, to steal man their position for a second, I mean, I think probably the way they think about it is that they are creating something very powerful, something God like.

And therefore it needs to be safe. And that they hear the most about that out of everybody, nobody else takes this seriously.

“Remember that anthropic was basically a spin out of open AI and they felt that Sam and the company leadership weren't taking their point of view seriously enough.”

It was the most woke portion of open AI. Well, let's not say no, we're still manning. Yeah, we're certainly in for a second, so they see the power of it. There are the ones who were concerned about safety and they care the most and therefore they're in the best position. To do that.

Now, I think the issue is just you can see how this can lead to recapture, right, which is if you brand yourself as the safe AI company and then try to characterize everybody else as a reckless player. And reckless AI needs to be stopped. You can see how this would basically further your monopolistic control over this industry. And if you see AI through the lens that, you know, the really frankly, the Pope and I see it, which is centralization versus decentralization, I do think that is, you know, one of the key lenses we should have on the technology is whether you want this to be a centralized or decentralized technology.

“This way of viewing the world leads to more centralization and I think that's dangerous.”

I mean, if AI is this very powerful technology, I think it needs to be decentralized so that

all of us can protect ourselves to some degree, right, we need to build a run, we need to run the AI ourselves on our own hardware. If we so choose, so we're not beholden to a single company that might be in bed with a deep state. Let's say at a very pointedly, if benefits and compensation and economic support were all of a sudden tied to some algorithmic decision, this is a dystopian episode of Black Mirror that we're dealing with. And to your point, Sax, you want 100 or 1000 or 100,000 versions of what that answer is so that there's actually a way to refute a singular answer, a singular answer to these kinds of questions, which is effectively what some folks would want is incredibly dangerous.

And this is something that is in control, I think of humanity. I've been talking about AI sovereignty here for a bit, just in terms of how much more cost effective it is and how you're not training other people's AI's with your knowledge and your insights. This is why it's super important that open source, open source agents and local hardware be able to run these models and that consumers and companies learn how to roll their own language models. How to make a small language model and SML, a VSML, a vericlyse one and run it on your Apple hardware because Apple actually has taken a principle approach historically to your sovereignty for your data data sovereignty, is it?

Yes, and now we're intelligent sovereignty, the intelligence sovereignty is different than privacy privacy is, oh, if you can't see my photos, you can't, you know, peek into my notes app and what I wrote there on my journal. Now, intelligence sovereignty is you can't tell me what to think, you can't use your AI to analyze my photos to analyze my emails to analyze my messages and tell me how to interpret the world. That's actually going to be the next key piece, or this is why I think Apple is just the dark horse in this entire race, if there is an open source product that can run on this hardware, the M5's, you know, 48 gigs, 128 gigs, the student new max studio coming out with supposedly a terabyte.

That changes the whole game, and this is so paradoxical bill that are adversary, the Chinese of all people, the Communist Party is leading the open source movement. And the United States, well, no, it's centralizing, they're leading the open weight movement.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Look, Jacob, I agree with you about the importance of open source because open source means software freedom. You can run the program yourself on your own hardware, you don't have to share, you don't have to give up your data sovereignty, you don't have to give up your privacy to again to some monopolist who's going to be, you know, in bed with the government or the deep state, right? So that's the thing we're all afraid of. And if that's the only AI that's available is from the, you know, monopoly or duopoly, then your choices are to live off the grid and not participate in the modern economy or give up control, right, to some social credit system.

“So I think the open source is really important. And by the way, that was Elon's instinct in creating open AI, he was afraid that Google was going to monopolized AI. So he's like, let's create open AI so that it's not dominated by a single company.”

But that, that is, I think the right answer here is I know people want to, I think they're instinct to the idea of powerful AI is to clamp down and just control it.

But actually, you have to have multiple players. That's the only way you're going to be protected is is to have multiple players. This next wave of the market evolution, I think is going to be extremely high stakes in messy neck just throw this up because I just want these guys to react to it. So this is a company that I just ran into on X called Rogo and what they did was they created a test bench in a set of e-balls to be a financial analyst essentially and tested all of the frontier models. And it was so interesting because they summarized I read their paper that they published and I quoted the most interesting part because I see it everywhere now across all e-balls, which is this one phrase, there is no single best model anymore.

But the top of the leaderboard, Opus47, GPT55, Sonnet46, appear almost indistinguishable.

Separated by less than in this case, you know, three tenths of a percentage point overall, read superficially the results suggest convergence, three frontier systems reaching roughly the same level of capability. Okay, why is that interesting? Well, you got trillions of dollars going into each of these guys to try to create these next superbrain. Increasingly are existing set of e-balls and are existing capabilities when applied on these models roughly produce the same thing, which theoretically says that these things are getting commoditized way too quickly.

And then you'd say, well, what's the ROI on all this incremental spend, which is a very interesting economic and investment question.

“So I don't know, like, girly, what do you think happens if these e-balls continue to asymptote and we need more and more and more money for training?”

Some of the smarter people in the open source community have suggested to me that we need more open source connectors of types. So MCP is actually run by the Linux foundation. And if you think about any surface area where a model might interact with other software, the more of those connectors that can be open source and commoditized, it would low. This is what Google did with Kubernetes to try and commoditize where workflows live off of AWS and to make it easy to migrate. And so the more you can create systems that make that type of exchange, you just describe super easy so that you can plug and play the model.

And you have to worry about things like context and how does context come in and data and, you know, stuff that like clean and data bricks do but had anyway, if you can do that, if you can create more of those connectors like that, then the models become swappable. And certainly with the mobile, the model companies trying to move up the stack, you have massive desire from the app player players to try and figure this out. And we already, you know, live quick cursors doing and playing with their own model and being forced to kind of reckon with the fact that they're coming up to stack fast.

So I think that's a really good insight that this gentleman shared with me and I think the founders and developers that are out there should work on more of these interfaces and throw them into the open source world just to make it more changeable, swappable.

“Is there an issue right now with we don't have a good harness for open source?”

I mean, the way that, like, clawed is a harness for open or part of it. Yeah, there's people making open source versions of this are building companies around harnessing and building the integrations into it. But open source is always like the last to build the fit and finish around the product. They focus on the core of the product, right? So like Linux for your desktop never really took off because the interface was never polished the UI was never like perfect. But there are companies building that and I'll just I'll show you one company that we invested in. This is a company called Abicus and they had a very simple idea. They came up with their own hardware stack. They came up with their own platform and now they are sold out of these boxes that they're building for insurance health care and everybody wants to run AI inside their organization and then start building their own models. We actually incubated this in our incubator.

Savvy these organizations are getting in trouble. You're doing it with 80 and 90 as well, I think, where they're just like we have to build headless products so that we don't get locked into. Any one provider whenever we go into the Fortune 1000, we never compete with open AI or anthropic. They'll have a preference sometimes of what they want to see under the hoods or control plane can basically hot swap as Bill said between one or the other.

“We've also started to lay the seeds for open source and open weights.”

But the reason is because they don't want to be tied into one of these critical frontier labs. They want to be able to ride the wave of innovation.

But they're afraid of two things. They're afraid that one technology leap frogs the other too quickly for them to participate and they pick the wrong one. And the second thing that they're increasingly afraid of is terms of service and being at the sake of a frontier lab in the political philosophy that they may be in the crosshairs of accidentally. Right. So you're a hospital system in Canada. You support the youths and Asia laws in Canada, but this frontier model in America says, no, can't do it. So now we shut you off. Right. That's an an example.

I'm not saying one is right or wrong. It's just to illustrate the case. So a lot of the folks that we see now in the Fortune 1000, increasingly the global 1000. They want as girly satisfaction above it. They want to sit a Saxon in a control plane. They want to see be at this level. And they want to have the flexibility because they don't know how it's going to shake out. They see all the money being invested at the model layers, but they see the model quality asymptote.

“So they're like, wait a minute. What are we supposed to do just from a risk perspective?”

And regular regulated industries are particularly sensitive to these kind of issues you're bringing up the huge, hugely sensitive. And so if you just follow what finance, healthcare, you know, and those kind of folks are doing. They're just like, this has to be on prem. And they're very concerned about a data leak and they're very concerned about hip-a-compliance. They're very concerned about training a model like what if, you know, all of a sudden somebody does, you know, a query or a right's a prompt.

And it pulls some information from that Canadian healthcare system and all of a sudden somebody gets a result. And if that sounds far, so go.

Member stable diffusion. No, no, no, no, no, no. You're on getting on getting images. And all of a sudden, the getty image watermark was in the output. Like look to be system you see anthropic and open AI in all of these fortune 1000s at the developer layer. Because most of the developers have their own credit cards. They're allowed to sign up for them. You eventually wrap them in an enterprise license. So it's a typical PLG led market motion like we saw it's flat. We've seen it everywhere. The interesting thing is not that, but it's the unwind that happens then when you have these huge licenses, you have these huge buckets of spend.

You can't really take and tie it together. The CEOs then wake up and are told by the CFO, hey, FYI, here's where we are Uber was one example a second. I don't know Nick, if you have this tweet, but from Vivek Garpali, the founder of Clover, yeah, this was just yesterday overheard from a fortune 20 company CEO asked for

a billion in AI generated op-ex savings at the beginning of the year. So we're six months in. The team has spent $200 million on tokens and with minimal results.

And so now they're in this weird motion now where the CEO is pulling the budget back and now you're having to cut the licenses. You just saw Microsoft announced that they're killing the cloud licenses. It's a super dynamic market right now. And I don't think we know what the terminal solution looks like. And by the way, I would add plot is really good at product, like plot for example, is better than copilot by not by a little by a lot. By a lot. And so, you know, anyone that's going to run against them, they are a worthy foe, I should say.

“Yeah, but I think I think cloud is exceptional, by the way. I mean, I use it every day yesterday. I hit my token limit on my pro plan.”

I had to put in my credit card, spend another couple thousand bucks. And I'm like, I was so angry, but I did it because it's so good. Yeah. Yeah. Good sex, drop us up here. Yeah, so well, just to wrap up, we just connect a couple ideas. So one is that in terms of the red capture agenda that you're seeing in Washington. I think where it's all leading to is an effort to ban open source models or open wave models.

There's a lot of outcomes leading here. I think people who want this are being a little bit circumspect, they don't feel like they're quite there in terms of being able to just apply. Can you explain it? Sure. You look at a lot of the rhetoric around how models you have guardrails and that with open source models, the guardrails can be removed and therefore they're dangerous. You see this rhetoric already in an anthropics blog post. So any threat that they describe, they kind of go out of their way to take that shot at open source models.

I mean, I've seen that type of language repeatedly that open models lack guardrails or the guardrails can be taken off and therefore it's a problem.

“And I think again, they're trying to create ideas or put predicate facts in the public record to justify an action later on.”

And I think it's just a matter of time before they feel like they're at a position where maybe they can push for that type of ban directly. They're not quite there yet. But what does that do then to the rest of the market like let's just say America bands open source and open weight? Okay, well, what about the rest of the world? I mean, they're also just going to, sure it'll put a leap for August.

Sure, you'll put the U.S. on an island. Well, first of all, as we all know, what does it mean to ban an open weight model? It's a file.

It's a bunch of numbers that you can run on. Yeah, good laptop. Yeah. But what it will do is you think about like all the cloud service providers who run open models like they will stop doing that because they got to comply with the law. And so all this infrastructure that's been built up. It will get much harder to use open models in the United States. Now, the rest of the world will continue to benefit from them because there's a tremendous benefit in terms of cost and customization and control that you get with an open model.

And we're on a completely different price curve when we haven't talked about this yet. There was an economic and capital mode to training that is going away. It's going away in two ways. One is because we're getting these domain specific architectures at the Silicon layer.

And then second, we're rebuilding all of the core components.

I don't know if you guys saw yesterday, but Elon was like, we've written the entire training complex and see. And it said, order magnitude increase and we can run it on 220,000 GPUs at the scale of what they're trying to do. Those kinds of innovations are going to make the cost of model training.

“So much cheaper that it's like, why would we stick to the ten billion dollar training runs when we can have the ten million dollar training runs?”

Well, I've got one percent better just as a thought experiment. Nick, can you find Elon's job? Yeah, this is another one. Okay, if it got one percent better, that's the equivalent of two thousand GPUs, which is the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars in compute. So every one percent equals hundreds of millions in compute.

If you get 10 percent, 20 percent more efficient every quarter every look at this.

This month, the speed improvement, the speed improvement versus jacks for training runs is now over an order of magnitude. When you think about then the capex build out the opx, the power, the cabling, the copper, all of it. And now, this is a closed source model, but I'm pretty sure that just that tweet is going to get read by enough people where there's going to be five or six open source. Stacks for training that are rebuilt closest to the bare metal is possible. Yeah.

Why wouldn't you do that now? And so to your point, Sachs, having that off so that we lose that kind of innovation makes no sense to me. I agree. And like I said, I don't know that the forces who want to ban open source are strong enough or have made the case or created the predicate facts necessary yet to ban open source. But I do think it is on the agenda, and it's where all the bread come trails are leading. So just watch out for that.

I agree totally with with David just said, and I wrote a blog post recently on open source and and made the exact same. I read that too. That was the question. That's on above the crowd. No, it's not a fact. It's not a fact. It's not a fact.

It's a fact. It's the P3 and it's the P3 and it's my new and anyway, same exact conclusion, which is rest of the world ends up running on Chinese models. If if if they're able to succeed, if were you just said,

“and if you want to know the canary in the coal mines, that's obviously the place they love regulation most is the EU.”

So EU has already done volley after volley of proposed regulation for AI and open an open source is particularly in the crosses there because nobody's in charge of it. So are you going to get a bunch of open source contributors having to vet their model with the EU regulators like this obviously not going to happen. I mean, these in charge of it, there's just a bunch of contributors, but open source is the solution, I think, too. Yes, I agree. And it is the backstop.

It is the backstop. I mean, unless you want to live off the grid, I mean, if you want to participate in the modern economy, it is the backstop. And let me just make one other final point that kind of maybe leads into our next topic is I do think that there is the potential for the monopolization of this market to greater degree than people may be pricing in right now. Now, first of all, we've seen that every other major tech category has led to a monopoly or doopoly situation seems to be the way that these things work out.

There's an article in the information showing the latest numbers where I think in the topics now, they seem to have pulled away from open AI, which is not surprising.

“And something I predicted, look, if you have one company that's growing at 10X year over a year and another company that's growing at 3X year over year within two years, the first company will have 90% market share.”

This is the power of compounding, right, is to do the math on it. 10 times 10 is 100, 3 times 3 is 9. So, again, if you just are able to outgrow your competitor at that rate for two years, you will achieve anopoly market share. Now, there are reasons to believe that anthropic cannot continue that growth rate for two years. There's going to be a competitive response, it's already happened.

Also, there may not be enough compute to support that kind of growth and maybe physical constraints.

But you would always rather be the company that has that inertia that's on that total trajectory than the one that has to do something different to then knock that leader off its current trajectory.

You guys see what just hit the wire? Nick, can you throw it out from polymarket? This is insanity. Polymarket puts out there that an AI consultant revealed that one of their clients accidentally spent half a billion dollars in a single month after failing to set employee limits on clock to you. Look at this. Look, the 16.6 million per day is almost 700,000 per hour. Oh my god. Well, there seems to be there seems to be a new like meme taking shape. That's somehow like all this token spend is is wasteful and basically useless.

And, you know, we're constantly oscillating between narratives like AI is going to put everyone out of work to like AI is useless.

And it's a bubble. The Doomers can't seem to make up their minds whether AI is going to be our new god or whether it's basically a total waste of money and it's going to lead to a bust.

“But in any event, yeah, I think, you know, there's no question that token efficiency is going to be a big theme over the next year because the spend has been ramping up way faster than enterprise customer's thought.”

And there's going to be a drive for efficiency. Does that fundamentally change the dynamics? I don't think so, but it might, you know, might temper the growth to some degree. Well, and they've done a tremendous job making people believe that tokens are free by giving them these crazy deals like $20 a month. You can do whatever you want $200 a month. You can do whatever you want. And it's like, everybody's leaving the hose on everybody's watering and then you can avoid it says you've hit your usage and it's like come back at 230 and like 230 it's 1030. I can't do anything between 1030 and 230 and 230 and then it says, well, you can put in your credit card and so I did.

Yeah, but it means it's literally like the first the first 10,000 gallons of water are free basically and then all of a sudden it's like, oh, it's a penny a gallon and then

everybody in the organization and this is literally happening in our organization. One person built like an interface for the founder university program. Another person built one that another person was like, well, those two people got credit at the management team meeting. So I'm going to build an interface. The next person builds an interface and then everybody shipping. Like interfaces and I literally had three different people on the team make three different versions of like a founder university portal and I'm like, we don't need three can we get coordinated here and it didn't get to the point of like spending thousands of dollars, but it certainly got to the point of spending hundreds of dollars and we would have gotten to tens of thousands.

Are we still in the first topic? What do we do?

“We kind of merge like two of them together. Oh, we did. Okay. And it's super interesting. Trust me. A super interesting. I think what girly said is one of the most interesting things I have heard”

In a long time, take people by their word and if you read their words if you're just read their words and what they're saying, you don't have to guess about why they want to have a digital God. Well, now I'm not the sharpest. I'm not the sharpest arrow in the quiver, but I can take down a buck and I can tell you that this don't make a lot of sense to me, even the dullest arrow can take a buck go. All right. Let's get back to it. It's so great. You're here. Well, we missed you. I got you. I got you. We missed you, brother.

We're going transition to the next topic. There is some evidence that Dario is mitigating his doomer rhetoric. Yes, let me get to it. Yeah. Yeah. Got to it here. All right. We got to have to talk for the 16th time in the last 18 months about AI's impact on labor. Because again, this chaotic schizophrenic interpretation of the data continues. Cloud fair as we talked about last week, shout out Matt Prince. Oh, let it's chamats favorites. Yeah, 11 to a year letter of the year letter of the year. He cuts 20% of the word for the letter of the year 1100 making friends every week. You're on the program.

So they both blamed AI explicitly and specifically and suck. Then paired his 8,000 cuts at meta with the fact that he has put spyware on everybody's laptop to study every employee.

But on the other side of the table, Goldman Sachs is CEO David Solomon wrote and op ed in the New York Times. I'm the CEO of Goldman Sachs period.

“The AI job apocalypse is overblown period. Obviously, he might be fighting for that anthropic or open AI IPO in the coming months or maybe is doing right now.”

He made three points. AI will eliminate 25% of jobs. It's going to automate 25% of work hours and workers will fill that time with higher level tasks. Obviously, that didn't happen in the case of Zuckerberg layoffs. Just because a job can be replaced doesn't mean it will be bank towers increased after ATMs live entertainment became more popular after TV and the US labor market creates and destroys 25 to 35 million jobs annually. And the gross turn warfs net losses. New categories like agentic AI management or already hiring yada yada yada.

A publication called fortune is apparently still publishing AI Slop and they say both salmon and Dario have walked back their AI job apocalypse predictions as they gear up for an IPO. Sachs have added, you know, you've been saying in your prediction was you took the other side. Hey, we're going to create more jobs. There was a recent one of the job boards put out some stats that the number of software jobs is going up the number of listings. Another job is going down. So I guess you were probably in the camp of creative destruction and turn at this point, sex.

“Well, I think you should be giving me more credit than that because my most contrarian take back in January on our prediction show is that AI would lead to job gains not job loss.”

And over the past week, you've now seen the narrative shift. I'd say almost completely towards that position. So you have the CEO of Goldman Sachs writing this in the New York Times. You know, I don't think he'd be doing that if he felt like he was completely stepping out in the limb. Maybe even more importantly, you had Sam and even Dario now walking back their claims of massive job loss. And they explained why Dario said it's kind of like the 25% of work hours thing. He said that AI might automate away 90% of someone's task, but the other 10% will expand to do a whole bunch of new new tasks and new things, which is very similar to the types of arguments that people like me have been saying.

And actually that Jensen's been saying that just because you automate away some tasks doesn't mean that you automate away the purpose of a job. And now the workers freed up to do new things to do the higher complexity tasks that David saw him in the Goldman CEO is talking about.

So the fact that Dario is now walking this back and coming around to my position, I think that that's kind of amazing.

And where do I go to get my apology, you know? Well, we're going to have an official apology for that you can fill out. It's got check boxes. I was wrong. There's some mornings I woke up thinking, why am I going out defending these guys, you know, these idiots? I mean they're scaring the public with all these dire predictions about an apocalyptic future. There was no data to support that. I mean, we can all debate what's going to happen in the future and we probably should be humble about what is going to happen in the future because we don't completely know.

“And this industry is very dynamic, but you have to look at what is the data that we have so far in the current situation.”

And we do not see data that supports massive job loss. You can cite this layoff for that layoff, Jake out. Those are anecdotes and the plural of anecdotes is not data. If you look at the actual data like Yale budget lab did, they said no discernible disruption in the labor market in the last three years. So to AI, they've done a comprehensive study. You look at job postings for software engineers. It's up 15% year over year. They're job postings for software developers having it a new three year high.

Despite the fact that coding is the single breakout use case of AI this year. So if AI has not paused job elimination for software developers, what category has it caused? I mean, code is now the number one use case, I think of AI in the enterprise. Okay. Let's be honest. Over the last five or ten years, a lot of companies over hired. They miss hired. These CEOs did not have a good handle on it. Their opx budgets completely got bloated inflated and they need to sort of get back to where they were get back to a fighting weight.

And let's this old adage of never, never waste a crisis. Never let a good crisis go to waste exactly. And so they point to this thing.

Nobody is standing there and saying, look at my filing. Here is the lift that I have got nobody has said that yet. That's very important to observe.

“And so instead what people are doing is realizing, okay, I have discovered now to go and clean up what was very poor management and mismanagement over the last five and ten years where I over hired an I miss hired. That's what's happening today.”

Okay, Bill Gurley, I'm going to let you chime in here. You've got two besties saying, hey, this is all hogwash. It's AI washing these jobs were just, you know, the strategy obviously in Silicon Valley was to hire. They need to skip go. They hired two years ahead of time, build for the future and it was a vanity metric and you were blocking talent from working on other startups or competitors. That's the strategy.

Wait, wait, wait, you just said the critical thing. That is exactly why they did it.

Yes, that was the explicit strategy. These guys were a washing cash and so part of it is you were just hoarding talent or what you thought was talent. Yes, and just keeping them off the market. And now you're jettising in it because reality is as companies get bigger, their growth rates, monotonically decrease and you get to like a GDP plus some number. And your valuation frameworks change and there's nothing you can do to fight that log gravity in the public markets. And so as each of these CEOs who at some point thought they were different and the rules didn't apply to them are now realizing you're just like everybody else.

Okay, we have to stay humble as Sach said, but Bill Gurley, would you like to apologize for Sachs and or give him credit for his incredible non consensus. He wasn't the one promoting the jobs of public. You're the hardest.

You're always representing the legacy media on our show, J. Cal, you're the new your blue hair just giving you the statistics guys.

“I'm just presenting the numbers. Now let's remember anecdotes. Let's remember the me give you an important statistic. Let me give you a real girl.”

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. This is really hard. We have to let Bill Gurley comment then you can. I don't really want to get a real important. Do you use catarmy. I don't use catarmy. That's the terrible drug. Do not use catarmy and folks. Bill Gurley, you have the floor. So it would just touch on two things that I already said earlier. One, you know, historically innovation has led to more prosperity for humans. And I gave those numbers from 1891 to today.

I see no reason why that won't happen here. In the short run from a bottom up perspective, every human that wants to protect themselves needs to be the most AI enabled version of themselves. They can be. And the people that might be at threat of job loss are someone who stands hard, fast and refuses to use AI. And I would just say that's simply like saying, I'm not going to use email. I'm not going to use a spreadsheet. I'm not going to use a computer and then, you know, you probably are at risk.

Yeah, the paradigm will shift to give you actually my position, which is always.

“Would you like me to get my position and just want to do that?”

But I don't have to finish that point. So, but I can do that for you. Yeah. So I will give my position on this, which is there. And it's always been the same, which is there is going to be a massive job displacement that occurs. And that massive job displacement is going to come because CEOs in many cases believe that this technology is going to make people more efficient. They can do more with less and they will be rewarded by the public market by just having higher earnings. And we see that for every single company. Now, I fully concur. It was because of bloating and I gave my position there. I know specifically that Sergey and Larry took that strategy of taking talent off the market.

So there wasn't a global competitor. That was literally explained to me by those individuals. We hire people and then we figure out what to do with them later. That strategy just became the standard in Silicon Valley and now it's being reversed. Now, there will be wholesale jobs that will be retired. If you look at self-driving, that's obviously happening with Waymo with 3,000 vehicles and there'll be many more on the roads.

That job will be eliminated. We will be sitting here in, but five, ten years and the idea of somebody driving a taxi is going to seem silly and dangerous. We will see the same exact thing happen with optimists. You may have seen the figure robots sorting packages. All those sorting jobs at Amazon factories are going away. Amazon themselves. These are the Saviour's people in the world said we are going to eliminate 600,000 future positions and we are going to cut positions. And Andy Jassie said, this is going to be a reoccurring theme. As we deploy AI, we will do more with less.

And you can take the position sacks that, oh my god, the numbers are in my favor. They're not. The numbers are in my favor.

“The job loss is tremendous and there are numbers associated with that 8,000 people at meta after 20,000 before that.”

And if you look at the steady state of these companies, there's nothing to do with AI. Let me finish over higher. No, we are beyond that. They are now getting rid of people. When they say they're cutting rid of measures, you can take them out their word. When they say they're getting rid of middle managers. You can take them on their washing and scapegoat.

That is you've given your position already. I'm giving my my position is they are obsessed with this technology. They're obsessed with earnings and they will continue that now on the other side of the ledger. I believe we'll have a Cambrian explosion and startups and all these this talent if they embrace the tools to build girl is point are going to be able to solve more problems and create small companies or five or ten people who are laid off from Amazon or meta and make. Double their salary or have a better job that they control. I believe that is going to be the ultimate solution, but that transition is going to be extremely painful.

And we should have some humility on this fucking podcast for the people impacting. Every cab drivers lose in their job. Every truck drivers lose in their job in the next ten years. Anybody sorting packages will use the job then you can say all you want from up. You can say all you want from up that those people don't want those jobs, but they may need those jobs. And you are in a leadest by definition. We are all a leadest on this program. We are elite performers and people lose their jobs and they may not get a job very quickly by being able to call something what we think it is.

He's not being a leadest. It's actually telling the truth meta over higher. Okay. You could have stopped the company at 3000 people when I left and it would not have changed the outcome of that company.

There was no need to go to 90,000 people and burn 50 billion dollars on VR.

They did it because they had the freedom to do it. That's allowed. It's capitalism. Okay. They're coming back to realize that there is a more efficient version of what they are.

“That is nothing to do with AI. That's the only point I'm trying to make. All you have to do is just say that.”

I think you're wrong and let me explain to you why you're wrong. I believe you're wrong. I believe Zuckerberg is putting that software on people's computers in order to find more jobs to eliminate to increase it. And the surface area problems in the world is not decreasing, but what is decreasing is the number of humans to take on the next opportunity. And that's going to continue. And I think the companies that will be rewarded and their stock prices we rewarded are the ones who do much more with much less.

And they're going to keep eliminating these jobs. And I take them at their word. You don't have to explain everything with conspiracy. Maybe they just mismanaged for a period. I agree. I agree.

We've already have done that. I think that explains the post COVID two or three years. I think what we're seeing this year is actually the tools working. The tools are working. And there are jobs that are no longer needed. The measures as Matthew Prince pointed out or product managers or designers.

Those have all been consolidated into one job. Somebody who ships a product. And it doesn't require well people. It requires two people now. I know things that's been consolidated. I see it in four to a thousand companies all the time.

I don't think what they're saying is true. You're talking about the slowest adopters. I'm on these aren't lying. These are all these are where all the jobs are. But I'm sorry, but a startup is not going to go into a regulated market and put JP Morgan out of business.

Not going to happen. They will eventually. Displace those. Not going to happen. Not going to happen.

We're going to agree to disagree. Good luck to the startup trying to disrupt Boeing. Good luck. I'm going to take Boeing. Okay.

Well, some people might take SpaceX. So good luck making drugs out of it in Excel spreadsheet. I'll take the regulated farm of company. Good luck, sure. Listen, there are some injuries that are so much bigger.

“And you're going to show up at the FDA and like, okay, where's your team?”

Oh, she's me. I do it all. Come here. Don't look at this. You joke.

Somebody just did that and it's not a joke. It's not a joke and it's not going to happen because that's not the way society wants safety, predictability, governance, auditability to work. Yeah. There's a distinct difference between, you know, drugs and software and services in the world.

I think we can agree on that. And listen, a regular with truck driving is one of the most regulated industries out there. So it's cab driving in taxis as Bill and I will know. And those jobs are being eliminated. Bill, I'm going to give you the final words.

Then Sacks, I'll give you the second one.

Let's do this. Okay. Sacks then Bill. Go. Well, first of all, Jacob, you remind me of the trust ski I who went confronted with the fact that none of

Trotsky's predictions had come true. Said that that's simply proved how far-sighted Trotsky was. I didn't go to graduate to other words. He didn't even know the rest of the words. None of your predictions about job loss have come true.

>> It's not in that you're calling 8,000 people losing their jobs in anecdote.

“>> You don't know that is you. >> It's not in anecdote. 8,000 people lost their [bleep]”

>> I heard you about the homemade data point. First of all, those jobs that job loss was not directly attributable to AI.

It just wasn't. That's something you've invented and put in the data. >> They suck or burn sand. >> No, they clarified that. >> Okay. >> He said it was related to they were trying to balance additional spending capex, but it was not directly related to AI. But even if it were, even if it were 100% of the case that was due to AI, you're not netting those jobs against all the other jobs.

They're being created because of AI and all the new companies that are being created right now because of AI. >> So you're just cherry picking one statistic. You're attributing 100% of that to AI. And then you're not basely netting it and presenting about you. >> I'm not cherry picking it. I'm reading the news and I'm describing what the CEO said. Jack had blocks said he's doing this because of AI. Matthew Prince said it's AI.

>> Okay. >> Zuckerberg said it's AI. >> One is taking them on their word. >> Yes, exactly. So Jack Dorsey came out and said that he was going to do a 50% elimination. Because of AI. Okay. And within 24 hours, all the financial analysts on X said that Jack was AI-washing. And that block had horribly over-staffering COVID. It was running much more inefficiently than all of its other peers in this category.

And they needed to do a 50% job cut for a long time. So pretty much everyone thought that was pure AI-washing. In fact, you've just proven my point. And what exactly are the efficiencies that Jack is getting? I mean, this is the most hand-wavy thing ever that, oh, we're just magically going to be able to eliminate half our cost structure right now. >> Okay. So Jack, Matthew Prince, Zuckerberg, and Andy Jassie are all lying and doing Awashing.

>> I did not say Awashing. >> I did not say Awashing. >> This was due to AI. He just didn't. That's your reading of it. But like I said, even if you attribute those specific job losses to AI, which is questionable, you're not netting it against all the job creation that's happening. And also the new company creation furthermore, let me just give you some actual--

>> No, I specifically, I specifically attributed that the future and the new jobs will come from startups. So don't misrepresent my point, thank you. >> Okay. We currently have a 4.3% unemployment rate in the economy. Economists can serve 5% to be full employment. So basically, unemployment is at or near record lows right now despite--

>> Yes. >> Of our lifetime despite the fact that we're over three years into this AI wave. Second, and again, this is the point I wanted to make it earlier with respect to coding. Coding is the single job category most impacted by AI right now. We are at the point where AI is writing most of the code. We have almost complete automation of code writing.

You would think that if you could look at this in a simple mouth-thousian way, all the software developers would be getting laid off right now. Is that happening? No, software developers are not being laid off on net. In fact, job postings, job rights for software developers are at a three year high.

Growing 15% year over year. Now, why is this?

“I think the explanation is really, really important.”

Okay. You look at code commits on GitHub, which is leading code repository.

There were 1 billion code commits last year.

In the past month, there's been 1.1 billion. So in other words, make something easier, more people do it. Right. We have basically a 14x year rear increase in code generation. That code has to be managed by somebody.

You still need humans to look under the hood. And when the amount of code explodes and you get 10x or 100x more code, the complexity also rises as well. So look, we're not hiring 10 times more engineers, but you do need more engineers. Now, to manage all of that code.

The other thing that's happening is that there's been an explosion of the use of code across the economy by different businesses, different applications and different use cases.

I'm hearing from people who are now hiring software engineers who never would have hired them before.

I was talking to a fun manager. And he said that his next two hires were not going to be data analyst. They were going to be software developers because they're now deploying code for the first time in ways that they were not before. This goes back to my point about audit proficiency being the most marketable skill right now in the economy. People are using these tools and entirely new ways.

“I think that we're at the outset of a boom right now caused by the spokes software proliferating throughout the economy and being used by firms that never thought of themselves as tech firms before.”

All of which is leading to more productivity. And that leads to a healthier economy and that leads to more job creation and you're seeing that again in the aggregate numbers.

That's happening right now with the development of all this infrastructure. The data centers and the new energy and power generation. We are seeing hundreds of thousands of new construction jobs being created among blue collars. Jay Count, I'm sure you don't want them losing their jobs by turning this boom off. So again.

No, I never. I am very clear there's job displacement going on. And the job displacement is related to it, but net I do think the economy will grow. Bill Gurley. Maybe at some point in the future you'll be right like the Trotsky.

I communism has never been tried.

Maybe it'll work. Nobody knows your trotsky and reference. Okay, you'll lose you lost 95% of your office. Just think like a normal person. A month left.

Okay. Okay, no, I just think you're just making these defaults to try to sound smarter than you actually are. The reality is the reality these people are being laid off because of AI. Bill Gurley of 20 million people in the United States driving cabs and trucks and doing that as a job right now.

“How many of those do you think will lose their jobs to self driving in the next decade or two?”

Based on just being in there and I'm not trying to lead the witness here in anyway. Obviously some people prefer a human driver, but what's your take on on that specific part of the economy? I think it's impossible to go with 100% automated solution because the economics don't work well. And so I think like some of the other examples that were given ATMs and whatnot. I think the the use of non ownership cars is going to go way up.

So it's going to keep growing through this and humans are going to be used for like 50% of it instead of 100. And so I might not be surprised if the number actually stays the same or grows. And let's remember these jobs didn't exist before because regulation had limited what the taxi market was capable of and getting around that actually led to job creation. And so I am not a big fan of the doomerism because around jobs, you know, there's a word that I did kind of is used to talk about it. And I don't have high confidence in any government program for skills retraining.

So it's not clear to me what, okay, yes, it's happened. What do we do now? It's not clear to me. I think the thing you can do the most one we already talked about. Use the new tools, know what it's capable of in your field, like get out there. And then too, if your job is going to go away and maybe it's a job you don't care about. Start thinking about where there are opportunities.

Everyone's talking about the skill trades are like we're short of people. Every shortage for plumbing, electricians, HVAC, all that yeah.

It's amazing how J. Kelly uses facts that haven't happened yet as like support for his argument.

Like you just state that, oh, all the truck drivers are losing their jobs, all the drivers are losing their jobs. And then you say that this proves my, yeah, I know it's your belief, but that is not proof. Do you understand the difference? The proof I gave was Amazon and Andy Jassy Shopify. They were in that before it.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It made it Amazon. Bill would have let me have to. Do you see that? Everybody knows.

“Is there something Amazon car being delivering your soft?”

You cherry pick anecdotes and they miss a treat them to AI. They literally have a self-driving division. It's called Zooks. You're the biggest AI washer there is. They are the largest.

User of robotics in the world. So yes, Chema.

They are pursuing robotics massively more than anybody.

And they are pursuing self-driving. You just like me. In the top four, fours together. No, I had one point. It's a warehouse worker.

Then it's a driver. Then it's a driver. Then it's a driver. It's a driver. It's not.

It's not. It's not. You can, you can personally attack all you want. The, the issue here is self-driving is going to take away.

I believe the majority of. Okay, that's a key word. Great. Let's put it. There is a belief.

And you don't know and I don't know. Okay. And I think there's no robotics. But I will tell you. People at the world.

I will take people to the world. I will take people to the world. I'm curious, Bill. You're taking on these large enterprises. You've heard two positions here.

I have a question. I don't know. I have a legit question for you. Can I just like the guest. Be involved.

Please, Sacha. I'm not saying engaging with your with your perspective. Let me explain. Please explain. Let me truly ask you.

Okay. Explain to me why job postings for software engineers are up 15%. You're overyear. Despite the fact that code has not been fully automated.

“Oh, I think there's a Cambrian explosion in software.”

You're absolutely correct. And I believe people who know how to vibe code or to like who are non-developers are making bespoke software. I've said that a hundred times on this podcast over the last two years. And I predicted it.

So absolutely. I believe that will be an area of job growth. I believe the positions that are being removed or just I know based on what we're hearing is product managers, middle managers,

what other people call mid-management.

Everybody believes that the recording and the stale stand-ups and the zoom calls. All of that is turning into people management is being done better by AI. And people are more self-directed. And then the stack of people to build products is being consolidated. It's like the typical designer can now vibe code.

The developer can do front end design in UX and they can project manage themselves. So there are a series of jobs that will increase in a series of jobs. That will be eliminated. Just like the mail room got eliminated. And mess bike messengers got eliminated.

“I think the type of people got eliminated on net on net.”

That's my position. I think there'll be on, well, your position is shifting a little bit. Do you think on net? Same position. You think on net, there'll be mass job loss.

I think there is a chance that we're going to see job loss increase in the short to midterm. And then eventually the displaced people are going to have to learn or leave the workforce, which is what happened during other revolutions like this. Some people went with the paradigm and adapted and some people didn't just retired. I saw that firsthand in the PC revolution as but one example.

Some lawyers just would never use these tools.

And they just retired at 55 65. And they moved on and then other attorneys were PC first. And they just took that away. Did you guys see the news at Kirkland Nellis? This is going to spend half a billion dollars to roll their own front to your model.

Makes total set. That was like to our earlier point today. Some people are doing on prime. I'm going to make their own models. Bill, I have one specific question for you.

And thank you for the. Good engagement there, Sachs. It was it lacked the ad hominim that usually starts every conversation we have. I don't usually call you an idiot. That's because it's in our minds.

Okay. We're thinking about it. We're just not saying it. Good. I like it better.

I like you better. Bill. Specifically when Andy Jassy, you know, last spring said, hey, we're going to do more with less.

We're going to be AI first.

And they said, we're not going to hire these 600,000 jobs.

“When you see W lucky say you have to do AI first before you ask for a headcount.”

Improve to me that you tried AI first before hiring somebody. Do you think this is. Sign that these organizations are AI washing or do you think these recent ones are more. Hey, we're going to do more with less and the size of these companies will be smaller. Because of AI.

One thing that did I think that last question misses and I think a lot of the the AI. Dumerism stuff misses is that competition exists. And so if you, I don't think there's any scenario where you just do more for less. And all of a sudden, everyone has 70% operating margins that's not going to happen. It's someone else is going to come along and do more for less and lower the price.

And so the thing that could happen is we could have a productivity boom from lower price goods and services and the basket of goods. The humans are able to buy gets cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and that's been true in many categories. Unfortunately, it's offset by what happens in health care and and other regulated. Yeah, education, but but yeah, so I expect products to get cheaper and people to be able to create more with less, but I don't think it leads to obscene. Profits because it'll be winner the way in competition.

Okay, by the way, just just on this AI washing point, there's a trial lawyer named Donnie King. He's a securities litigation partner at a federal government. He and his colleagues have started to warn that we could start seeing shareholder lawsuits against companies that engage in this type of AI washing because he thinks it's a type of puffry. Right, because essentially what the company is doing is attributing their own non-performance or their operational issues to AI when, in fact, there are real problems in the business.

And therefore it could be a form of securities fraud. Sweet, securities fraud. Yeah, I want to double click on this.

“Did you see the CEO of Wisk today and his note about layoffs?”

No. Who's Wisk? Find me the AI washing in their wicks. Oh, yeah, that was it. That's the website builder.

Yeah, I mean, you can bill websites with Claude. Yeah, the whole website business is challenged. Yeah, interesting that he just talked about operational details. Did he? I didn't read the note.

Of course you didn't read the note. You said it just that long. I will read it. This is today's 28th break at 925 this morning. I think it's really interesting that this lawyer thinks there's so much AI washing going on that he thinks it could constitute securities fraud.

And he's warning clients not to engage in it. But look, Jake, you're like the last person who hasn't gotten the memo on this. There was a huge narrative shift this week. Sam is backing off this. Even Darius walking it back.

He got the Goldman Sachs CEO. You mentioned it three times. You got the explosion and job postings. Everyone's coming around to the idea that the job apocalypse is massively overblown.

Whenever you want to just keep looking at the starology. I'm happy to. I'm not sure if you're going to.

My position is always going to apologize.

He's displaced. You're going to have some displaced in the short to midterm. And then eventually there'll be more problems to solve. And people will have to reallocate. I do think.

We're being. You know, I think the tech industry itself doesn't have enough empathy or enough thoughtfulness when discussing this because these are real people losing real jobs. And you can point at statistics. And you think they're spinning. But these are real people losing real jobs who may not make the transition.

Jason, I got. You think it's more empathetic to be scaring the mages a lot of people. I'm not in the scaring camp. I'm not in the scaring camp. I am in the enabling camp.

“That's why I keep saying if you've been laid off.”

You should start a company and you should embrace the tools. So I'm all about empowering people. I think they if they learn the tools. They'll have 10 job offers. And they'll start their own company.

So I do think there's a solution to it. I just think we're going to go through. You know, low millions of jobs. Being lost or being retired and transitioned out. How many years over this next couple of years?

I was just going to be empathetic and offer some solution. So we talked about the skills trade. Deficit of people working in that micro has a foundation called micro works.

Where they fund a funded 16 million dollars.

2600 people get a free scholarship for it to become a plummet welder or electrician. So go check that out. If you want to re-skill. Yeah, I think it's better than, you know, having the government fix things. And then, you know, as we started and talked about,

I've got a new grant program myself to help people. Yes. Kind of tilt their career in a different direction. Go do something you love and apply. And maybe I can help fund your.

You're moving in that direction.

“And and as to your vibe shift, I think it's because.”

Candidly. People's houses have been demolished off cocktail because they're domerism. And people specifically are citing that when they shoot at their houses. And throw mallets of cocktails out them twice in the same week. And if you're IPOing and you're coming out saying, hey, jobs are going away.

Jobs are going away. That's just a really bad look. And or it's because we called it out and they got caught. And so now that we're talking to each other. All right, everybody.

This has been another amazing episode of the all in podcast.

Thanks for coming. We'll grow. No, no, no. Sorry. I need to do one thing.

Just doing at the end of this. Yes. She's a friend of ours.

“I just want to just give a huge shout out to Tulsi Gabbard.”

And specifically her husband over hand is tragic going through some really tough stuff. Cancer. He is going to kick its ass. I just wanted to say, please. Yeah.

Yeah. And Tulsi's great. She's ready. That's episode 275 in the can. See you next time.

Bye bye. Love you. [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING]

Besties are gone. [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING]

[MUSIC PLAYING] We should all just get a room. I just want to thank you, George. Because you're all just useless. It's like this sexual tension.

But we just need to release that out there. [MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING] What? What?

What? What? What? Besties are gone. [MUSIC PLAYING]

[MUSIC PLAYING] [MUSIC PLAYING]