Skip to content

Podcast

JD Vance's AI Speech, Techno-Optimists vs Doomers, Tariffs, AI Court Cases With Naval Ravikant

All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg

Source ↗ ← All highlights
  • Naval’s Twitter Origin Story
    • Naval Ravikant experienced a high-stress period while building AngelList and facing SEC scrutiny.
    • During this time, he started tweeting personal realizations and insights, which unexpectedly resonated with a large audience. Transcript: David Sacks Naval, what happened when you went through that phase? There was a period where it just seemed like something had gone on in your life and you just knew the answers. You were just so grounded. It’s not to say that you’re not grounded now, but you’re less active posting and writing. But there was this period where I think all of us were like, all right, what does Naval think? Naval Ravikant Oh, really? Oh, okay. That’s news to me. David Sacks I would say it would be like the late teens, the early twenties. Jason, you can correct me if I’m getting the dates wrong, but it’s in that moment where like these Naval-isms and this sort of philosophy really started to, I think people had a tremendous Respect for how you were thinking about things. I’m just curious, like what, were you going through something in that moment or like? Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. That’s right. No, very insightful. Naval Ravikant Yeah. 20. So I’ve been on Twitter since 2007 because I was an early investor, but I never really tweeted. I didn’t get featured. I had no audience. I was just doing the usual techie guy thing, talking to each other. And then I started AngelList in 2010. The original thing about matching investors to startups didn’t scale. It was just an email list that exploded at early on, but then just didn’t scale. So we didn’t have a business. And I was trying to figure out the business. And at the same time, I got a letter from the Securities Exchange Commission saying, oh, you’re acting as an unliced broker dealer. And I’m like, what? I’m not making any money. I’m not, I’m just making intros. I’m not taking anything. It’s just a public service. But even then, they were coming after me. And I’d raised a bunch of money from investors. So, I was in a very high stress period of my life. Now, looking back, it’s almost comical that I was stressed over it. But at the time, it all felt very real. The weight of everything was on my shoulders, expectations, people, money, regulators. And I eventually went to DC and got the law change to legalize what we do, which ironically enabled a whole bunch of other things like ICOs and incubator days and so on, demo days. But in that process, I was in a very high stress period of my life. And I just started tweeting whatever I was going through, whatever realizations I was happening. It’s only in stress that you sort of are forced to grow. And so whatever internal growth I was going through, I just started tweeting it, not thinking much of it. And it was a mix of, there are three things that I kind of always kind of are running through. One is I love science. You know, I’m an amateur, love physics. Let’s just leave it at that. I love reading a lot of philosophy and thinking deeply about it. And I like making money, right? Truth, love, and money. That’s my joke on my Twitter bio. Those are the three things that I keep coming back to. And so I just started tweeting about all of them. And I think before that, the expectation was that someone like me should just be talking about money, stay in your lane. And people had been playing it very safe. And so I think the combination of the three sort of caught people’s attentions because every person thinks about everything. We don’t just stay in our lane in real life. We’re dealing with our relationships. We’re dealing with our relationship with the universe. We’re dealing with what we know to be true and with science and how we make decisions and how we figure things out. And we’re also dealing with the practical everyday material things of how to deal with our spouses or girlfriends or wives or husbands and how to make money and how to deal with our children. So I’m just tweeting about everything. I just got interested in everything. I’m tweeting about it. And a lot of it, my best stuff was just notes to self. It’s like, hey, don’t forget this. How (Time 0:09:07)
  • Parenting Philosophy
    • Treat children with the same respect and freedom given to adults, avoiding coercion.
    • Encourage open discussions and negotiations rather than relying on authority. Transcript: Jason Calacanis Yeah yeah you did a recently a podcast with tim ferris on parenting this was out there i love this i bought the book from this guy. Just give a brief overview of this philosophy of parenting. Oh, I didn’t listen to this. I have to write this down. Tell us what is your- You’re going to love this. This spoke to me, but it was a little crazy. Naval Ravikant Yeah. So, I’m a big fan of David Deutsch. David Deutsch, I think, is basically the smartest living human. He’s a scientist who- He’s very brutal. Yeah, quantum computation. And he’s written a couple of great books, but it’s about the intersection of the greatest theories that we have today, the theories with the most reach. And those are epistemology, the theory of knowledge, evolution, quantum physics, and computation. Jason Calacanis This is the beginning of Infinity Guy. That’s the book- The beginning of Infinity is the second book. That you always reference. Yeah. Naval Ravikant Yes. The Fabric of Reality is another book. I’ve spent a fair bit of time with him, done some podcasts with him, hired and worked with people around him. And I’m just really impressed because it’s like the framework that’s made me smarter, I feel like, because we’re all fighting aging. Our brains are getting slower and we’re always trying to have better ideas. So, as you age, you should have wisdom. That’s your substitute for the raw horsepower of intelligence going down. And so scientific wisdom I take from David. Not take, but I learned from David. And one of the things that he pioneered is called taking children seriously. And it’s this idea that you should take your children seriously like adults. You should always give them the same freedom that you would give an adult. If you wouldn’t speak that way with your spouse, if you wouldn’t force your spouse to do something, don’t force a child to do something. And it’s only through the latent threat of physical violence, hey, I can control you, I can make you go to your room, I can take your dinner away or whatever, that you intimidate children. And it resonated with me because I grew up very, very free. My father wasn’t around when I was young. My mother didn’t have the bandwidth to watch us all the time. She had other things to do. And so I kind of was making my own decisions from an extremely young age. From the age of five, nobody was telling me what to do. And from the age of nine, I was telling everybody what to do. So I’m used to that. And I’ve been homeschooling my own kids. So the philosophy resonated. And I found this guy, Aaron Stupel on AirChat. And he was an incredible expositor of the philosophy. He lives his life with it 99% as extreme as one can go. So his kids can eat all the ice cream they want and all the Snickers bars they want. They can play on the iPad all they want. They don’t have to go to school if they don’t feel like it. They dress how they want. They don’t have to do anything they don’t want to do. Everything is a discussion, negotiation, explanation, just like you would with a roommate or an adult living in your house. And it’s kind of insane and extreme. But I live my own home life in that arc, in that direction. And I’m a very free person. I don’t have an office to go to. I try really not to maintain a calendar. If I can’t remember it, I don’t want to do it. I don’t send my kids to school. I really try not to coerce them. And so obviously that’s an extreme model, but I was- Sorry, sorry, sorry. Hold on a second. David Sacks So your kids, if they were like, I want Haagen-Dazs and it’s 9 PM, you’re like, okay. Naval Ravikant Two nights ago, I did this. I ordered the Haagen-Dazs. It wasn’t Haagen-Dazs. It was a different brand, but I ordered it. I’m just going to go through a couple of examples. We do it. Actually, I scream at 9 p.m. And we all eat it. Yeah. So they’re like, dad, I want- And they’re happy. They’re happy kids. David Sacks I want to be on my iPad. I’m playing Fortnite. Leave me alone. I’ll go to sleep when I want. You’re like, okay. Naval Ravikant My oldest probably plays iPad nine hours a day. Okay. David Sacks So then your other kid pees in their pants because they’re too lazy to walk to the bathroom. Naval Ravikant They don’t do that because they don’t like pee in their pants. David Sacks No, I understand. But I’m just saying like, there’s a spectrum of all of these things, right? Yeah. And your point of view is 100% of it is allowed and you have no judgments. Naval Ravikant No, no, that’s not where I am. That’s where Aaron is. My rules are a little different. My rules are they got to do one hour of math or programming plus two hours of reading every single day. And the moment they’ve done that, they’re free creatures and everything else is a negotiation where I have to persuade them. It’s a persuasion, (Time 0:14:16)
  • Naval’s Parenting in Practice
    • Naval Ravikant’s children have significant freedom in their daily lives, including choices about food and screen time.
    • However, he does set boundaries like daily math/programming and reading requirements. Transcript: David Sacks Kids, if they were like, I want Haagen-Dazs and it’s 9 PM, you’re like, okay. Naval Ravikant Two nights ago, I did this. I ordered the Haagen-Dazs. It wasn’t Haagen-Dazs. It was a different brand, but I ordered it. I’m just going to go through a couple of examples. We do it. Actually, I scream at 9 p.m. And we all eat it. Yeah. So they’re like, dad, I want- And they’re happy. They’re happy kids. David Sacks I want to be on my iPad. I’m playing Fortnite. Leave me alone. I’ll go to sleep when I want. You’re like, okay. Naval Ravikant My oldest probably plays iPad nine hours a day. Okay. David Sacks So then your other kid pees in their pants because they’re too lazy to walk to the bathroom. Naval Ravikant They don’t do that because they don’t like pee in their pants. David Sacks No, I understand. But I’m just saying like, there’s a spectrum of all of these things, right? Yeah. And your point of view is 100% of it is allowed and you have no judgments. Naval Ravikant No, no, that’s not where I am. That’s where Aaron is. My rules are a little different. My rules are they got to do one hour of math or programming plus two hours of reading every single day. And the moment they’ve done that, they’re free creatures and everything else is a negotiation where I have to persuade them. It’s a persuasion, I should say, not even a negotiation. And even the hour of math and two hours of reading, really, you get 15 to 30 minutes of math, maybe an hour if you’re lucky, and you get half an hour to two hours of reading. David Sacks And what do you think the long-term consequences of that are? And then also, what is the long-term consequences, let’s say, on health if they’re making decisions you know are just not good, like the ice cream thing at 9 p.m.? How do you manage that in your mind? Naval Ravikant I think whatever age you’re at, whatever part you’re at in life, you’re still always struggling with your own habits. I think all of us, for example, still eat food and feel guilty or want to eat something that we shouldn’t be eating and we’re still always evolving our diets and kids are the same. So, my oldest has already, he passed on the ice cream last time and he said, I want to eat healthier because finally I managed to get through to him and persuade him that he should be healthier. My younger kids will eat it, but they’ll eat a limited amount. My middle kid will sometimes eat some and not others. David Sacks So, if they say something, you’ll enable it, but then you’ll guide, you’ll be like, hey, listen, this is not the choice I would make. I don’t think, but if you want it, I do it. Yeah. Naval Ravikant I’ll try it, but you also have to be careful where you don’t want to intimidate them and you don’t want to to be so overbearing that then they just view dad as like controlling. David Sacks I find this so fascinating. And so what do you think happens to these kids? Like, I’m sure you have a vision of what they’ll be like when they’re fully formed adults. Like, what is that vision? Naval Ravikant I try not to. They’re going to be who they’re going to be. This is kind of how I grew up. I kind of did what I wanted. I would rather they have agency than turn out exactly the way I want. Because agency is the hardest thing, right? Having control over your own life, making your own decisions. And I want them to be happy. I have a very happy household. David Sacks What is the Plato? What’s Plato’s goal? Eudaimonia, right? Eudaimonia. Yeah, the happy lifestyle. Or like the fulfillment, this constant, is that what you want for them? Naval Ravikant I don’t really want anything for them. I just want them to be free and their best selves. God damn. Jason Calacanis Shemath is worrying about details. She’s got like 17 kids now, I don’t know if you know, but Shemath has got like a whole bunch of things. I love this interview because the guy made a really interesting point, which was, they’re going to have to make these decisions at some point. They’re going to have to learn the pros and cons, the upside, the downside to all these things, eating, iPad, and the quicker you get them to have agency to make these decisions for themselves With knowledge to ask questions, the more secure they’ll be. I found it a fascinating discussion. I like cause and effect, especially in teenagers. Now that I have a teenager, it’s really good for them to learn, hey, you know, if you don’t do your homework, you have a problem and then you got to solve that problem. How are we going to solve that problem? So I like to present it as what’s your plan? Anytime they have a problem, eight-year kids, 15-year kids, I just say, what’s your plan to solve this? And then I like to hear their plan and let me know if you want to brainstorm it. But I thought it was a very interesting, super interesting discussion. Naval Ravikant I would say overall, my kids are very happy. The household is very happy. Everybody gets along. Everybody loves each other. Some of them are way ahead of their peers. Nobody’s behind in anything that matters. Nobody seems unhealthy in any obvious way. No one has aberrant eating habits. I haven’t even found really an aberrant behavior that’s out of line. So it’s all good. Self-correcting. (Time 0:17:15)
  • Vance’s AI Opportunity Focus
    • J.D. Vance’s AI speech in Paris emphasized AI opportunity over safety, contrasting with prevailing doomerism and EU regulations.
    • He advocated for U.S. dominance in AI, focusing on key technologies, deregulation, and partnerships. Transcript: Jason Calacanis You’re all set, guys. Let me know how it works out. All right. Speaking of working out, we’ve got a vice president who isn’t cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs and who actually understands what AI is. J.D. Vance gave a great speech. I watched it myself. He talked about AI in Paris. This was on Tuesday at the AI Action Summit, whatever that is. And he gave a 15-minute banger of a speech. He talked about over-regulating AI and America’s intention to dominate this. And we happen to have with us, Naval, the czar, the czar of AI. So before I go into all the details about the speech, I don’t want to steal your thunder. Facts, this speech had a lot of verbiage, a lot of ideas that I’ve heard before that maybe we’ve all talked about. Maybe tell us a little bit about how this all came together and how proud you are. I mean, gosh, having a vice president who understands AI is just, it’s mind-blowing. He could speak on a topic that’s topical credibly. This was an awesome moment for America, I think. What are you implying there, J. Cal? I’m implying you might have workshopped it with him. No. Chamath Palihapitiya Or that he’s smart. Both of those things. The vice president wrote the speech or at least directed all of it. So the ideas came from him. I’m not going to take any credit whatsoever for this. Jason Calacanis Okay, well, it was on point. Maybe you could talk about… Chamath Palihapitiya Yes, I agree it was on point. I think it was a very well-crafted and well-delivered speech. Jason Calacanis He made four main points about the Trump administration’s approach to AI. He’s going to ensure, this is point one, that American AI continues to be the gold standard. Fantastic check. Two, he says that the administration understands that excessive regulation could kill AI just as it’s taking off. And he did this in front of all the EU elites who love regulation, did it on their home court. And then he said, number three, AI must remain free from ideological bias, as we’ve talked about here on this program. And then number four, the White House, he said, will, quote, maintain a pro-worker growth path for AI so that it can be a potent tool for job creation in the U.S. So what are your thoughts on the four major bullet points in his speech here in Paris? Chamath Palihapitiya Well, I think that the vice president, you knew he was going to deliver an important speech as soon as he got up there and said that I’m here to talk about not AI safety, but AI opportunity. And to understand what a bracing statement that was, and really almost like a shot across the bow, you have to understand the history and context of these events. For the last couple of years, the last couple of these events have been exclusively focused on AI safety. The last in-person event was in the UK at Bletchley Park, and the whole conference was devoted to AI safety. Similarly, the European AI regulation obviously is completely preoccupied with safety and trying to regulate away safety risks before they happen. Similarly, you had the Biden EO, which was based around safety. And then you have just the whole media coverage around AI, which is preoccupied with all the risks from AI. So to have the vice president get up there and say right off the bat that there are other things to talk about in respect to AI besides safety risks, that actually there are huge opportunities There, was a breath of fresh air and, like I said, kind of a shot across the bow. And yeah, you could almost see some of the Eurocrats, they needed their fainting couches after that. Eurocrats. Trudeau looks like his dog just died. So I think that was just a really important statement right off the bat to set the context for the speech, which is AI is a huge opportunity for all of us. Because really, that point just has not been made enough. And it’s true. There are risks. But when you look at the media coverage and when you look at the dialogue that the regulators have had around this. They never talk about the opportunities. It’s always just around the risk. So I think that was a very important corrective. And then, like you said, he went on to say that the United States has to win this AI race. We want to be the gold standard. We want to dominate. Jason Calacanis That was my favorite part. Chamath Palihapitiya Yeah. And by the way, that language about dominating AI and winning the global race, that is in President Trump’s executive order from week one. So this is very much elaborating on the official policy of this administration. And the vice president then went on to say that he specified how we would do that, right? We have to win some of these key building block technologies. We want to win in chips. We want to win in AI models. We want to win in applications. He said we need to build, we need to unlock energy for these companies. And then most of all, we just need to be supportive towards them as opposed to regulating them to death. And he had a lot to say about the risk of over-regulation, how often it’s big companies that want regulation. He warned about regulatory capture, which our friend Bill Gurley would like. And he said that, basically having less regulation can actually be more fair, can create a more level playing field for small companies, as well as big companies. And then he said to the Europeans that we want you to be partners with us. We want to lead the world, but we want you to be our partners and benefit from this technology that we’re going to take the lead in creating. But you also have to be a good partner to us. And then he specifically called out the overregulation that Europeans have been engaged in. He mentioned the Digital Services Act, which has acted as like a speed trap for American companies. It’s American companies who’ve been overregulated and fined by these European regulations because the truth of the matter is that it’s American technology companies that are winning The race. And so when Europe passes these onerous regulations, they fall most of all on American companies. And he’s basically saying, we need you to rebalance and correct this because it’s not fair and it’s not smart policy, and it’s not going to help us collectively win this AI race. And that kind of brings me to the last point is I don’t think he mentioned China by name, but clearly he talked about adversarial countries who are using AI to control their populations, To engage in censorship and thought control. And he basically painted a picture where it’s like, yeah, you could go work with them or you could work with us. And we have hundreds of years of shared history together. We believe in things like free speech, hopefully, and we want you to work with us. But if you are going to work with us, then you have to cooperate and we have to create a reasonable regulatory regime. Naval, (Time 0:23:50)
  • Centralization of AI is the Real Danger
    • Naval Ravikant expresses concern not about AI itself, but about centralized control by a few entities.
    • Open-source AI is crucial for preventing a small group from wielding excessive power over this transformative technology. Transcript: David Friedberg Exceptionalism? Naval Ravikant Very surprising, very impressive. I thought he was polite, optimistic, and just very forward looking. Just it’s what you would expect an entrepreneur or a smart investor to say. So I was very impressed. I think the idea that America should win, great. I think that we should not regulate. I also agree with, I’m not an AI doomer. I don’t think AI is going to end the world. That’s a separate conversation. But there’s this religion that comes along in many faces, which is that, oh, climate change is going to end the world. AI is going to end the world. Asteroids going to end the world. COVID-19 is going to end the world. And it just has a way of fixating your attention, right? It captures everybody’s attention at once. It’s a very seductive thing. And I think in the case of AI, it’s really been overplayed by incentive bias, motivated reasoning by the companies who are ahead and they want to pull up the ladder behind them. I think they genuinely believe it. I think they genuinely believe that there’s safety risks, but I think they’re motivated to believe in those safety risks and then they pass that along. But it’s kind of a weird position because they have to say, oh, it’s so dangerous that you shouldn’t just let open source go at it, and you should let just a few of us work with you on it. But it’s not so dangerous that a private company can’t own the whole thing. Because if it was truly the Manhattan Project, if they were building nuclear weapons, you wouldn’t want one company to own that. Sam Altman famously said that AI will capture the light cone of all future value. In other words, like all value ever created at the speed of light from here will be captured by AI. So if that’s true, then I think open source AI really matters and little tech AI really matters. The problem is that the nature of training these models is highly centralized. They benefit from supercomputer clustered compute. It’s not clear how any decentralized model can compete. To me, the real issue boils down to is how do you push AI forward while not having just a very small number of players control the entire thing? We thought we had that solution with the original OpenAI, which was a nonprofit and was supposed to do it for humanity. But now, because they want to incentivize the team and they want to raise money, they have to privatize at least a part of it. Although it’s not clear to me why they need to privatize the whole thing. Like why do you need to buy out the nonprofit portion? You could leave a nonprofit portion and you could have the private portion for the incentives. But I think that the real challenge is how do you keep AI from naturally centralizing? Because all the economics and technology underneath are centralizing in nature. If you really think you’re going to create God, do you want to put God on a leash with one entity controlling God? That to me is the real fear. I’m not scared of AI. I’m scared of what a very small number of people who control AI do to the rest of us for our own good, because that’s how it always works. (Time 0:30:29)
  • Techno-Optimism vs. Techno-Pessimism
    • David Friedberg contrasts techno-optimists with techno-pessimists, highlighting different perspectives on AI’s impact.
    • He believes AI-driven automation will create abundance and new opportunities, similar to the automobile’s transformative effect. Transcript: David Friedberg I think that there’s this kind of big definition of social balance right now on what I would call techno-optimism and techno-pessimism. Generally, people sort of fall into one of those two camps. Generally speaking, techno-optimists, I would say, are folks that believe that accelerating outcomes with AI, with automation, with bioengineering, manufacturing, semiconductors, Quantum computing, nuclear energy, etc., will usher in this era of abundance by creating leverage, which is what technology gives us. Technology will make things cheaper, and it will be deflationary, and it will give everyone more. So it creates abundance. The challenge is that people who already have a lot worry more about the exposure to the downside than they desire the upside. And so, you know, the techno pessimists are generally like the EU and large parts, frankly, of the United States are worried about the loss of X, the loss of jobs, the loss of this, the Loss of that, whereas countries like China and India are more excited about the opportunity to create wealth, the opportunity to create leverage, the opportunity to create abundance For their people. You know, GDP per capita in the EU, $60,000 a year. GDP per capita in the United States, like $82,000. But GDP per capita in India is 2,500 and China’s 12,600. There’s a greater incentive in those countries to manifest upside than there is for the United States and the EU who are more worried about manifesting downside. And so it is a very difficult kind of social battle that’s underway. I do think like over time, those governments and those countries and those social systems that embrace these technologies are going to become more capitalist. And they’re going to require less government control and intervention in job creation, the economy, payments to people, and so on. And the countries that are more techno-pessimistic are unfortunately going to find themselves asking for greater government control, government intervention in markets, governments Creating jobs, government making payments to people, governments effectively running the economy. My personal view, obviously, is that I’m a very strong advocate for technology acceleration because I think in nearly every case in human history, when a new technology has emerged, We’ve largely found ourselves assuming that the technology works in the framework of today or of yesteryear. The automobile came along and no one envisioned that everyone in the United States would own an automobile. And therefore you would need to create all of these new industries like mechanics and car dealerships, roads, all the people servicing and building roads, and all the other industry That emerged. And it’s very hard for us to sit here today and say, okay, AI is going to destroy jobs. What’s it going to create and be right? I think we’re very likely going to be wrong, whatever estimations we give. The area that I think is most underestimated is large technical projects that seem technically infeasible today that AI can unlock. For example, habitation in the oceans. It’s very difficult for us to envision creating cities underwater and creating cities in the oceans, or creating cities on the moon, or creating cities on Mars, or finding new places To live. Those are technically, people might argue, oh, that sounds stupid. I don’t want to go do that. But at the end of the day, like human civilization will drive us to want to do that. But those technically are very hard to pull off today. But AI can unlock a new set of industries to enable those transitions. So I think we really get it wrong when we try and assume the technology as a transplant for last year or last century. And then we kind of become techno pessimists because we’re worried about losing what we have. Jason Calacanis Are you a techno-pessimist or are you optimist? Because you bring up the downside an awful lot here on the program, but you are working every day in a very optimistic way to breed, you know, better strawberries and potatoes for folks. So you’re a little bit of a… David Friedberg No, I have no techno-pessimism whatsoever. I try and point out why the other side is acting the way they are. Got it, okay. Jason Calacanis Putting it in full context. David Friedberg And what I’m trying to highlight is I think that that framework is wrong. I think that that framework of trying to transplant new technology onto the old way of things operating is the wrong way to think about it. And it creates this, you know, because of this manifestation about worrying about downside, it creates this fear that creates regulation like we see in the EU. And as a result, China’s GDP will scale while the EUs will stagnate if that’s where they go. That’s my assessment or my opinion on what will happen. And Chamath, (Time 0:33:23)
  • Targeted Immigration
    • Support legal high-skill immigration that allows for assimilation.
    • Separate this from open borders policies to attract talent and foster innovation. Transcript: Jason Calacanis All right, Naval, this seems to be one of the main issues of our time. Four of the five people on this podcast right now are immigrants. So we have this amazing tradition in America. This is a country built by immigrants for immigrants. Do you think that should change now in the face of job destruction, which I know you’ve been tracking self-driving pretty acutely? We both have an interest there, I think, over the years. You know, what’s the solution here if we’re going to see a bunch of job displacement, which will happen for certain jobs? We all kind of know that. Should we shut the border and not let the next Naval, Chamath, Sachs, and Friedberg into the country? Well, let me declare my biases up front. Naval Ravikant I’m a first-generation immigrant. I moved here when I was nine years old, rather my parents did, and then I’m a naturalized citizen. So obviously, I’m in favor of some level of immigration. That said, I’m assimilated. I consider myself an American first and foremost. I bleed red, white, and blue. I believe in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, first and second and fourth and all the proper amendments. I get up there every July 4th and I deliberately defend the Second Amendment on Twitter, at which point half my followers go bananas, you know, because I’m not supposed to. I’m supposed to be a good immigrant, right? And carry the usual set of coherent leftist policies, globalist policies. So I think that legal high-skill immigration with room and time for assimilation makes sense. You want to have a brain drain on the best and brightest coming to the freest country in the world to build technology and to help civilization move forward. And, you know, as Chamath was saying, economic power and military power is downstream of technology. In fact, even culture is downstream of technology. Look at what the birth control pill did, for example, to culture or what the automobile did to culture or what radio and television did to culture and then the internet. So, technology drives everything. And if you look at wealth, wealth is a set of physical transformations that you can affect. And that’s a combination of capital knowledge. And the bigger input to that is knowledge. And so, the US has become the home of knowledge creation thanks to bringing in the best and brightest. You could even argue deep seek. Part of the reason why we lost that is because a bunch of those kids, they studied in the US, but then we sent them back home. So I think you absolutely- Is that actually accurate? Jason Calacanis They were- Yeah, yeah, yeah, some. A few of them. Really? Oh my God, that’s like exhibit A. Wow, I didn’t know that. Naval Ravikant So I think you absolutely have to split skilled, assimilated immigration, which is a small set, And it has to be both. They have to both be skilled and they have to become Americans. That oath is not meaningless, right? It has to mean something. So skilled, assimilated immigration, you have to separate that from just open borders, whoever can wander in, just come on in. That latter part makes no sense. Chamath Palihapitiya If the Biden administration had only been letting in people with 150 IQs, we wouldn’t have this debate right now. The reason why we’re having this debate is because they just opened the border and let millions and millions of people in. Naval Ravikant It was to their advantage to conflate legal and illegal immigration. So every time you’d be like, well, we can’t just open the borders. You say, well, what about Elon? What about this? And they would just parade. Chamath Palihapitiya If they were just letting in the Elons and the Jensens and… Freedbergs. We wouldn’t be having the same conversation today. (Time 0:45:48)
  • AI as a Productivity Tool
    • AI is primarily a productivity tool that enhances worker capabilities rather than replacing jobs outright.
    • David Sacks argues that job creation will likely outpace job displacement as AI opens up new opportunities. Transcript: Jason Calacanis I reject that premise, this whole conversation. Chamath Palihapitiya Wait, wait, hold on. Look, I’m a first generation American who moved here when I was five and became a citizen when I was 10. And yes, I’m fully American. And that’s the only country I have any loyalty to. But the premise that I reject here is that somehow an AI conversation leads to an immigration conversation because millions of jobs are going to be lost. We don’t know that. David Sacks That’s also true. I agree with that. Chamath Palihapitiya You’re making a huge assumption that’s buying into the doomerism that AI is going to wipe out millions of jobs. Those are facts, not evidence. And furthermore, have any jobs been lost by AI? Let’s be real. We’ve had AI for two and a half years, and I think it’s great. But so far, it’s a better search engine, and it helps high school kids cheat on their essays. I mean, come on. Jason Calacanis You don’t believe that self-driving is coming? Hold on a second. Sachs, you don’t believe that millions… But hold on. Naval Ravikant Those driver jobs weren’t even there 10 years ago. Uber came along and created all these driver jobs. DoorDash created all these driver jobs So what technology does, yes, technology destroys jobs, but it replaces them with opportunities that are even better. And then either you can go capture that opportunity yourself or an entrepreneur will come along and create something that allows you to capture those opportunities. AI is a productivity tool. It increases the productivity of a worker. It allows them to do more creative work and less repetitive work. As such, it makes them more valuable. Yes, there is some retraining involved, but not a lot. These are natural language computers. You can talk to them in plain English and they talk back to you in plain English. But I think David is absolutely right. I think we will see job creation by AI that will be as fast or faster than job destruction. You saw this even with the internet, like YouTube came along, look at all these YouTube streamers and influencers, that didn’t used to be a job. New jobs, really opportunities, because job is the wrong word. Job implies someone else has to give it to me and it’s sort of like they’re handed out, it’s a zero sum game. Forget all that, it’s opportunities. After COVID, look at how many people are making money by working from home in mysterious little ways on the internet that you can’t even quite grasp. Chamath Palihapitiya Here’s the way I categorize it, okay, is that whenever you have a new technology, you get productivity gains, you get some job disruption, meaning that part of your job may go away, but Then you get other parts that are new, and hopefully more elevated, you more interesting. And then there is some job loss. I just think that the third category will follow the historical trend, which is that the first two categories are always bigger and you end up with more net productivity and more net Wealth creation. And we’ve seen no evidence to date that that’s not going to be the case. Now, it’s true that AI is about to get more powerful. You’re going to see a whole new wave of what are called agents this year. Agentic products are able to do more for you. But there’s no evidence yet that those things are going to be completely unsupervised and replace people’s jobs. So, you know, I think that we have to see how this technology evolves. And I think one of the mistakes of let’s call it the European approach is assuming that you can predict the future with perfect accuracy or such good accuracy that you can create regulations Today that are going to avoid all these risks in the future. And we just don’t know enough yet to be able to do that. That’s a false level of certainty. David Sacks I agree with you. And the companies that are promulgating that view is what Naval said, those that have an economic vested interest in at least convincing the next incremental investor that this could Be true because they want to make the claim that all the money should go to them so they could hoover up all the economic gains. That is the part of the cycle we’re in. If you actually stratify these reactions, there’s the small startup companies in AI that believe there’s a productivity leap to be had and that there’s going to be prosperity. Everybody on the sidelines watching. And then a few companies that have an extremely vested interest in them being a gatekeeper because they need to raise the next 30 or $40 billion trying to convince people that that’s True. And if you view it through that lens, you’re right, Sachs, we have not accomplished anything yet that proves that this is going to be cataclysmically bad. And if anything right now, history would tell you it’s probably going to be like the past, which is generally productive and accretive to society. Chamath Palihapitiya A quintessentially American speech in the sense that he said we should be optimistic about the opportunities here, which I think is basically right. And we want to lead. We want to take advantage of this. We don’t want to hobble it. We don’t even fully know what it’s going to be yet. We are going to center workers. We want to be pro-worker. And I think that if there are downsides for workers, then we can mitigate those things in the future. But it’s too early to say that we know what the program should be. It’s more about a statement of values at this point. (Time 0:51:45)
  • Thompson Reuters Wins Copyright Case
    • Thompson Reuters won a copyright case against Ross, a legal search engine, for using its content without a license.
    • This highlights the ongoing debate on fair use and copyright in the age of AI. Transcript: Jason Calacanis Yeah. Naval Ravikant Or even driving cars. Jason Calacanis All right, listen, I want to get to two more stories here. We have a really interesting copyright story that I wanted to touch on. Thompson Reuters just won the first major US AI copyright case, and fair use played a major role in this decision. This has huge implications for AI companies here in the United States. Obviously, OpenAI and the New York Times, Getty Images versus Stability, we’ve talked about these, but it’s been a little while because the legal system takes a little bit of time, And these are very complicated cases, as we’ve talked about thompson reuters owns westlaw if you don’t know that it’s kind of like lexis nexus it’s one of the the legal databases out There that lawyers use to to find cases etc and they have a paid product with summaries and analysis of legal decisions back in 2020 this is two years before chat gpt reuters sued a legal Research competitor called Ross for copyright infringement. Ross had created an AI-powered legal search engine. Sounds great. But Ross had asked Westlaw if they would pay a license to its content for training. Westlaw said no. This all went back and forth. And then Ross signed a similar deal with a company called LegalEase. The problem is LegalEase’s database just copied and pasted from a bunch of Westlaw answers. So Reuters, Westlaw, sued Ross in 2020, accusing the company of being vicariously liable for LegalEase’s direct infringement. Super important point. Anyway, the judge originally favored Ross in fair use. This week, the judge reversed this ruling and found Ross liable, noting that after further review, fair use does not apply in this case. This is the first major win. And we debated this. So here’s a clip. You know, you heard it here first on the all in pod. And I’ve got a lot of experience with it. The fourth factor test, I’m sure you’re well aware of this, is the effect of the use on the potential market and the value of the work. If you look at the lawsuits that are starting to emerge, it is Getty’s right to then make derivative products based on their images. I think we would all agree. Stable diffusion, when they use these open web, that is no excuse to use an open web crawler to avoid getting a license from the original owner of that. Just because you can technically do it doesn’t mean you’re allowed to do it. In fact, the open web projects that provide these say explicitly, we do not give you the right to use this, you have to then go read the copyright laws on each of those websites. And on top of that, if somebody were to steal the copyrights of other people, put it on the open web, which is happening all day long, you still if you’re building a derivative work like This, you still need to go get it. So it’s no excuse that I took some site in Russia that did a bunch of copyright violation and then I indexed them for my training model. David Sacks So I think this is going to result- Hey, Freiburg, can you shoot me in the face and let me know when this segment is? Okay. Oh, great. Jason Calacanis I feel the same way today. David Friedberg Same way now, exactly. I know, me too. Yeah. Okay, good segment. Let’s move on. Jason Calacanis Well, since these guys don’t give a s*** about copyright holders. No, I care about it. Naval, what do you think about, you know, I’m so glad you’re here, Naval, to actually talk about the topics these two other guys wouldn’t engage me with. Naval Ravikant I’m going to go on an even thinner limb and say I largely agree with you. I think it’s a bit rich to crawl the open web, hoover up all the data, offer direct substitution for a lot of use cases, because now you start and end with the AI model. It’s not even like you link out like Google did. And then you just close off the models for safety reasons. I think if you trained on the open web, your model should be open source. Yeah, absolutely. Jason Calacanis That would be a fine thing. I have a prediction here. I think this is all going to wind up like the Napster Spotify case. For people who don’t know, Spotify pays, I think, 65 cents on the dollar to the original underwriters of that content, the music industry. And they figured out a way to make a business and Napster is roadkill. I think that there is a non-zero chance, like it might be five or 10% that opening eye is going to lose the New York Times lawsuit and they’re going to lose it hard and there could be injunctions. And I think it’s the settlement might be that these language models, especially the closed ones are going to have to pay some percentage in a negotiated settlement of their revenue, Half, two to the content holders. And this could make the content industry have a massive, massive uplift and a massive resurgence. David Sacks I think that the problem, there’s an example on the other side of this, which is that there’s a company that provides technical support for Oracle, third-party company. And Oracle has tried umpteen times to sue them into oblivion, using copyright infringement as part of the justification. And it’s been a pall over the stock for a long time. The company’s name is Rimini Street. Don’t ask me why it’s on my radar, but I’ve been looking at it. And they lost this huge lawsuit, Oracle won, and then it went to appellate court and then it was all vacated. Why am I bringing this up? I think that the legal community has absolutely no idea how these models work. Because you can find one case that goes one way and one case that goes the other. And what I would say should become standard reading for anybody bringing any of these There’s an incredible video that Carpathie just dropped that Andre just dropped where he does Like this deep dive into LLMs and he explains chat GPT from the ground up. It’s on YouTube. It’s three hours. It’s excellent. And it’s very difficult to watch that and not get to the same conclusion that you guys did. I’ll just leave it at that. I tend to agree with this. (Time 1:21:11)
  • Fair Use and AI Models
    • If training AI models on open web data, make the models open source or pay copyright holders.
    • This approach balances innovation with protecting content creators’ rights. Transcript: David Friedberg Philosophically disagree with all of your nonsense on this topic. All three of you are wrong. And I’ll tell you why. Number one, if information is out in the open internet, I believe it’s accessible and it’s viewable. And I view an LLM or a web crawler as basically being a human that’s reading and can store information in its brain. If it’s out there in the open, if it’s behind a paywall, a hundred percent, if it’s behind some protected password. Naval Ravikant Wait, wait, wait, wait, David, in that case, can a Google crawler just crawl the entire site and serve it on Google? Why can’t they do that? David Friedberg So here’s the fair use. The fair use is you cannot copy, you cannot repeat the content. You cannot take the content and repeat it. Naval Ravikant That is how the law is currently written. But now what I have is I have a tool that can remix it with 50 other pieces of similar content and I can change the word slightly and maybe even translate into different language. David Friedberg So where does it stop? Do you know the musical artist, Girl Talk? We should have done a Girl Talk track here today. Jason Calacanis He’s got weird musical taste. Let’s go. Here we go. David Friedberg He basically take small samples of popular tracks and he made, and he got sued for the same problem. There was another guy named White Panda, I believe had the same problem. Ed Sheeran got sued for this. Naval Ravikant Yeah, but there are entire sites like Stack Overflow and WikiHow that are basically disappeared now because you can just swallow them all up and you can just spit it all back out and chat GPT with slight changes. So I think that the first and fourth test… But I think the fair use is how much of a slight change is exactly the right question. Yeah, yeah, it’s the right question. Yeah, so that’s the question. And it actually boils down to the AGI question. Are these things actually intelligent and are they learning or are they compressing and regurgitating? That’s the question. David Friedberg I wonder this about humans. And that’s why I bring up the white panda, the girl talk in audio, but also visual art. There was always artists and even in classical music. I don’t know if you guys are classical music people, but right, there was there’s a demonstration of how, you know, one composer learned from the next and that you can actually crack The music as kind of being standing on the shoulders of the prior. And the same is true in almost all art forms, in almost all human knowledge, and media, and communication. Naval Ravikant It’s very hard to figure that out. Well, that’s exactly right. That’s the hard part. It’s very hard to figure that out, which is why I come back to there’s only one of two stable solutions to this. And it’s going to happen anyway. If we don’t crawl it, the Chinese will crawl it, right? DeepSeek proved that. So there’s only one of two stable solutions. Either you pay the copyright holders, which I actually think doesn’t work. And the reason is because someone in China will crawl it, and they just dump the weights. So they can just crawl and dump the compressed weights. Or if you crawl, make it open. At least contribute something back to open source. You crawled open data, contributed back to open source. And the people who don’t want to be crawled, they’re going to have to go to a huge lens to protect their data. Now everybody knows to protect the data. Jason Calacanis Yeah, well, the licensing thing is happening here. I have a book out from Harper Business on the shelf behind me, and I’m getting 2,500 smackaroos for the next three years for Microsoft indexing it. So they’re going out and they’re licensing this stuff and they’re going $2,500. So literally, I’m getting $2,500 for three years, a bunch of Harper to go into an LLM to go into Microsoft specifically. And you know what, I’m going to sign it. I decided because I just want to set the precedent. Maybe next time it’s 10,000, maybe next time it’s 250. I don’t care i just want to see people have their content respected and i’m just hoping that sam altman loses this lawsuit and they get an injunction against it hey uh well just because He’s just such a weasel in terms of like making stop open ai into a closed thing i mean i like sam personally but I think what he did was like the super weasel move of all time for his own personal Benefit. If he, and this whole lying like, oh, I have no equity, I get healthcare. He does it for the love. And now I get 10%. David Sacks No, bro, he does it. He does it for the love? What was the statement? He does it for the joy, the happiness. Jason Calacanis The benefits. I think he got healthcare. Naval Ravikant I think in open AI’s defense, they do need to raise a lot of money and they got to incent their employees. But that doesn’t mean they need to take over the whole thing. The nonprofit portion can still stay the nonprofit portion and get the Lions share the benefits and be the board. And then he can have an incentive package and employees can have an incentive package. Yeah, why don’t they get a percentage of the revenue? Just give them like 10% of the revenue goes to the team. Bought out right now for $40 billion, and then the whole thing disappears into a closed system. That part makes no sense to me. That’s (Time 1:29:08)
  • Sleep Optimization
    • Prioritize sleep for overall health and well-being.
    • Establish a consistent wind-down routine, minimizing screen time and cognitive stimulation before bed. Transcript: David Sacks We wrap up? Yeah, let’s wrap on your story. I had an interesting… Nick, we’ll show you the photo. I had an interesting dinner on Monday with Brian Johnson, the don’t die guy. Came over to my house. How’s his erection doing overnight? What we talked about is that he’s got three hours a night of nighttime erections. Wow, look at this. By the way, first of all, I’ll tell you. I think that he’s- Kuhn. Wait, which one of those is giving him the erection? No, no, no, he measures his nighttime erections. I think Kuhn is giving him the erection. But he said that when he started, so by the way, he said he was 43 when he started this thing. He was basically clinically obese. Yeah. And in these next four years has become a specimen. He now has three hours a night of nighttime erections, but that’s not the interesting thing. At the end of this dinner, by the way, his skin is incredible. I was not sure because when you see the pictures online but his skin in real life is like a porcelain dolls i’ve both my wife and i were like we’ve never seen skin like this and it’s incredibly Soft wait wait wait whoa whoa whoa how do you know his skin is soft you know you brush your hand against his forearm or whatever you know gives a hug at the end of the night i’m telling you The guy’s supple skin bro it’s the softest skin i’ve ever touched in my life anyways that’s not the point it was really fascinating dinner he walked through his whole protocol but at The end of it i think it was nikesh the ceo of paulo alter networks he was just like give me the top three things top three and of the top three things what i boil it down to is the top one thing, Which is like 80% of the 80%. It’s all about sleep. I was about to guess sleep. And he walked through his nighttime routine and it’s incredible and it’s straightforward. It’s really simple. It’s like how you do a wind down. Anyways, I have tried to- Explain the wind down briefly. Let’s just say that, because Brian goes to bed much earlier. So our normal time, let’s just say 10, 10.30. So my time, I try to go to bed by 10.30. He’s like, you need to be in bed. You need to, first of all, stop eating three or four hours before, right? And I do that. I eat at 6.30. So I have about three hours. You’re in bed by 9.30 or 10. You deal with the self-talk, right? Like, okay, here’s the active mind telling you all the things you have to fix in the morning. Talk it out, put it in its place, say, I’m going to deal with this in the morning. Jason Calacanis Write it down in a journal, you’re saying? David Sacks Whatever you do so that you put it away. You cannot be on your phone. That’s got to be in a different room. Or you just got to be able to shut it down and then read a book so that you’re actually just engaged in something. And he said that he typically falls asleep within three to four minutes of getting into bed and starting his routine. What? I tried it. So I’ve been doing it since I had dinner with him on Monday. Last night, I fell asleep within 15 minutes. The hardest part for me is to put the phone away. I can’t do it. Of course, of course. Jason Calacanis What about you, Nival? Tell us your one down. Naval Ravikant Oh, yeah. I know Brian pretty well, actually. I joke that I’m married to the female Brian Johnson because my wife has some of his routines, but she’s the natural version, no supplements, and she’s intense. And I think when Brian saw my sleep score from my eight sleep, he was shocked. He was just like, you’re going to die. He’s like, you’re literally going to die. What do you got, 70, 80? No, it’s terrible. It’s awful. Tell the truth. Jason Calacanis What’s your number? What’s your number? Naval Ravikant It was like 30s, 40s. What? Yeah. But it’s also because I don’t sleep much. I only sleep a few hours a night and I also around a lot in the bed and so on. But it’s fine. I never have trouble falling asleep. But I would say that Brian’s skincare routine is amazing. His diet is incredible. He is a genuine character. I do think a lot of what he’s saying, minus the supplements, I’m not a big believer in supplements, does work. I don’t know if it’s necessarily going to slow down your aging, but you’ll look good and you’ll feel good. Yeah, sleep is the number one thing. In terms of falling asleep, I don’t think it’s really about whether you look at your phone or not, believe it or not. I think it’s about what you’re doing on your phone. If you’re doing anything that is cognitively stressful or getting your mind to spin, then yes. David Sacks You think you can scroll TikTok and fall asleep is fine? Naval Ravikant Anything that’s entertaining or that is like you can read a book, right, on your Kindle or in your iPad, and I think it’d be fine falling asleep. Or you can listen to like some meditation video or some spiritual teacher or something, and that’ll actually help you fall asleep. But if you’re on X or if you’re checking your email, then heck yeah, that’s going to keep you up. So my hack for sleep is a little different. I normally fall asleep within minutes. And the way I do it is you all have a meditation routine. You have a set time? David Sacks You have a set time? Naval Ravikant No, no. I sleep whenever I feel like. Usually around one in the morning, two in the morning. David Sacks God damn, I’m in bed by 10. Yeah, I need to sleep. Naval Ravikant I’m an owl. But if you want to fall asleep, the hack I found is everybody has tried some kind of a meditation routine. Just sit in bed and meditate. And your mind will hate meditation so much that if you force it to choose between the fork of meditation and sleeping, you will fall asleep. Thanks every time. Well, okay. So if you don’t fall asleep, you’ll end up meditating, which is great too. I (Time 1:35:34)
  • Naval’s Unconventional Night
    • Naval Ravikant shared his unusual night involving ice cream, a kettlebell workout, and a late-night conversation.
    • Despite this, he easily fell asleep after meditating, demonstrating his mind’s aversion to meditation. Transcript: Naval Ravikant Last night was unusual for me, but it was kind of funny anyway. I thought, oh, I should go to bed early because I’m an all-in. Yeah. But I ended up eating ice cream with the kids late. Jason Calacanis Wait, what was the brand? You said you went for another brand. I want to know the brand. I think it was Van Leeuwen or something like that. Van Leeuwen. Van Leeuwen. Of course. New York and Brooklyn. That is good. Naval Ravikant That is good. The holiday cookies and cream. Oh, my God. So good. Yeah, it’s so good. So after I polished that off, then I was like, oh, I probably ate too much to go to bed. So I better work out. So I did a kettlebell workout. You sound like Jamal. What did you say? I’ve ate kettlebells right here, right next to my standing desk. Freebird, this is called working out, Freebird. And then while I’m doing my kettlebell suitcase carry, I was texting with an entrepreneur friend. So you can tell how intense my workout was. And he’s in Singapore. So it was in the middle of the night for me and early for him. And then it was time to go to bed. I was like, okay, now I got to get to bed. How do I get to bed? My body is all amped up. I’ve got food in my stomach. I scream. Kettlebells. My brain is all amped up. And all in podcasts is tomorrow. And what time is it? It’s 1.30 in the morning. I better get to bed. So I put on like a little one of those spiritual videos to calm me down. And then I got in bed and I was like, there’s no way I’m falling asleep. And I started meditating. And five minutes later, I was asleep. Jason Calacanis You know, actually, the Dalai Lama has these great, on his YouTube channel, he’s got these great, like, two-hour discussions. You get about 20, 30 minutes into that, you will fall asleep. Well, yeah. No doubt. David Friedberg But my learning is… Yeah, watch any Dharma lecture from the SSN Center. Exactly. Naval Ravikant And my lesson is, my learning is that the mind will do anything to avoid meditation. Yes. (Time 1:43:20)
  • Trump’s Narrow Majority
    • Trump maintains a narrow majority, making internal Republican unity crucial for achieving his agenda.
    • Applying pressure on Republican senators through primary threats ensures policy alignment and confirmations. Transcript: David Friedberg By the way, did you guys see, just before we wrap, did you see all the confirmations? RFK Jr. Confirmed? Brooke Rollins confirmed? By the way, if you look at Polymarket, Polymarket had it all right a couple of weeks ago. I was tracking Polymarket. Naval Ravikant There was a moment where Tulsi fell to like 56%. There was a moment when RFK fell to 75%, but then they bounced back and it was done. You could have bought. You could have snipe that, man. Jason Calacanis You could have made money. David Friedberg Yeah, Polymarket had it. And the media was like, no way he’s getting confirmed. This is not going to happen. But Polymarket knows. It’s so interesting, huh? Naval Ravikant Well, I saw a very insightful tweet and I forget who wrote it, so I’m sorry I can’t give credit. But the guy basically said, look, Trump has a narrow majority in the House and the Senate. And he can get everything he wants as long as the Republicans stay in line. So all the pressure and all the anger that all the mega movement is doing against the left is pointless. It’s all about keeping the right wing in line. So it’s all the people saying to the senators, hey, I’m going to primary you. It’s Nicole Shanahan saying, I’m going to primary you. It’s Scott Pressler saying, I’m moving to your district. That’s the stuff that’s moving the needle and causing the confirmations to go through. That’s how you get Kash Patel. That’s how you get Tulsi Gabbard, DNI. That’s how you get RFQ. Jason Calacanis You worry about any of these? Do you think any of them are too spicy for your taste? Or you just like the whole burn it down, put in the crazy outsiders and let them- Jason, that’s such a bad characterization. David Friedberg That’s not a fair characterization. Naval Ravikant I mean, whatever. I mean, the outsiders. Honestly, it’s like, I never thought I’d see it, but I think between Elon and Sachs and people like that, we actually have builders and doers and financially intelligent people and Economically intelligent people in charge. And, despite all the craziness, Elon’s not doing this for the money. He’s doing it because he thinks it’s the right thing to do. Of course. He moved into the Roosevelt building for I think like many of us, I had bought into the great forces of history mindset where it’s just like, okay, it’s inevitable. This is what’s happening. Government always gets bigger, always gets slower. Yeah, me too. And we just have to try and get stuff built before they just shut everything down and we turn into Europe. But the thing that happened then was Caesar crossed the Rubicon. The great man theory of history played out and we’re living in that time. And it’s an inspiration to all of us, despite Sam Altman and Elon’s current fighting. I know Sam was inspired by Elon at one point. And I think all of us are inspired by Elon. I mean, the guy can be the Diablo player and do Doge and run SpaceX and Tesla and Boring and Neuralink. I mean, it’s incredibly impressive. That’s why I’m doing a hardware company now. It makes me want to do something useful with my life. Elon always makes me question, am I doing something useful enough with my life? It’s why I don’t want to be an investor. Peter Thiel, ironically, he’s an investor, but he’s inspirational in that way too, because he’s like, yeah, the future just doesn’t just happen. You have to go make it. So, you know, we get to go make the future. And I’m just glad that Elon and Doge and others are making the future that I’m living. (Time 1:45:07)