OpenAI Misses Targets, Codex vs Claude, Elon vs Sam Trial, Big Hyperscaler Beats, Peptide Craze

Oh, it's so good. My feed is now because, you know, since cancer culture ended sacks, everybody uses the R word in the F word right now. My entire feed on Instagram is either gay or down syndrome or bulldox. It's one of those three.

And then I stumbled upon the missing pod, missing, and they do a bit called gay name, straight name. Here's gay name or straight name for David. This is good news and bad news. Great word.

Here we go. Gay name or straight name. David. David to me is straight. Okay.

But he has my perfect body.

“It can be confusing because I'm kind of like, are you gay?”

And it's like, no, I just want to be you, David. Totally. Well, it's so like, the Michelangelo's David, the BLI deal. It's like incredible body. Yeah.

Sorry. Yeah. Oh. It's a little rough. What are you watching there, Jake?

They basically nailed these two. But okay, keep going. I don't think Chamathe is on their short list. But I know Jason will come up at some point. Gay name or straight name.

Maybe this is it. Chamathe. What are they on? History. Yeah.

Three, two, one. Okay. I think, like a million sweater, like a really, kind of like a wow.

“Oh, my friends sweater, it's like, where is it like poker night with his like his toys?”

And like, not, I'm not talking like straight poker. I'm talking like gay poker night. It's like that's the better. Yeah.

Always talking about why.

Talks about why. Always sort of like sweet things. Yeah. Exactly. Yep.

Also, it's so like the guy at the gym, taking off his shirt. Yeah. All the things. Yeah. And everyone else is kind of like, excuse me, Chamathe.

I'd like to use the mirror. Yeah. I'd like to see myself see what an exciting poker night. Totally. You bring the wine.

We'll bring this letter. Yeah. So, it's what they do to Chamathe. That is fantastic. That is fantastic.

A shout out to my guys at the Misting podcast. Wow. That was awesome. I think I'm gay.

I think it's a fucking never new.

What did you do? Like, Camie, or did you pay them to do that? Did it for me as a favor? So, I did a reaction. That's awesome.

Well, thanks to those guys. Thanks. I've seen those guys before in clips. I find them very funny. Shout out to my guys.

That was awesome. Alright, everybody. Seriously. Welcome back to the number one podcast in the world. It's the all in podcast with me again, David Kramer, Chamathe, and David Sacks.

And of course, I'm chasing Camie. You can call me Jake Hall if you're here. For the first time, topic one, open AI. They missed their targets for Chat and GPT for your burg. Both on users and revenue.

Let's talk about it. Call Street Journal says in a breaking investigative report on Tuesday that open AI expected to hit 1 billion wows, weekly active users before the end of 2025. They missed that. And they still haven't hit the milestone four months into 2026.

Also, Chamathe missed their 2025 revenue target for Chat GPT. Exact number wasn't specified. But as we've talked about here, they're at a $20/30 billion run rate. There's a little bit of accounting nuance that is yet to be worked out in the industry. Two reasons why this Matters Act, open AI has $600 billion in spending commitments for compute.

Just to put that in perspective, that's about what they're trading for on secondary markets. In other words, the entire value of the opening AI enterprise equals their spend commitments in the coming year of CFOs, Sara Freyer, who is coming to liquidity, is reportedly worried, "Hey, that revenue isn't growing and fast enough to keep up with expense and open

AI wants to IPO later this year. This is put prior and open in conflict, or maybe there's some natural tension there, for our doesn't think open AI is ready for public reporting standards, according to the Wall Street Journal, open obviously wants to move faster. So they released a joint statement.

This is ridiculous. Yadiyada. Let's go to U-SACs, what do you think is going on here are these major headwinds, or

is this just managing expectations as the leader of the pack in the most important race

“of our lifetimes, the race, towards super intelligence?”

Well, I actually have a little bit of a contrarian take on this. I know that opening AI had a really bad week, like you said, that Wall Street Journal article which said that they missed their numbers, they missed their $1 billion user growth target,

data center commitments that they've made, and then in addition to that, they've also had

the lawsuit with the Elon happening this week.

“So in the precedent and up being, I think, a pretty bad week for them.”

But I have a contrarian take on this, which I think that over the past week or two, if you look at kind of what's happening on the product level, it's been a pretty good couple of weeks for them, they released CHETGVT5.5 and they reviews from, you know, people I talk to and look in value have been really strong. You talk to developers, coders, they're very happy with it. At the same time, Opus 4.7, which is the latest anthropic release, appears to

be a bus, people are complaining about it. There are, in a lot of cases, they're really back to 4.6. They're saying that Opus 4.7 is rationing compute, it's reducing thinking time, not as good, there were some bugs in Claude. So if you just compare CHETGVT5.5 to Opus 4.7, it does appear that Opin AI has had a better couple of weeks at a product level, and I think there's reasons to believe that the product improvements will continue. GPT5.5

is based on a new base model called Spud, which is the first base model upgrade they've done in, I don't know, over a year, and having a new base model will pave the way for future

“improvements as well. So I think Opin AI is feeling pretty optimistic about their product”

right now, and I think you're starting to see on X, some of the developer Mojo is shifting. I'm seeing a lot of people saying that they are shifting their, their coding usage from Opus to GPT5.5. So I think that Sam may end up being right, but for the wrong reason, and what I mean by that is that when he made these big compute commitments, it was based

on those estimates of hitting the billion users on the consumer side and hitting those

revenue targets, the consumer business ended up being weak. So they missed those targets, but in the meantime, coding has become the all important sector of AI, and because they made all these compute commitments, and they built out these data centers, they have more compute than an anthropic right now. And anthropic is token constrained. It's reducing their ability to serve mythos, for example. It's causing them to engage in compute gating with

Opus 4.7. And I understand why Dorio made that decision. I'm not saying, I mean, it was

“a prudent business decision, not criticizing him for it. But I think, again, I think”

Sam may end up being right here for the wrong reason, which is he missed on consumer, but enterprise is going gangbusters and is giving him the ability now. I think to catch up on consumer polymarket, which is the all important market right now. Of course, and we talked about Grok and cursor teaming up last week, he'll on in the team over there. Polymarket showing now a 32% chance that opening AI goes public by the end of 2026. This is down from 60% in

December, and Shemoth, you gave a bit of a warning, hey, there's only so many dollars

to go around space XIPO is obviously getting our first. And now, if opening AI doesn't

go out this year and anthropic does, this sets up an interesting dynamic. What are your thoughts here, generally speaking, about the massive commitment that opening AI has made? Are are they going to run off the cliff? Or will it wind up being brilliant, even if it wasn't strategically for the exact reasons? I think they're going to be fine. I think this is a multi-trillion dollar company. I think anthropic is a multi-trillion dollar company. I think

the thing that's happening right now is a complete misunderstanding of what's actually happening inside of the world of AI. And there is one very specific choke point that is constraining everything which is access to the power that's necessary to drive these tokens. To the extent that opening AI missed, I think what that is is an insight to not enough compute capacity today. And that problem is only getting worse. You've already seen that with

anthropic as well, where they just found a way to economically induce Amazon to give them enough capacity so that you don't have to route through bedrock to get to the anthropic models. You're also seeing them do differentiated deals now with economic participation on top of what they already had from folks I Google to give them more capacity. What is my point? Everything in this market is power constrained. The reason that these folks may miss a number

or a forecast have nothing to do with demand. It is entirely 100% due to the supply of the power necessary to generate the output token. There is a really interesting thing that was just announced today that will make this problem even worse, which is what you're starting to see now is backlogs build up of not just the access to the power, but then the componentry that's actually necessary, not just resips and not just net gas turbines, but now you're talking about

the actual amount of gigawatts that are under construction, we have a huge mismatch now.

People have announced all these projects Jason, but less than half of it is actually being built, less than half. Most of it is stuck in red tape. Most of that is because there are the supply

“chain delays, so there's no credible strategy to turn any of this stuff on. Who will this hurt?”

It will hurt anthropic and open AI, the most. Who will this benefit? It will benefit the hyperscalers, specifically Oracle Amazon, Meta, Microsoft and Google. And now what you're going to see is an negotiation and a trade back and forth. How much equity do I have to give up? How much controlled do I have to give up to get access to the compute versus how badly will I miss my growth

forecasts if I don't. And now what that means is, and we spoke about this last week, that's a huge

lane for growth to just run through and space X to run through, because they have a ton of excess capacity. And so I think the cursor deal was the appetizer, but if I were Elon now, I'd be running all over this market because if the models catch up in quality, I think he could also do something really crazy with anthropic or open AI right now. Maybe not open AI because of the, we'll get into the lawsuit. The baggage? Yeah. But man, he and Mario should do a deal tomorrow.

So you're framing, hey, the limited resource here is compute. The demand is off the charts. No, the limiting resources power, power, which then powers compute, which then provides tokens, which then services the missing developer and co-work and all these other projects that consumers and enterprises can't get enough of got it. And Jason, the other factor that complicates that for anthropic and open AI is all the stuff that's sort of sitting around thumb twiddling,

40% of that is going to get canceled because they've done such a poor job of creating a good positive halo around AI that 40% of all the announced projects get canceled because 40% of all projects in the last four years have been canceled. Yeah. And there's, there there are some bad feelings about data centers, AI jobs, et cetera. And that's causing some headwind people are it literally doing violent things in society and blaming data centers in AI for it. I don't want

to give it too much airtime freeberg. What you're taking on the chessboard we're looking at here either through compute, energy or through going public on a business level, you know, the strategic nature of capital compute and energy now playing a role in this massive amount of demand.

“Still a ball in the air, kind of game, PCG had this theory. I think I talked about this once before”

called the Rule of Three, where they've shown time and again that any stable mature competitive market evolves to a four to two to one ratio of market share for basically 90% of the market. So there's a market leader that has four times the market share of the second place. That's two times the market share of the third place. This is the case in pretty much every mature kind of competitive market. So you can kind of think about AI probably evolving into the consumer market and an enterprise

market, open AI even if they're not at a billion, they're still at 900 million weekly users,

which is well ahead of whatever clawed is at. I think clawed is like probably $700 million tax you may know. And then Gemini's probably closer to them at $700 to a billion somewhere in that range, probably pretty neck and neck with open AI. So, you know, the consumer market looks like it's trending towards a chat GPT/Google fight for first place and second place and then probably anthropic and third place and maybe Elon Emerges and takes off enabled by his compute capacity.

And then the enterprise market is a little bit of a different story and that's its own market, which is kind of anthropic. Or probably Google and the lead, actually, if you look at all the vertex use Google claims that 75% of GCP customers are active users of vertex. So there's probably a pretty sizeable market share that Google's captured on the enterprise side as well. This is also probably why Google stock has absolutely ripped over the last couple of months.

“Is there literally in first place or fighting for first place in enterprise and consumer?”

But I still think that there's a lot of opportunity to, to Jamoth's point about the compute and energy capacity constraints in improving how we actually scale and deploy models in both the enterprise and the consumer setting and it is such early days. And I just want to highlight this paper that came out from MIT from these two scientists and these guys published a paper on pruning techniques and neural networks. This paper showed that you could actually

models down to smaller models and then you can make a selection on which model to run for

“inference. And by doing this, you can actually reduce inference costs by 10x. You can get 10x”

the output per energy unit that goes into the data center with no loss of accuracy. And so it's a really interesting color algorithmic technique that can be applied to the existing large models to actually make them much lower energy use. So if you think about it, you're firing up a very large model to answer a very simple question. You can actually prune away that model. Now, this is probably going to be the case in AI applications as it is in traditional Google search.

There's a long tail of searches, but there's a few searches that account for a large percentage of search volume. It's like, what is the weather, what are the movies, times, you know, what's the stock price? Like there's a certain set of things that make up the bulk of consumer energy. And there's probably a certain set of things that probably make up the bulk of coding output as well. And so if you can get that 80% of searches or chat interfaces or coding

requests reduce down through pruning techniques to smaller models. And then you have a whole set of smaller models that can be called dynamically. And you reduce inference cost by 90%. You can make much more use, call it 10 times the use on data center and energy capacity than we can today. So I would argue that we're still in the very early days of getting efficiency in terms of output and tokens. And we're just in the very kind of early stage of that. There's also

unlocked the opportunity for guys like Elon to reinvent how this is done and potentially compete pretty aggressively. There are two ways to win. You could throw compute at it or you can do S L M's small language models and V S L M's verticalized small language model. So if you had a verticalized small language model for the web, the herlets say that doesn't exist. But you can you can use it as an example. They will have one for travel as an example. When you hit

Google for flight information, it's obviously going to route you to something lighter and faster that uses Google flights and Google flights has been incorporated into Gemini. Gemini now

is right behind 750 million users. And it's exactly what we discussed. I don't know 18

months ago on this podcast for your bird that what if they put it at the top? And what would that do to their search revenue? Search revenue is surging and they are also surging. So they figured out a way to balance those two competing forces, having search results that are AI enabled and still getting people to click on links, they've done it brilliantly apparently. And the stock is rewarding. I'll just add one statement to what you said, Jekha, which is like you're using

“what I would call a human heuristic on smaller models. And I think what we're evolving to”

is humans don't intuitively know what this model is. It's not just a verticalized model, but there are going to be models that will be discovered through automated pruning techniques that will then be working in concert. So lots of small models that link together. And we don't define each model by some human heuristic, like this is a circle model. Yeah, this is a map model. And so we don't we don't know why these models work the way they do when they get broken

down, but I do think that that's really where the evolution is happening. So effectively a model becomes a macro model. It's got lots of smaller models underneath it that can be dynamically called. And that allows you to have 10x the inference for the same unit of energy. Thanks. Let me just build on your point about Google Jekha. I would say that if there is a single reason why OpenAI did not hit its user targets and its revenue targets, certainly around consumer,

you'd have to say it's because Google managed to take meaningful share. You know, they were basically

nowhere. But year or so ago, Sergey came out of retirement to help focus the company. And like you said, they did a brilliant job improving Gemini and putting it at the top of searching, incorporating it. Now, that being said, again, I don't think the news is all bad for OpenAI, because I do think that the 5.5 release was great. We're hearing really good things about codex. I do think that codex is taking share in coding tokens right now. And I just think we're in a

really interesting place where these companies are constantly one up in each other. I mean, two weeks ago, it looked like in Thorpeck was going to be completely dominant, right? I mean, I thought it was growing at 10X. OpenAI was growing at 3X and it looked like it was going to be totally different. And then the server started going out like that this week's access to people who are in my office were complaining. We can't get on cloud.

Listen, competition brings out the best and everyone at Thorpeck forced open AI to compete, Google's forced open AI to compete in consumer. I just hope the market says competitive for as long

“as possible. I do think that's what's best for consumers are economy and for our country overall.”

Let me just say one other area where I think opening AI had a good week is in this red hot area of cyber. Obviously, and Thorpeck made a huge splash with mythos. It hasn't been commercially

it hit a new level of capabilities with cyber. But now opening AI has released a new model

called GPT 5.5 cyber, which has just been through a bunch of tests. And they've shown this was testing done by the AI Security Institute that GPT 5.5 is the second model to complete one of their multi-step cyber tax simulations and to end. So it has the same level of capability as mythos. And it does appear to be commercially ready. You know, they've got the compute to serve it. So I do think that that's a big accomplishment. I mean, look, we knew that other cyber models were coming.

It wasn't just going to be mythos. In fact, within six months or so, all the frontier models are going to have mythos level. Cyber capability. But it's impressive that opening AI got this

“GPT 5.5 cyber out. So quickly, and I think 5.5 might be the first cyber model that”

cyber defenders actually get to use. Because again, I don't think there was compute

constrained as anthropic is. And this is an incredible opportunity, you know, for

the Crown Strikes and Palo Alto networks of the world, both of which have been on the program. They come out and they started attacking this space. Man, you could really see everything get tightened up. And this could be an incredible revenue stream for everybody who's got, whether it's cursor, quad, or opening AI or Gemini, this is an amazing opportunity to tighten up as much as it is to get attacked. I'm going to make a point about that because

there is so much fear right now, almost level of panic about mythos, people are treating it like a doomsday weapon or something like that. It's not. It's simply that the frontier models have reached the point where they're capable of automating cyber activities, just like they're capable of automating coding. But that means that a model could power up a cyber attacker or cyber defender the same way they can power up a coder and allow them to discover a lot more vulnerabilities.

“So there is obviously a risk there, but I think it's important to understand that mythos or”

GPT 5.5, it doesn't create the vulnerabilities. It just discovers them. The bugs were already in the code. They were sitting there waiting for some hacker to discover. If we can now use AI to find these bugs in advance, these vulnerabilities and patch them, then you actually harden our infrastructure and you harden our security. I also believe that this leap from let's call it pre-AI cyber to post-AI cyber, it's going to be I think a big one-time upgrade cycle because again,

you're going to find all these dormant bugs and vulnerabilities. But I think that once we get past that upgrade cycle, you're going to reach a new equilibrium between AI powered cyber offense and AI powered cyber defense, it's going to become a lot more normal. It's not going to feel like this huge disruption, which is to say, I think, you know, people are treating this as like some existential threat. I don't think it is as long as everyone does what they're supposed to do,

which is using new capabilities to harden their code bases and infrastructure and security before the hackers get a whole these capabilities. Yeah, and if Chemoth, if you were to look at this to build on SACS this point, there are about 5 million or so security experts in the world and we talked about token cost, 40 hours of tokens, just pounding it, you know, a week, you could create another $5 million for $100 per huge security officer per security expert. So it's the

volume of security expert age and SACS to your point. Yeah, you could have 50, 50 million of them,

100 million of them. They're not finding something new. They're just they never sleep. They're relentless

in their pursuit of these problems. This is a really great point. Just kind of just refine that. So yeah, there's probably 5 million people in the cyber industry, but there's probably only a few thousand really elite hackers. Sure. Those hackers didn't have the time to go after the entire surface area of every possible attack vector out there. And so if you train a model to do what they do, obviously, like you said, it can operate with a skill and speed that a human hacker can't. So

“obviously, you know, what you need to do is get these tools in the hands of the White Hats, let them”

do the cyber attacks themselves to then find the vulnerabilities and patch them before the Black Hats get a hold of these capabilities. But I think it's just this one last point on this on stop, it's just is really important to understand that the Chinese models are gonna have these capabilities within approximately six months. Oh, they have now in deep sea for for sure. They've got some well, and deep sea for, I mean, deep sea for is impressive in a lot of ways, but its capability is not

at the front here. It's maybe 80, 80, 85% of, let's call it the American Front here. Sure, Matthew, why don't you get it on this? Let's hit Trampton. Two things. The reason that this is even possible is because humans are error prone. And when humans code, they create holes. And so humans exploiting humans is where we've been for a long time. Now we have computers

In the next phase, it'll be machines versus machines. And so I think the nature of cyber is going to completely change. Probably in the next five or six years, there'll be so much reason to rewrite all of the software that runs the world. In one part because you're going to be asked to show more operating leverage and revenue growth, but in another part because everything else that was handmade in the past is just fundamentally insecure. Either way, all roads will

lead to all the operational software that runs the world will get rewritten. More and more of it will be written by machines, more and more of it will be impregnable as a result. But then the cyber threat actually will only increase. Because then you're going to try to figure out how to use a machine to inject something into another machine so that some agentic loop injects some malware

“injects a bad token. And I think that's a very complicated thing. What I will tell you is, I'm”

not even sure if I'm allowed to say this. But a very good, probably the best cyber security company in the world run by one of the very best CEOs in the world who may or may not be speaking at liquidity. What tell you that they have penetrated and can essentially manipulate every model. Let me just let me just say it roughly that way. Okay, perfect. Yeah, and I'm at the breakthrough prize, which is three of the four of us where I talked to George Kurtz, the other person.

You were kind of describing with that. I was sitting beside the cash. Yeah, I'm talking about the cash in the cash in Georgia. The two guys leading this Palo Alto network's crowd strike. And they understand that with George told me was there is just a line out the door of people who want this product or service. And if you look at it, free bird, like the murder rate, like we're sitting here with the lowest murder rate in the history of humanity. It has gone down massively in

“our lifetimes, but massively over the arch of history. I think that's what's going to happen with”

cyber. There are only so many attack vectors and the remaining attack vectors are just going to be

human factors, right, free bird. That's always been the case. And as we make the software

more resilient, then the the weak link is, you know, the secretary who puts her posted note, you know, with the password there or the accountant who, you know, uses their dogs name plus one, two, three for their password, right? That's the the historic one. Okay, let's any anything you want to have free bird? Has we wrapped there? Well, that's why you're fed so messy. By the way, why can't you just ask the room service to come in? Listen, you're about to let you tell you

what happened. Listen, I'm here in Atlanta. And also why don't you have a suite like where there's two rooms? Like is it just one room? It's just one room. I know, either you're cheaper poor, which one is it? Here's what I'll tell you. Here's a situation. I'm in Atlanta for the next game tonight.

Here's what I do. I just want to explain to you, value for value. Some people spend their money on

private jets and they spend $30,000 flying to Atlanta. I spent $30,000 on court side seeds. I don't love the suite. I want to put it into the suite. And if you do the board side, you can do both. I guess I could do both too. I'm in the process of becoming, I don't understand,

“of embracing my richness. Okay. If you've already convinced yourself that you should spend”

$30,000 for court side tickets, which I think is outrageous. But okay, you've already convinced you're like 10K each, but yeah. A hotel room that has two rooms. Okay. I'm taking off costs 15% more than what you're paying. It's two experts. Yes, you're right. I'll get the hotel here. Or 20% more, but you did just look like 200 bucks a night. You pay $400 a night. Yes, more. I mean, it's just a lamp. The most, I mean, the best hotel, the most expensive hotel is

$519 in Atlanta. It's no big deal. But everything's sold out because all the next people are coming. So you're selling me double that would have been a thousand and you couldn't spend a thousand. Everything is sold out because the nicks are here. We have to look at your dirty beds. It's gross. The pet's not that dirty. Come on. Just deal with it. Okay. What's it take it out of post? I have a private jet story about flying to Atlanta. Okay, so yeah, there was

some event there. So I flew my team there. You know, there's a few people on my plane and it's kind

of a long flight. It's like four hours or something. Yeah. So I went in the back to sleep. Well first,

you know, we started the flight and I had a few balls of papy van winkle on the plane. And so we started off with like a drink. And then I went in the back and and fell asleep and I woke up basically when we landed. So I come out and like all three bottles are basically cached. I have a van winkle. Who was your like two grand a bottle? No, no, no, there are more. These are like antique bottles. Like one of them. I have one of those from your plane. I have one of those from

the old-fashioned. How can you? Yeah. They were like these vintage balls for that. I remember him. Anyway, you came in to find this shit anymore. So these guys, they asked me like when we landed like, hey, sacks, how much should it cost for you to fly us to this event? And I said, well, about $8,000 in jet fuel and about $12,000 a papy van winkle. You got to fuel the vibes as well.

they are they, uh, they called in Atlanta. Is it land to nice? Let's let's share. I went to the

Troy Games and that city was on the rebound. Atlanta has an incredible opportunity to rebound.

I'll say it that way. There's a great opportunity for them to upgrade the city. I went to waffles at midnight last night. There was no shooting. Okay, let's keep moving. By the way, do you get oiled in points at the best Western Atlanta or not? I get double points because I use my best Western visa card. Yeah, it's everywhere you want it to be. Or use the promo code, Jake out and get a thousand extra points. In other open AI news, must versus Altman, the trial

of the century. Huh, maybe the decade has started. Elon is of course accusing open AI of breach of charitable trust, unjust enrichment. He's accusing open AI of essentially flipping a non-profit into a for profit. He's seeking 150 billion damages that they revert back to a non-profit, but that Altman and Brockman be removed. And there were some fireworks between Elon and the Open AI lawyers. Elon kind of leveled up the discussion. He said, quote, if we make it okay to

loot a charity, the entire foundation of charitable giving, in America will be destroyed. That's my concern. Obviously, there's a ton of interesting nuances here, specifically Greg Brockman keeping a diary where he was journal-maxing his plans, like a bond villain here, and the excerpts from his diary include conclusion. We truly want the beaker. The true answer is that we want Elon out. If three months later we're doing beaker, then it was a lie. Can't see us turning

this into a for profit without an estimate. I'm just thinking about the office and we're in the office, and this story will correctly be that we weren't honest with him. In the end, it's still about wanting a for profit just without him, Yadiyadiyada, Freeberg, your thoughts on this case, is he long going to win? I just don't know why Greg Brockman's got a frigging diary where he's like literally documenting. I mean, I love the guy, but what the f*** is he doing like you just sitting

here at home? And like let me write about the crime I'm committing, or let me write it.

Like, and let me record it. And by the way, let me never delete it. I don't understand this.

It's not just journal-maxing. It's discovery-maxing. It's got a smoker gun-maxing. I don't get it. I mean, you guys remember from the wire in that scene

“where you guys like, you should take notes on a criminal f***ed sparrowsy. It's kind of everybody”

if they don't know. Can we play that clip? It's like, yeah, why not clip now? Are you doing Greg? Nick, is you taking notes on a criminal f***ed sparrowsy? What the f*** is you thinking, man? If you're going to commit a crime, you do not write down the date and punishment of the crime in your journal. Oh, look, we don't know. It's a crime. Let's not- Okay, sure. Jack, don't care about your crime, but why not?

Yes. Do you keep on shenanigans? Do you keep a diary? What do you think? Jack, I'll do you keep a diary? I- I believe you. I'll tell you right now. Rumination is the path to unhappiness. Nobody gives a f***ing about your feelings, writing your feelings down, being really going to make you miserable, talking to your spouse about your feelings, just go to a beautiful dinner, sit, court side at the next, and do what I've been doing

for 30 f***ing years. Recharge maximum. Recharge maximum. And so, register goes up.

“All you have to do is work. Start new projects, nine and a ten-fowl, place nine and a ten-bats,”

one wins, and your golden. Go sit courtside at the next game. Keep going. Life too short. And just keep moving forward. Don't write anything down. Period full stop. Good advice. Yeah, I just- the biggest surprise to me was this guy's got a diary.

I just- I don't know anyone that has a diary. I've never heard of this. So, anyway, that was

shocking. Besides that, I've no view on what's going to happen with the case or the judge will do. I have no comment on the case either. I think it's weird that Pauli Market hasn't budged, even as all of this discovery has been published. It's effectively at 42 or 43 percent that Elon wins. So, one of the friends in our group chat said, what may just happen is that Elon technically wins, and he's just credited back the $40 million.

And so, maybe that's what this poll is front running. But on a totally separate note,

“I think Jason, I know you say it as a joke, but this idea of just keep moving forward.”

Don't ruminate. I think it's very good general life advice for everybody to follow. The modern-day therapy industrial complex and the medication industrial complex, I believe is pretty much around rumination. Well, it does pivot around rumination. Yes. That is the gateway drug to all these things. Yeah. Talk about your problems. You know, when these people go to therapy, you ever hear these people, how it sounds like I've been in therapy with the

therapist to stop charging you $1,200 an hour? There is none. Then they lose a revenue stream, they lose a customer. It's all a giant fucking fraud. In terms of this case, I wouldn't go that far. I do think that there's a lot of value in kind of untying some of these Gordian knots that people have because of how they grew up. But there's a difference between that and being specific and just randomly ruminating because I don't think there's a lot of productive stuff. If you've got any acute

issue, like in trauma in your life, yes, sure, unpack it, figure it out. I'm just talking about

this never ending self-improvement, you know, ruminating thing. But getting back on topic here,

“sacks. What's the, and we were talking about a jury. I believe in Oakland. No, but it's a”

bench trial. This is important. It's a bench trial where the jury is advisory in capacity. But ultimately, that judge, she will make the final call. And she'll do the damages. And so, is this the case sacks of, like, we've got a Bay Area jury judge. And we've got Elon, who's considered, you know, a bit right wing and people don't all agree in that area in terms of his politics. And then you have this Sam Altman New Yorker story and people finding out that so many different

people feel they got screwed by him. You put these two things together. It's impossible to hand a cap where this turns out sacks, you're not. Well, yeah, I don't think this is about politics. I mean, I guess you could argue that what Elon is seeking, which is to protect the charity is if anything, a left-coded sort of principle, sure, although I don't really think it's left versus right. Look, I don't want to take sides on this trial. I'm just watching like everyone else.

“The last time I weighed in on some Elon litigation, I got to pose for six hours. Remember that”

because they just assume that somehow I know something. Right. I've never talked to Elon about the case.

I don't know anything about it. Yeah. I'm going to see what happens like everyone else. Now, one thing I will say having just read some of the coverage is that apparently the company at some point did offer Elon shares in the company, but he thought that there was something kind of a key about it. Do you remember this? Yes. Because at one point, I said on our show, when this dispute started happening before it became a court case, I said, look, if open AI

at a certain point decide they had wrong structure, they should have gone and done a make right with Elon and he should have been a shareholder in the cap table. What I didn't know is that apparently they did try to do something like that. But Elon turned it down because he did want the entity to remain a charitable. Yes. He had a principal view of it according to the reports. And I was like, no, we're trying to save humanity. And then you're giving this keys to the

kingdom to Microsoft. That's all come out. And I also have not talking to Elon about any of this. But my guess is like most of these things, there'll be some sort of settlement or something here. But maybe he takes it to the mat who knows judge Rogers who's doing this 61-year-old Obama appointee politics has played a role. Sacks, they have had to tell the jury like, however you feel about these individuals politically, whatever, please put that aside. But of note is that she

oversword the epic games versus Apple trial over apps for exclusively ruled in favor of Apple with some caveats that they don't have a monopoly, et cetera, et cetera. So this is going to be a

“really interesting one. I think the worst case scenario is open AI for open AI is they have to unravel”

this somehow. And that would delay the IPO that would cost chaos and share holes. And I guess

the best case is some sort of settlement. And if Elon put the first 40 or 50 million dollars in,

he's due 10, 20, 30% of the company after dilution. All right, let's keep moving through the doc. It lots more to discuss and good luck to everybody in their lawsuit and those of you betting on pretty market. All in some it selling up fast, her fifth edition, Los Angeles, September 13th, to 15th, go to all-in.com/events and speakers going to be talked to you. Apparently, freebird is having this as his major creative outlet. I heard some back channel from off today. He's going

to be doing Broadway musical illusion. I got a tap dancing situation. He's literally going full on entertainer. This is going to be Vaudeville, Sachs wrapped up. He's just going to take it to a whole new level musical numbers. It's Nathan Lane. I think if you're coding that it's going to be his big gay summit, yes, it could be a big gay summit. My pair of last year in LA, guys, my be is everybody wants to go to Vegas. I'm leaving the summit for lunch and going and buying

Let's go. Yeah, I'm young. That way, Sachs can come. Yeah. He's Sachs is like I'm never setting

“for California. But I will. You know, we're doing a couple of events. Are you coming to them?”

The liquidity or swing to front liquidity. And then there's the all-in summit happens in September. Yeah, I'm going to do those two. All right, big tech smashed their things on Thursday. Google Microsoft Amazon and Meta or reported. I don't know why they do this on the same night folks, but they do. And performance was spectacular. It was great. However, the cap X announcements were really the story here. Let me just cue this up and show the chart.

725 billion dollars in capex guidance in 2026 from but four companies. Amazon Microsoft Google and Meta. Amazon leading the pack with 200 billion, 190 billion each for Microsoft Google 145 billion for Meta. You add grock, you add open AI and some other players to these plans.

“And we haven't heard from the new Apple CEO yet, but he's going to be taking over and he's going”

to have some plans here. I'm sure we are going to see the $1 trillion trillion in build out over the next year. I don't know if this is even possible. But this is all being driven by AI and cloud computing. Google cloud, which includes the Google suite, that grew 63% year on year. Let that number sink in 63% on 20 billion in revenue. That's in a quarter. Microsoft cloud, that includes Azure, Windows Server, SQL Server. They bundled something together there to get the number to go up. That grew 30%

on 34.7 billion in revenue. Amazon web services, the original cloud, that grew 28% on 37.6 billion in revenue. That's a bit of a pure play. Just counts, Amazon's web services. Obviously, these are all moving to neoclouds. These are all serving AI jobs and tokens now. They have a massive customer base and the customers from the smallest startups all the way to the biggest

frontier models cannot get enough compute and it is going to the bottom line. But this is shrinking

chmop cash flow massively. These were free cash flow machines, the largest money printing machines in the history of humanity. But they are giving up on free cash flow, stock buybacks and dividends. And the focus on those three to invest in infrastructure. Amazon's free cash flow down 97% Google Microsoft and added down 12,18% respectively. Here thoughts on this free cash flow, the end of the free cash flow,

“deluge and the massive investment we're seeing in CapX chmop. I think we're seeing a very important”

structural shift in the capital markets. I think the last 20 or 30 years, well, 20 years, it's been that the mag seven just kind of ran away with it that these big companies got bigger and it absorbed all of these investment dollars and the biggest reason was that it had these very asset light business models. You just built some more software and it just has all this leverage and it all just kind of worked except maybe for Amazon because they needed physical infrastructure for

warehouses in delivery and whatnot. But buy and large was a very asset light investment cycle. Now, all of a sudden, the pendulum is swinging violently in the other direction. And there's something that I think people misunderstand, which is as it moves back to these asset heavy infrastructure investments. The hyperscalers are signing checks that, I mean, I suspect their body can cash, but there's a world in which they can't. I'll give you an example. You know, when Microsoft

convinced the owners of three mile island to turn their nuclear site back on, do you know what they're for purchase agreement was? It was for more than two extra prevailing spot rate for energy.

More than two X, the problem is that's not for an enormous percentage of their overall energy needs.

So if you play that out and you think these five or six companies, all of a sudden, are not just spending Jason 700 billion a year of catbacks, which they are, but then from an operating cash flow, they're going to be spending two X, the prevailing spot rate because they just want guaranteed demand into the future. Where's all this cash going to go? It's not going to go to the shareholder and it's not going to stay on the balance sheet. These companies will now get levered. They're

going to get highly sophisticated around the financial engineering. They'll have more debt. They'll have all kinds of different vehicles and term loans and revolvers and all of this stuff. And so

that there's a good valuation case to be made at that point. And so I think it may be simpler

“and this is what I tweeted to just follow the dollars, like a trillion dollars a year going out”

of the hyperscalers, where is it going? Just follow those dollars and buy those companies because those companies are already underpriced. This is obviously reminiscent of something we all experienced. Nick, you've hope to Cisco chart, I just sent you and put it at max. We had a massive build out of the infrastructure of the internet in the late 1990s and into 2000. And what that caused was a lot of aggressive companies to do massive amounts of spending, a lot of retail investors

to embrace these stocks like we're seeing with people trying to get into these private companies and actually look at the 2000 peak of Cisco. This is the most extraordinary chart ever. It took them 25 years to get back to that peak. And they had a lost two decades. And we had a massive amount of fiber that wound up getting bought. We talked about that a couple of years ago on the program. But there's something for you to build off of here when you look at this massive infrastructure.

You think it's going to be Cisco systems all over again, world calm, etc. No, I really don't. The issue we had in 2000 was Dark Fiber. You had all this infrastructure being built out and it wasn't being used. There's no dark GPUs today as, you know, Braggersner likes to say. So what's driving the KAPX now is the various demand for compute for tokens. And the demand is now pulling

“forward this additional investment and infrastructure. So I think what's happened here is that the”

both thesis for AI just got validated in a single afternoon. I mean, again, you got Microsoft Azure Google Cloud Amazon AWS meta, the raw basically exceeding expectations, exceeding guidance in terms of where their cloud revenue would be. And therefore, how much they're going to reinvest

in KAPX. This year, I think we were supposed to have 660 billion of hyperscaler KAPX up from 350

last year. I think there's now the new estimate is it's going to be over 700. So this is, you know, again, it's more than 2% of GDP. This is a huge tailwinds of GDP. There's another article saying that I think in the last quarter AI was 75% of GDP growth. And by the way, this is just the KAPX part. This is the physical infrastructure. This is not the economic impact of the tokens that are generated inside the token factory. This is the building of the factories. How do those tokens

get used? Like we're seeing, they're being used not just to do research or to answer questions, but to create code. And so we were seeing this explosion of productivity in software development. And we're seeing an explosion of bespoke software being created. And that's going to accelerate every part of the economy, every business that now wants to get code will be able to get code

for the first time before they couldn't even hire the engineers. They needed to generate it.

Now they will be able to. So that is a huge unlock of productivity across the economy. Then you're getting into these new use cases like the co-working use cases and agents, right? So the workflow automations that are happening. It's still early. I don't believe that this is going to replace humans. We had that in the past week. We had that crazy case of, you know, agent deleting a production database in nine seconds. So great because of a bug. Look, what that said to me is that

it's not that agents aren't valuable. They are valuable, but they have to be supervised. You know, this idea that you're just going to be able to like automate all the jobs away. It is a massive amount of hand waving over the real technical problems and issues. The agents have to be supervised. Someone has to be accountable. It's not going to be the CEO. The CEO doesn't want to be accountable for thousands of agents.

You need people. Yeah, despite what you just had blocks and yeah, you're still going to be some direct reports is a great like goal, but it's not realistic. You need my T people who are savvy who can supervise this and make sure it's working to be accountable to the CEO.

Someone has to drive the productivity. It's like Bology always said, AI is not end to end as

“middle to middle. You have to have someone to do the prompting and you have to have someone”

do the validating and I would add this supervision and accountability. So anyway, the larger point though is I'm speaking to the fact that I don't think there's going to be this huge job loss associated with this productivity boom that we're going to get. And in fact, I think what's actually happening now is that AI is becoming synonymous with the American economy. I mean, the fact that it's generating 75% of GDP, you have this capex explosion, this energy explosion, that feeds it.

And again, just the beginning of the applications that are being unleashed by these new token factories, I think it's all a very, very positive thing. And all these tumors who are trying to

want the American economy to do? Just to stop? I mean, they just don't want any progress. I mean, like again, you know, when you talk about stopping AI or halting AI progress, what you're really

doing is stopping the American economy now. You're basically saying you don't want economic growth.

AI is now synonymous with the growth of the American economy. And if there's no economic growth, there's not many money to pay for all the social programs. There's not many money to pay down the national debt. There's not many money to basically build up our national defense. All these things we want to spend money on. We have to have a vibrant economy. And that is now synonymous with AI. So I know that AI may not be popular. I see those polls, but having a strong economy is popular.

“And I believe that those things are now synonymous. It's almost like there was some”

architectures are who set up the chess board in the first year of this to make sure that it was ultra-competitive. No present from set the table on this. Absolutely. What's some good advice, I think,

maybe. Freeberg, your thoughts. It's always good to have good advice.

It's always good to have good advice. Absolutely. Absolutely. No, but look, I've said it before. The president just wants the American to win. Literally, there are people who, if we were looking at this, you know, I don't know, 100 years ago, it'd be like people were like, yeah, you know what we shouldn't build the highway system, where we have to build the highway system, let's stop. Let's stop building the highways.

Oh, the highway system was over the federal government. There was no competition. It was the most expensive on a inflation adjusted basis. I think it was the most expensive project

“in US history. And the railroads before that, you can't stop these things. They have to keep going.”

It's interesting point, you know, there is so much demand for the resource of tokens of intelligence freeberg. And it's quite different than the fiber situation, as Zach's correct with points out, where we built all this, but we didn't actually have an application. Here, the application is pretty, pretty well known. And you've got a large number of people in businesses who are trying to vibe code their way to success, trying to push this stuff. And we had an interesting story reference

earlier in the show, where Claude ate somebody's homework. This is the nightmare of all nightmares. Somebody was vibe coding. It was the founder of Pocket OS, apparently. They make software for rent or car companies. He was using Opus 4.6 through a Kursher's AI platform. They're coding platform. And, you know, which is like the most expensive tier. And he said he configured it with enough safety rules. But the agent was working on a routine task. They saw some sort of

credentialing mismatch. And they decided to fix the mismatch by deleting a railway volume without user confirmation. And they pushed the code from a repo to a live app. And they deleted everything, including the backups, literally a scene from Silicon Valley's HBO clip of Son of Anton Valerius. You gave your AI permission to overwrite code in the internal file system. Were you going to tell me about this? No. I thought that was the company policy these days.

Okay. Well, your AI just failed, epically. That's unclear. It's possible that Son of Anton decided that the most efficient way to get rid of all the bugs was to get rid of all the software, which is technically and statistically correct. But artificial neural nets are a sort of

a black box. So we'll never know for sure. How did they get that so rights that expired for

years ago, our neural networks are a black box. So I guess we'll never know. But technically, it was correct, free bird. When you blow up a hollow system with your vibe coding, which you were absolutely showing off in front of Jensen a couple of weeks ago about how much code you're pushing, who are you going to blame? You're going to take responsibility yourself. You're going to blame, claw, claw, or cursor. Who are you going to blame when you blow up the entire stack over at a hollow?

“Who are you? You blame Darryl? You blame Darryl? Okay. That's what I thought. That's correct answer.”

Correct answer. Blame Darryl. He's the one who says it's a doomsday machine. Come on the prod, any time Darryl. 17, 10 times. I'm sorry. I'm never invited. I let serity judge is totally going to be. He wants nothing to do with his mind. Actually, let me speak to that. So I think that there's maybe a misperception that this error occurred because of quote unquote AI scheming. Like kind of in that video that the AI decided that the best way to get rid of bugs is to basically

eliminate the code base. This is kind of like the AI is going to turn the world into paperclips type thing where somehow it'll like mischeme. That's not really what happened here. This is a case of just a old-fashioned bugs occurring at an edge case. You know, you've got the fact that this API was not designed for permissioned usage. You've got the fact that a credential was left kind of lying around, probably it should not be. There was kind of like a perfect storm that caused the AI to do

is a systemic problem here rather than just kind of a random edge case, it's that AI still doesn't know what it doesn't know. You know, like a human would stop before deleting a production database and just say, oh, I'm about to do something like really serious, really destructive. Am I sure I want to do this? You know, and a human would have stopped and said, oh, wait a second, like I need to be more confident at what I'm doing before I take that action. And AI

still has this issue. Where again, it can be kind of overconfident. This would like the hallucinations come from. Is it doesn't know when it should have a low confidence in its output, right? But this is why it has to be supervised. You know, the longer the time horizon for a test,

“the more likely it is to go off the rails and adrift. Exactly. And this is why I think people are”

starting to realize that this idea of eliminating all software developers was the peak of inflated expectations. Yes. Right. There was actually a really good tweet on this by Aaron Levy who's got the right take on this. Aaron retweeted Matthew Glacius, who sort of, sort of, sordonically tweeted that five months in, I think I've decided I don't want to vibe code. I want professionally managed software companies to use AI coding assistance to make

more better cheaper software products that they sell to me for money. Just lower your prices. Don't make me vibe code. Is the translation. Yeah. I mean, I think like rare wind for from out of Glacius there. Anyway, Aaron Levy then says a gentle coding is a huge been for soft developers that want to get more done. And it's fantastic for anyone curious to

“learn how to start coding. What it's less great for is casually building complex software.”

They have to maintain it on an ongoing basis and take all the risks for upgrades, maintenance, keeping up with today with latest security issues, you know, the bugs, cyber. Those are taxes on most knowledge workers who aren't familiar with the system. It's not a tax. It's a huge risk. Yes. As a risk asks you manage. It's a risk. People will get fired because there will be some public companies where some goofball tries to vibe code their way out of something and they're

going to torch the enterprise value. It's going to be glorious to watch because we're all going

to laugh and realize that was stupid and should never have happened in the first place. Yeah.

I mean, it's there is a chance that this improves to the point passes trial and disillusionment and becomes super productive and you'll be able to get an agent to do reasonable things without

“deleting your data set. But we have a way to go. Here is your, you know, this is the tech adoption”

chart. Basically, you've got a technology. It's true. You have the trial. You have this peak of inflated expectations. You're going to the trial and disillusionment and then the slope of enlightenment invests and eventually it becomes day regret and it's an opportunity. Hey, a freedberg, you have become read a true tide curious. You have and also tell you tell me about read a freedberg because I want it. I want to get on it. I want to use it and I need you to tell that

that it's okay for me to take it. I have a friend who has so many freeberg. The coverage is coming out of this phase three clinical trial data release that literally put out last month. So everyone's

going crazy over the data, which continues to show pretty amazing results. So unlike Trezzepotide,

which is kind of Lily's main product today, which is a dual agonist. It's got two peptides in it that bind to different receptors. The GLP1, the GIP receptor. This other one now, but also binds to GLP1, which is a third receptor. And that GLP1 receptor binding peptide causes the cells to increase their metabolism, which actually accelerates fat energy consumption over what would typically be muscle energy consumption. It's more likely to burn up fat early on, which causes more

quick fat loss, but also reduces muscle loss. And some of the other data that's now coming out shows non HDL cholesterol down 27% triglycerides down 41% liver fat down 80%. 80% reduction of liver fat

A1 seed drops from 7.9% to 6% in 40 weeks, which is amazing. By the way, if you're diabetic and

your A1 seed drops that much in a couple of months, it's literally a life-saving product. The average user in this phase 3 trial saw their weight decline from 214 pounds. They lost 37 pounds. That's compared to 6 pounds on placebo in 40 weeks. And, you know, modest side effects, 20% people felt more nauseous than the people that were on the placebo. There's a lot of other separate studies that are being done now that are showing significant reductions in inflammatory

signaling molecules. So systemic signaling of, like, hey, cells are in distress. Triggers this

And so one of the other conversations is that retin-trutide might actually be kind of a de-aging drug as well. And a lot of the studies by the way are done on the very high dose 12 milligram dose, but you could probably get this thing dose down to two milligrams and still see a lot of the anti-inflammatory maintenance and other benefits. I'm no doctor, but people are going nuts over this being more widely useful than just for clinical obesity or type of diabetes. When's the

“projected date for 27, mid-27? That's what they're saying. Could happen sooner. I mean, the data's in,”

you know, the FDA will take their time to evaluate it, but I think given the way this is all looking

could happen sooner. Could happen some time later this year. Swim, chamoph swim, said it's incredible,

and that it's living up to the hype in their experience. Who? Swim. What is that? What is that? Someone who isn't me. Swim. This is a Reddit term. Someone who is at me said, who has a guy. Swim has a guy and has cycled on Reddit truthide and does push-ups and says, muscle gain has been spectacular. No muscle loss and alluring. If you go on x and you just search up, Reddit, it's incredible. You see these like 65-year-old guys that go from a dad bod to looking like

an incredibly ripped athlete in weeks. I mean, I'm shocking. And for me, I don't need that help per se, but by liver health it's important to me. My cardiac health because

I have a selfish and it just looks like a wonder drug. I can't wait. When you starve your body,

when you turn off the appetite, which is the GLP1 agonist function, normally your body goes into this kind of mode of starvation, and you have this process by which your body tries to generate energy from your existing cells. And because muscle is much denser than fat, you can have a favoring of muscle tissue being kind of broken up over fat tissue. But what this new agonist, this glucagon agonist, they put into this retitutide, is it favors fat burning over

muscle burning. And so that actually can drive short-term use at low dose for people to cut weight

“and maintain muscle and get ripped. And so that's why a lot of people in the kind of fitness”

community are talking about, hey, I want to get access to this and get on it for a while. So you'll

see a lot more hype probably in that community as well as the all the health effects. It just feels like we're about to have an absolute avalanche of peptides to choose from. I'm November of 2025, Lily cut a deal with the Trump administration. I saw this to drop the price on Tresuppetide pretty significantly. I think it's like 50 bucks. 50 bucks for Medicare. Yeah, which is a pretty cheap price point. But it starts to make sense as you think about the portfolio of Lily products,

you get Tresuppetide for 50 bucks. But if you want to upgrade, you get the retitututide. That's the high premium product. And that's where they're going to start to be different. I'm sure if I'm Lily and I'm sitting there and I'm looking at this data coming out. I'm like, my God, people will pay for this. And that starts to become sort of like the upgrade to the BMW or the Model S plot, if you will. Yeah, the Tresuppetide is like the one bedroom, messy bed hotels and the other one's

the swing. Yeah, the retitutide is like the two bedroom suite. But you can also, by the way, but you guys know I'm a spokesman for Rowe. They also have the Wagovi bill. Rowe.co/twist to get your good. Are you a paid. You're talking about. Are you not paid? Are you talking about being a person? You're a barcly and we're not having your Reno with your face or came so out of person for Rowe. And then you come over and all in and you start from. No, no, no, no, no. Trust me, we'll get one of those as well.

We'll get a road.co sponsorship here. What was the real pill that you had me get? What was it called? Oh, sparks. Sparks. Sparks. Did you take it? I have taken it. And now I'm on a, please, no, not it. No, no, maybe just a half of it. Oh, I was taking it all over the story. I want to go. Sorry, go. It's so out of control. It was I told. So when I told you. So then what happens is not an error like you can't, you can't just randomly use it. It's scheduled. We discuss it. We put it on the calendar because

plan you need a plan. You need a plan. You need a tackle. Because it's otherwise, otherwise, otherwise, it's too much. It's just can't randomly take it. What do you mean? It's going to be a session. It's going to be a whole thing, man. It's like, I don't have the energy. It's an extended session.

“You, you have to be well rested. Don't do this at 1 a.m. This is like a 10 p.m. This is like a, no,”

this is more like a, this is more like on vacation. You know, like 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. to noon. You know, it's you got a really, you got a red and a schedule it schedule it because I know it's around. Oh, I just got to be empty. No, otherwise, it's unfair to her. And it's just a lot. It's a, it's a big

man. It's like, it's a lot to handle. It's a lot. It's, if you want to get the extra 20% in your performance, it's a lot. It's a lot. It's basically. But it's a double what I've been what happened was I was like,

“oh, what is this thing? Jason's like, dude, you must get it. So we got it. We tried it. We were like,”

what the f*** was at. And so then I've been trying to bleed the pills out. So I gave some to stand tang. I'm like, Stanley, you tried it. He's dealing with my cards. But when we're having poker dinner, I'm like, does anybody want to try these things? But it's like the, what is it? Rolls parts is out to my friends. All right, let's keep moving here. Friedberg guys, Friedberg had his own personal super bone. You see me getting ready for next playoff season.

I get my court side. Friedberg had the equivalent sacks. He went to the Supreme Court in order to hear them talk about chemicals. This was a big deal for him. The Supreme Court coming together. You heard, was it the best time on Santo Trial, happened with the Supreme Court, and he went. He got court side. He went to the Supreme Court and listed in the building. Have you guys ever seen a lot of Supreme Court hearing? No, I love to know. We have loved sex if you've been. No, I have

an actually. I mean, honestly, I think it was one of the most amazing experiences I've ever had.

There was a massive protest out front. We went through the Marshall's office to get in. And that building, you walk in. It's like sacred. It's all marble. You're not a lot of talk.

“You have to be super quiet when you're in the building. They keep going, shhh, like you're in”

some quiet library. It's like people treat it with this level of kind of sanctity and respect. And they're like, there is no politics here. There is no bullsh*t. There is no freedom of speech. This is the court. When you come into this court, the justice says, tell you how you will speak, how you will behave, what you will do, and you will not speak unless spoken to. You put all your stuff in a locker. You go up the stairs. You go into the court room and the court

room. It's just so amazing being in there. They have this amazing marble phrase above the justices

that adds some of the great people of human history, Moses, and he's kind of amazing historical

figures. And then below them are the nine justices. And the court case, if you guys haven't watched the case, you can listen to them, I think, online. So we're listening. Well, wait, wait, wait, I have question. So does Robert sit in the middle because he's a chief? Yes. And then do all of the right justices sit on the right? No, they're mixed. So I don't know, I don't know, I don't know,

“I don't know the exact seating, but they're mixed. I think that's right. And then so yeah,”

that's right. And then it kind of goes out from the middle with Robert's in the middle. Robert's occasionally will name the justices and say, hey, do you have a question? Do you have a question? If no one's talking, but otherwise, the justices will jump in with their questions when they want. And the last. Now, honest to God, watching this is like watching LeBron James play basketball. These lawyers are so mind-blowingly impressive on both sides that you would just

like sit there and I was like in awe. It was so I felt like my energy was completely sad from me at the end of this process because you were just so engaged and so caught into the way that these guys are thinking and talking, did you take a row of sparks? You take a row of sparks when you were there? No. And if you're familiar, if you're familiar enough with the case or the case history or the law that's being debated, because again, when you get to the Supreme Court,

you've never debate the case. What you're debating is the legal interpretation of the decisions

that were made on the case. And so is this constitutional, how do you interpret this particular act, this law, this federal law? What's the right way to think about it? So you don't actually talk about the case. You talk about the interpretation of American law, of our laws, of our laws, of course, you can see the facts have already been determined. That's right. At a lower court, there's questions, the fact and questions of law. The facts have already been determined by the

lower court. It's just the Supreme Court is really on questions of law. That's right. And so they have a full briefing with the full history of the case. And remember, they only hear two cases a day. So they're one hour each for each hearing. So you go in and they only do it Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday on the last two weeks. And they only hear cases from October to April. There's only handful of cases that are selected. Wow. So you're really on a shot clock then to make your on a shot clock.

And you only have, and it's 30 minutes aside. And then the justices will ask question. So this was Monsanto and Roundup, right? So what was the law that was being debated for years? The regulatory body, the EPA sets the label for pesticides. Does this cause cancer or not? What are the warnings? This can be damaging for birth defects, pregnancy, all the things that we're all used to seeing on labels when you buy a product, a chemical product. And the EPA and their regulatory authority

determined that Roundup does not cause cancer. When you sell a pesticide, you first have to register it with the EPA get it approved. And then the EPA gives you a label. And the label is written by the EPA says exactly what you're supposed to say. And in this case, it said, all the stuff doesn't say cancer because they determined it does not cause cancer. And I'm not going to debate whether

body under a federal act called FIFRF, a fungicide insecticide or genocide act. And that's where

“the EPA is given the regulatory authority to put the label on these products. And all of the cases”

that have been lost have been state failure to warn cases to date bear, which now owns Monsanto

has paid out $10 billion in these lawsuits. And they have reserved $10 billion on their balance.

She may have 90,000 cases still outstanding in the court. 90,000. And so this one case got kind of appealed up to the Supreme Court. Last year, the White House solicitor general and if the solicitor general steps up and asked the Supreme Court to take a case, it's more likely the case gets taken. So the White House said, please take this case. We need to have federal preemption, meaning the federal government has the right to set the label because all of this cases that have been lost

and that are being adjudicated are in state courts where the state has a law like in California called a failure to warn law, which means if a manufacturer knows that a product carries a risk, you have to warn the consumer. And so the lawyers have been arguing that Monsanto or Bayer knew that this product cost cancer and didn't warn the consumer. And they've been winning cases, they've been losing cases, but they've won enough cases that this has now become a

multi-decade billion dollar problem. And so the argument is that the EPA says it doesn't

cause cancer and they have federal preemption. So the EPA has the right to determine. So that's the one argument. But then when the other attorney came up, this guy was literally like watching Lebron James. And so going in, we're like, oh, six, three Bayer is going to win. And then the other guy comes up and he was like, well, hey, you guys overturned the Chevron doctor in last year. You

“guys remember that case? Yeah. We're basically when the Chevron doctor and go overturned, it basically”

said that no longer does the federal agency get to decide. It has to be a direct reading of the law. No, no, no, no, no. So now, so he's saying like the states should have a right to read the law themselves. They shouldn't have to just defer to the EPA. And that's what this will come down to. So the end of it, we were like, oh my god, this could be a 50-50 coin flip five, four either way. And going into it, we were kind of like trying to say, hey, maybe this could be six, three. So

honestly, the whole experience was incredible. The case is interesting. These are very complicated

matters. How are these people able to make a full some argument? And like, once I get 30 minutes, the other side gets 30 minutes, there's a little Q&A. And then you're done in an hour. There's this whole art and science and sex. You're probably familiar with this on how do you distill down a Supreme Court case in the briefing doc? Like, what is it you're petitioning around the court? And you trying to distill it down to the exact legal interpretation you want the judge

just to rule on, not all the other bulls. And this is a oral arguments. Yes, oral arguments. Just a discussion. And then the judge has jumped in and all they're doing is asking the lawyer questions. One lawyer at a time, the one side and then the other side. And by the way, the solicitor general came up in the middle and kind of made a few comments and asked her some questions from the White House and she sat down. And then the two sides kind of went back and forth. And they just, they're

like 30 minutes Q&A each on that one specific legal question. And Kataji Brown Jackson said, "But what if after the EPA issued the label, they found out information that it does cost cancer, shouldn't they update the label?" And he's saying, "Well, no, they're not allowed to. They can only issue the label the EPA sets." And he says also, and it's a criminal case. If they find out that it does cost cancer and they don't report it to the EPA. And then she's saying, "Well,

what if the EPA doesn't act and shouldn't the states have a right to protect their people?" So those are the legal arguments, the discussions that are going on and all of this. And there's interesting implications, which is fundamentally, if the states get to interpret federal law and ignore federal regulatory bodies, it opens up a whole new can of worms. In terms of like all the states can start to ignore federal regulatory bodies like the EPA or the FDA or the USDA or

an on and on and on. So the whole case has a whole bunch of really interesting implications wound up in it. When you hear these guys and they're just talking to them about that exact like

“interpretation of the law, and that's what this comes down to. It's not the actual case that matters.”

And after the SACs, they look for arguments and then they have like a private conference where they'll write their papers and give their final judgment. Yeah. SACs. Yeah. I think what happens is that, I guess there's some discussion that happens behind closed doors. Yeah. I figure out where the majority is and then the chief gets to sign who writes the opinion for the majority. In that meeting, nobody is allowed in.

And in fact, you have a double door system where like if anything needs to come in and out, you have to like kind of like knock on the door, you're led into this anti-chamber, then. Oh, is there a lock? It's a fact that we I had I don't know if you were there, Jason, but we had Ted Cruz come to play in the poker game. I was in Ted Cruz, clerked for William Rangwist. And if you want to have an incredible dinner,

ask him about the Supreme Court and Bill Rangwist. He's a real student of the Supreme Court. And it just makes the Supreme Court freebird to your point. Sound like the most

more than the Capitol building, more than any of these other big agencies, this place has,

it's almost like being in England. It has these kind of ways that people operate, the security is so different. They kind of stand there in the court and they all exchange places every 20 minutes. It's very coordinated. They're dressed up differently than any other courtroom listening.

“Maybe like 150, I would say. And it's a ticket. So I think I actually think everyone is a guest”

of a clerk or someone that works at the court. I don't think that it's very publicly available to get in there. You can't line up. There's no line up. There's I don't know if there's a line up. This was I can actually through the we got in through the Chief Justice. He gave us the past, but I think it was like very, I think at the Elon versus opening eye case, there's you can line up and then the judge gave like 30 tickets to the press and it's a Supreme Court.

Yeah. But I think there's a line up for the Supreme Court as well. There's some public access at there. It didn't look like anyone from the public was in this court. Every one of those

referees or everyone is dressed respectfully. I mean, this court has an incredible amount of like

you know, that's a bigger, cool experience. I really enjoy it while you can. I mean,

“I think the Supreme Court is one of the last highly functional institutions in the United States.”

Yeah. For some, you know, at some point we're going to have like 13 or 21 or some crazy number of justice up there. The courts are going to act and get your questions. They're going to show what the rules of justice is there. And so enjoy it while it's still in the current form. It's in fact. You imagine showing up with jerseys with the justices names on them and like having sections and like somebody selling cracker jacks, theocracy version. You're going to hit the

Supreme Court. The popularity of the court really depends on whether it's issuing decisions that people agree with. That's when it comes down to. If like if you ask people whether they like the Supreme Court or not, it really depends on whether they agree with the decisions or not. As opposed to the process of the decisions and how well argued it is and all these things that you're pointing to. And actually the court, I mean, I just checked the numbers. The court

“is relatively popular right now. I think that it got as low as 35% in the 2024 Gualps survey,”

but I think it's back up to like 44 to 50% favorability, which for something that's involved in politics is relatively high, right? Like you look at Congress or any particular politician, they're going to be lower than that typically. I just felt so assured of like the institution. When I visited and saw these guys interact and behave and how they behave, the process, it was like

man. What an amazing country. Well, the reason I say what I say is there's an interview with James

Carville recently, as you guys see. I saw that. When we get power, we're packing the court. So, as we're not even going to, we're not going to worry about it. Yeah, we're going to get to 13, right? He said, we're going to make it. Yeah, they're going to go from 9 to 13. And then they're going to create some new states and all the rest of it. So, that'll be that. Enjoy all that life. Enjoy all that life. We're going to end on a high note. We're going to end the empire. That will be that. By the way,

there is a Supreme Court. I was correct. There is an online ticketing lottery. So, we can all sign up and you can get a four pack of tickets. I think they should make this. We should talk to Howard Lucknick. Maybe he can make this in auction. We get a revenue stream for the US. We can sell like 10 of the tickets as court side seats for 20 grad. Jason, you're exactly what they're trying to protect against how exactly like who we are. How come we've motorized? This is a free court.

All right, everybody. That's it. That's the world's greatest podcast for you. For Trimoff Pi Hoppetia, David Freeberg and David Sachs, I am the world's greatest moderator. We'll see you next time. I'm just us. I'm like the chief justice of the island. But, yes. So, we should all just get a room and just have a one-figure tour because they're all just set to the fans and they've just gone crazy with them. I'm your S.I.S. Queen, I can't walk. I'm going now, I'm going now.

What? You're that big. What? You're a beer or a beef. We need to get merch. I'm going now, Liam.