Nvidia posts record quarter while US debt crisis risks severe shock

英伟达季度业绩创历史新高，美债危机恐引发严重冲击 企业AI支出与开源模型正在推动创历史记录的企业盈利，但除非巨大的生产力提升能化解这场危机，否则失控的美国赤字支出恐将引发难以摆脱的债务螺旋。 主持人深入剖析了Nvidia创纪录的962亿美元季度业绩以及Salesforce的股价大涨，借这些业绩成果反驳了有关AI资本支出泡沫和SaaS已死的言论。他们审视了美国日益严峻的40万亿美元国债危机、收益率曲线压制，以及Scott Bessent与Stan Druckenmiller之间的政治摩擦，同时还就Druckenmiller借助AI撰写其《华尔街日报》（WSJ）专栏文章的伦理争议展开了辩论。本期节目最后对CIA局长John Ratcliffe的莫斯科之行进行了地缘政治分析，探讨了Meta推出的青少年隐私保护新规，并深入解读了Moderna售价50万美元的mRNA癌症疫苗。 中美两国公众对 AI 的态度分化明显：中国超过 80% 的民众认为 AI 利大于弊，而美国仅约 30%，这种悲观倾向可能演变为制约美国创新的战略风险。 (3:31) Nvidia 单季营收达 962 亿美元（同比增长 106%）并给出 70% 的强劲年增长预期，有力打破了近期关于 AI 资本支出泡沫破裂的悲观论调。 (9:05) Salesforce 财报超预期带动股价大涨，凸显出在企业级 AI 第三阶段中，掌握专有数据与核心记录系统的横向巨头相比单纯做工作流的垂直 SaaS 更具韧性与壁垒。 (15:00) 美国国债总额突破 40 万亿美元且每 5 个月增加 1 万亿；财长 Scott Bessent 加倍回购债券以压低长期利率，招致知名投资人 Druckenmiller 对人为干预债市的公开批评。 (33:32)

The All-In Podcast hosts argue that robust corporate AI adoption and enterprise software resilience contrast sharply with America's looming sovereign debt crisis, while technological advancements in both software and biotechnology continue to collide with structural and regulatory gatekeeping. Enterprise AI Reality and SaaS Infrastructure Resilience (9:05) Nvidia reported a record fiscal quarter with $96.2 billion in revenue—a 106% year-over-year increase—and $60.0 billion in net profit, forecasting 70% growth for the coming year to counter narratives of an AI capital expenditure bubble. Concurrently, Nvidia executed roughly $20 billion in acquisitions, including Hugging Face for $12 billion and Poolside for $6 billion, consolidating control over open-source distribution and coding agent harnesses while expanding its NeoCloud infrastructure to rival traditional hyperscalers. Salesforce's revenue beat ($11.3 billion) demonstrated that core horizontal systems of record remain resilient against predictions of a total software industry collapse. While vertical SaaS focused purely on process workflows faces disruption from automated coding tools, foundational platforms housing decades of edge cases and compliance data retain high switching costs. Marc Benioff's strategy of integrating Claude as an enterprise user interface illustrates an incumbent pivot toward agent-facing command-line interfaces and APIs, accepting front-end disintermediation to preserve the underlying database as the primary source of truth. Treasury Interventions and the Sovereign Debt Spiral (33:32) Tensions between Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and investor Stan Druckenmiller spotlight the financial fragility of the United States, where national debt has surpassed $40 trillion and expands by roughly $1 trillion every five months. Bessent doubled scheduled Treasury bond buybacks from $2 billion to $4 billion to suppress long-term interest rates, drawing criticism from Druckenmiller, who argued in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that bond market manipulation ignores an annual budget deficit running around $2 trillion. The hosts emphasize that the Treasury faces a $10 trillion wall of sovereign debt requiring refinancing over the next 12 months at yields dramatically higher than 2020 pandemic lows. With the 30-year yield near 5.2% and the government's average borrowing cost at 3.4%, every 1% increase in average rates absorbs an additional 1.25% of U.S. GDP in annual interest payments. The panel warns that pushing 30-year yields toward 6.0% could spark an escalating debt spiral, forcing private technology balance sheets to shoulder infrastructure investments historically underwritten by federal spending. Systemic Gridlock and Timelines for Fiscal Austerity (45:00) Federal spending cuts face severe political barriers rooted in a congressional 'tragedy of the commons,' where 435 representatives and 100 senators guard localized spending while the executive branch lacks line-item veto authority. David Sacks and David Friedberg argue that emergency stimulus measures from 2008 and 2020 were permanently baked into baseline spending, fueling persistent inflation across housing, higher education, and healthcare. For instance, mortgage rates between 6.5% and 7.0% continue to restrict homeownership, whereas supply deregulation in regions like Austin, Texas, reduced home prices 27% from their 2022 peak. Friedberg outlines a two-phase structural breakdown: between 2026 and 2028, persistent cost-of-living increases may accelerate political momentum toward populist spending promises; between 2030 and 2032, impending Social Security cash exhaustion and state-level municipal debt burdens will likely force mandatory federal restructuring. Chamath Palihapitiya contends that historical precedents such as the 2008 financial crisis show American fiscal policy only reforms during acute emergencies, framing rapid economic and productivity growth from AI as the only realistic non-inflationary path out of the debt overhang. Biotech Breakthroughs and Regulatory Pricing Capture (83:45) Moderna added $40 billion in market capitalization after reporting positive clinical readouts for its personalized neoantigen mRNA cancer therapy, which programs patient cells in vivo to express tumor-specific proteins that trigger targeted T-cell immune responses. Despite the scientific efficacy against high-mutation cancers like melanoma, Friedberg criticizes Moderna's anticipated $500,000 per-patient price tag as a consequence of regulatory capture, noting that foundational research was publicly funded and private clinics produce comparable custom peptide formulations for approximately $50,000 under 'Right to Try' frameworks. Alternative production methods—such as expressing sequenced tumor antigens using bacterial bioreactors rather than patented mRNA delivery vectors—suggest that personalized immunotherapies could be manufactured at substantially lower costs. While Jason Calacanis raised concerns regarding the sustainability of high domestic pricing in the face of emerging medical tourism in markets like South Korea or Japan, the panel agrees that combining scalable early detection screenings, such as Grail's Galleri, with targeted cell therapies like CAR-T offers transformative clinical potential. The discussion leaves unresolved whether private sector AI productivity gains can accelerate fast enough to outpace compounding sovereign interest expenses before the 2030–2032 entitlement window forces painful austerity.

本期节目讨论指出，尽管Nvidia破纪录的业绩与Salesforce的反弹打破了AI资本支出泡沫与SaaS消亡论，但美国仍面临突破40万亿美元的国家债务与严峻的再融资压力；同时，围绕长端美债干预、AI辅助写作伦理以及高价癌症免疫疗法的制度性成本，主持群展开了深入剖析与观点交锋。 芯片算力与SaaS反弹：证伪AI泡沫 (9:05) Nvidia第二财季实现962亿美元营收（同比增长106%）与600亿美元净利润，并将下一年增长预期定为70%，显著高于华尔街45%的共识预期。节目认为，这一业绩证明AI基础设施支出具备实质且长期的支撑力。同时，Jensen Huang通过收购Hugging Face（120亿美元）与Poolside（60亿美元），加速布局开源模型分发与本地代码Agent框架，以抗衡云厂商自研芯片和外部合作变动。 与此同时，Salesforce第二季度营收达113亿美元且利润大幅超预期，带动股价大涨。Chamath Palihapitiya重申，拥有高净美元留存率与核心事实数据库（systems of record）的横向SaaS具备20年积累的容错壁垒与合规体系，难以被单纯由AI生成的自建工具替代。Salesforce选择将Anthropic的Claude引入作为主要前端交互界面，表明老牌软件巨头宁可承担界面被架空的风险，也要确保自身作为不可替代底层数据源的地位；相比之下，仅承担流程流转的垂直SaaS更易受到自建AI代码的冲击。 美债危机与收益率博弈：贝森特对阵德鲁肯米勒 (33:32) 美国国家债务已超过40万亿美元，并以每5个月增加约1万亿美元（年增2.5万亿美元）的轨迹扩张。为压低持续攀升的长端利率，财政部长Scott Bessent在8月19日将国债回购规模从20亿美元翻倍至40亿美元，试图打击做空美债的“债券卫士”。传奇投资家Stan Druckenmiller则在《华尔街日报》撰文警告，人为干预国债价格无法解决政府无节制支出这一根本病因。 目前美国政府债务的平均融资成本为3.4%，利率每上升1个百分点，每年仅利息支出就会占去GDP的1.25%。基准30年期美债收益率已由2020年的1.7%攀升至5.2%，且未来12个月内有高达10万亿美元的存量债务需要按高利率再融资。Chamath指出，当债务年增速达7%而GDP增速仅2%至4%时，收益率上升反映出市场对国家偿债能力的信任危机，若30年期收益率触及6.0%，将引发恶性复合债务螺旋。 财政僵局、生活成本与系统性违约时间表 (45:00) 在探讨削减财政赤字的阻力时，David Sacks指出，国会435名众议员和100名参议员各自维护地方专项拨款，形成了不可调和的“公地悲剧”，且总统缺乏单项否决权，导致开支削减在政治上极易遭遇反弹。David Friedberg认为，持续赤字推高了住房、医疗和教育等核心生活成本。他预测，2026至2028年间高通胀将推动选民投向激进民粹政策，而2030至2032年间社保基金面临枯竭、州级养老金与市政坏账爆发，将构成真正的国家违约与强制救助节点。 面对高企至6.5%至7%的30年期房贷利率，Sacks与Chamath指出，选民在危机中往往倾向于归咎并索取更多免费救济，而AI技术带来的生产力爆发与科技巨头利用私营资产负债表垫付基建投资，几乎成为美国跑赢债务重压的唯一非通胀途径。Jason Calacanis补充道，部分家庭正迁移至得克萨斯等政策友好州，奥斯汀因放开住宅供应使房价自2022年高点回落27%，体现了市场化建设对抗高生活成本的有效性。 德鲁肯米勒AI撰文：工具放大还是写作假唱 (61:33) 针对Druckenmiller被指使用AI工具撰写关于财政部回购政策的社论，主持团队产生了显著分歧。Calacanis对此提出严厉批评，将其比作歌星阿黛尔在演唱会上假唱，主张读者阅读名家社论期待的是作者本人的真实构思，未披露全篇AI代笔属于对读者的不诚实，降低了内容公信力。 Chamath与Sacks则为Druckenmiller辩护，指出文章的核心宏观论点与其数十年投资逻辑完全一致，AI仅是表达与编辑层面的增强工具，无须过度道德化。Friedberg将AI比作Photoshop或数字音乐合成器，认为科技本质上放大了人类的表达潜能。Sacks亦公开披露自己绝大部分公开言论和推文均经由AI协助校对与逻辑提炼。 Moderna癌症疗法：前沿突破与监管垄断争议 (83:45) Moderna凭借个性化新抗原肿瘤免疫疗法系统的积极临床数据，市值自200亿美元跃升至600亿美元上方。该疗法通过对患者肿瘤测序识别突变蛋白（新抗原），将合成mRNA注入体内以指挥细胞自行表达抗原，进而调动T细胞精准消灭癌细胞。但Friedberg指责Moderna预估每人50万美元的定价属于“监管俘获”，因基础科学源自公共资助且mRNA合成已极具成本效益，高昂收费本质是药企利用高门槛FDA审批构筑的专利垄断。 Friedberg进一步指出，业界已存在不依赖mRNA的低成本替代路线：直接通过大肠杆菌生物反应器合成相应蛋白并注射入体内，能在规避mRNA递送专利的同时激发相同免疫效果，例如蒙大拿州部分诊所依据“试用权”法案提供类似定制肽疗法仅需约5万美元。Calacanis认为高昂定价或将催生赴海外寻求低价治疗的医疗旅游。此外，针对多发性骨髓瘤等血液肿瘤的CAR-T细胞疗法单次费用接近100万美元，但展现出极高疗效，表明多重前沿生物技术正深刻重构癌症治疗路径。 本期节目展现出鲜明的技术乐观与宏观悲观的反差：尽管AI算力扩张与前沿生物医药持续兑现突破性生产力，但美国联邦层面的结构性赤字、再融资压力以及医药专利体制的监管俘获，依然是可能制约经济长期稳定性与公众实际福利的深层制度阻碍。

## Background 本期视频由 YouTube 知名科技与创投播客《All-In Podcast》于 2026 年 8 月 29 日发布。节目简介显示，四位主持人围绕英伟达破纪录财报与 SaaS 强劲复苏、美财长贝森特遭德鲁肯米勒公开炮轰的美债危机、德鲁肯米勒使用 AI 代写专栏引发的道德争议、中情局局长访俄传闻以及 Moderna 癌症疫苗等核心热点展开了深入讨论。 ## TL;DR 节目首先分析了英伟达与 Salesforce 亮眼财报如何彻底击碎“AI 资本支出泡沫论”与“SaaS 灭绝论”，指出记录系统在掌握私有企业上下文上的核心壁垒；随后深入剖析美国 40 万亿国债与 10 万亿集中再融资悬崖，指责行政干预美债收益率是治标不治本的危险操作；紧接着围绕传奇投资人德鲁肯米勒使用 AI 代写《华尔街日报》专栏爆发了激烈争论，对比了写作诚信与生产力杠杆的不同立场；最后在“科学角落”环节拆解了 Moderna 基于新抗原的 mRNA 癌症免疫疗法，并尖锐抨击了传统药企利用监管俘获将公共科研成果转为天价暴利的现象。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场节目维持了四位老友之间标志性的尖锐交锋与插科打诨，节奏紧凑且信息密度极高。从财报分析的激赏到宏观债务推演的肃穆沉重，再到探讨 AI 代笔专栏时爆发的拍案激辩，对话充满了真实而鲜明的情绪张力。听众既能感受到硅谷顶级投资人对技术前沿与商业护城河的敏锐洞察，也能体会到他们对政治体制失灵、医疗监管垄断与国家债务死局所抱有的深层焦虑与愤懑不平。 ## Bulletin - [06:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=400s) 英伟达单季营收突破962亿美元，净利润超600亿美元并给出明年70%的增长指引，联同Salesforce大超预期的财报，彻底粉碎了“AI资本开支泡沫”与“SaaS大浩劫”论调。 - [33:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=2012s) 财政部长贝森特将长端美债回购规模扩大至40亿美元以压制收益率，遭导师德鲁肯米勒发文批评，直指未来12个月面临10万亿美元再融资洪流，行政干预掩盖了国会支出失控的根本病灶。 - [01:03:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=3795s) 德鲁肯米勒被曝使用AI辅助撰写WSJ专栏文章，引发嘉宾就“文字假唱还是效率倍增器”以及专业创作者工具边界的激烈论战。 - [01:26:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=5200s) Moderna新抗原mRNA癌症疫苗临床表现亮眼推升市值翻倍，但预期50万美元的天价定价被批评为滥用公共资助科研成果进行“监管俘获”。 ## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=0s) 美国学术界深陷“羊群效应”与同行评议体制筛选，青年学者因经费与教职顾虑不敢挑战既有范式，导致科学创新陷入平庸的渐进主义。 - [03:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=211s) 中国公众对AI乐观度超过80%，而美国仅约30%且充斥末日与失业叙事；美国AI竞赛的最大隐患在于自身悲观情绪与过度监管。 - [06:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=400s) 云端常驻与多人协作构成了Agent集群的核心演进方向，可解决本地运行易中断问题并释放出强大的网络协同效应。 - [12:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=732s) AI成为全新交互界面（AI as UI），拥有海量专有业务数据与深度流程积淀的“记录系统”（Systems of Record）成为AI落地第三阶段的最大赢家。 - [14:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=888s) 真正的SaaS浩劫仅会发生在缺乏壁垒的垂直SaaS领域，通用核心系统（如CRM、ERP）具有极高的替换风险与20年调试底蕴，无法被AI编程轻易推倒重建。 - [30:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=1800s) 英伟达大举收编Hugging Face与Poolside等开源资产，向上开拓NeoCloud服务，科技巨头与硬件供应商的边界彻底打破，步入全栈闭环竞争。 - [35:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=2100s) 未来一年美国面临10万亿美元国债再融资悬崖，利率每上升1%将带来相当于GDP 1.25%的额外利息负担，财政部1万亿买债额度难挡恶性债务螺旋。 - [40:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=2400s) 30年期美债收益率冲破6%将是信任崩塌的临界红线；在联邦资产负债表瘫痪背景下，科技巨头被迫动用私营资本独自托底国家AI基础设施。 - [45:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=2726s) 国会无节制支出陷入“公地悲剧”，两党缺乏削减赤字的政治意愿，危机预计将在2026年中期选举至2028年大选之间通过通胀形式集中爆发。 - [01:10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=4200s) 德鲁肯米勒使用AI辅助撰文引发诚信分歧：一方认为核心观点来自作者本人，AI是如同Excel般的放大工具；另一方坚持未披露全文生成是对读者的敷衍。 - [01:15:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=4500s) 乌克兰面临350亿美元资金缺口、防空耗尽与电力基建摧毁，在不对称消耗战中筹码枯竭，市场预测年内停火概率降至21%。 - [01:20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=4800s) 未成年人使用社交媒体造成家长育儿精力消耗，跨国监管加速推进，亟需平台与操作系统原生提供系统级青少年保护屏障。 - [01:22:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=4972s) mRNA癌症疫苗本质是基于肿瘤突变新抗原（Neoantigen）的体内免疫疗法，极大降低了体外生产重组蛋白的复杂度与成本。 - [01:26:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=5200s) 新抗原癌症疗法在民间诊所花费约5万美元，而制药巨头借助FDA临床门槛与专利封锁计划索价50万美元，构成典型的监管俘获与高价垄断。 - [01:33:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=5580s) 癌症疗法的突破依赖Galleri等液体活检早筛技术，同时CAR-T细胞编辑疗法正在为多发性骨髓瘤等血液恶性肿瘤带来革命性生机。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=0s) 科学界的“羊群效应”与美国科研体系的停滞 播客开场照例是一阵老友间的插科打诨。Jason Calacanis 热情洋溢地欢迎大家收看“全世界第一、你最喜欢、也是播客主持人们最喜欢的播客”——由他们四人“初代四侠”（Core Four）齐聚的 All-In 播客。话题随即转向了 David Friedberg 刚刚结束的华盛顿特区之行，他在那里接连专访了两位重磅人物：曾任职于 Thiel Capital 的知名异见学者 Eric Weinstein，以及曾任美国白宫首席技术官（CTO）的 Michael Kratsios。Friedberg 认为，这两场访谈恰好代表了审视当代美国科学界现状的一体两面。 谈到 Eric Weinstein 时，大家讨论了他被主流学界排斥的经历。作为一名拥有哈佛背景的科学家，Weinstein 一向特立独行，他曾尖锐地批评现代物理学奉为圭臬的“弦理论”（String Theory）完全是一派胡言（bullshit），并提出了自己的一套物理学大一统理论；但随之而来的却是被学术建制圈彻底边缘化，被打上“江湖骗子”（quack）和“边缘极端分子”的标签，加上他公开探讨 UFO 和 Jeffrey Epstein 案，主流学界便顺理成章地将他逐出核心语境。Chamath Palihapitiya 与 David Sacks 对此深有共鸣，指出在弦理论得到实验证实之前，直斥其未经证明乃至是“胡说八道”在理性上完全站得住脚，正如当初 Jay Bhattacharya 等人提出新冠病毒可能源自实验室泄漏时，立刻被扣上散布虚假信息和阴谋论的帽子一样。 Friedberg 尖锐地剖析了科研资助与终身教职（Tenure）评审体制的深层弊端：如今美国的科学界已经陷入了某种“羊群效应”，青年学者必须依附于主流理论、遵循约定俗成的评审游戏规则，否则就拿不到科研经费、评不上终身教职、得不到教席，甚至连学术会议都无法受邀发表演讲。这种制度性筛选直接抹杀了离经叛道的创新思维（Heterodox thinking）。Sacks 深刻总结道，相比于 1926 年爱因斯坦发表广义相对论时虽惊世骇俗但仍能被严肃研读和评估的开放风气，2026 年的科学界充斥着平庸的渐进主义（incrementalism），主流排斥一切跳出框架的激进设想，导致美国科学探索陷入了严重的实质性停滞。 - **科学体制的逆向淘汰**：现行的科研经费拨款与终身教职评审机制严重依赖同行评议与主流共识，导致年轻学者不敢挑战既有范式。 - **历史对照（1926 vs. 2026）**：过去面对像广义相对论这样离经叛道的理论，学界会以实证精神去严谨评估；而当下的学术环境则习惯于直接将非主流观点的提出者贴上伪科学标签并予以社会学意义上的放逐。 --- ### [03:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=211s) 中国“机器人奥运会”、乐观情绪差距与特斯拉 Optimus 新进展 话题切入轻松有趣的科技现场。大屏幕上播放了在中国举办的“机器人奥运会”视频，四位主持人看着跑道上机器人歪歪扭扭的跑姿哄堂大笑。Jason 调侃机器人的跑步姿势简直就是在模仿 Friedberg 的经典冲刺步伐，另一台倒退两步后猛冲的机器人则被他比作自己在雪场滑雪的样子；甚至还有机器人赛跑的截屏被他们拿来调侃 42 岁在牌局上脱掉上衣秀身材的职业牌手 Jason Koon。赛场上一台红色机器人的双腿当场断裂解体，引发了网友的病毒式神评：“天哪，它的 HDMI 接口和 CPU 严重拉伤了！”、“这简直像极了旧金山 49 人队的 Christian McCaffrey 在常规赛第三周的状态。” 在欢笑背后，Sacks 指出了一个极为深刻的地缘与公关反差：中国能组织成千上万的民众坐满体育场，为机器人和人工智能加油呐喊；而在美国，以 Anthropic 创始人 Dario Amodei 为代表的 AI 领袖却整天在兜售“所有工作岗位都要完蛋”、“末日审判降临”的末日恐惧叙事。民调数据显示，中国民众对 AI 的乐观度超过 80%（认为 AI 利大于弊），而美国这一数字仅徘徊在 30% 左右。Sacks 强调，美国在几乎所有 AI 核心要素上都领先于中国，唯独在“社会乐观度”这一项上严重落后；如果美国在 AI 竞赛中落败，最大的风险恰恰在于自身因过度悲观和监管过度而“开枪打自己的脚”。 随后，主持人讨论了具身智能的前沿进展。Chamath 透露，马斯克私下向他展示了特斯拉 Optimus 的最新绝密演示视频，其进展令人叹为观止，性能远超公开赛场上的竞品。Jason 惊叹自己最初看到时甚至忍不住询问这是否是电脑特效（CGI），马斯克向他证实这是当天早晨团队送来的纯实拍视频。Friedberg 补充分析了人形机器人的核心技术瓶颈：让机器人在受控环境下执行预先编程的奔跑、跳跃等固定动作并不难，真正的难点在于应对现实世界未曾被编程过的非结构化偶发状况——例如如何在不捏碎、不掉落的前提下折叠各类材质的衣物或抓取陌生形态的物体，实现通用的物理交互。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 美中 AI 竞赛核心要素与风险对比 accDescr: 对比美中两国在技术实力与社会心态层面的差异，突显乐观情绪在战略竞争中的关键作用。 subgraph US["美国 AI 生态现状"] A["技术、算法与算力全面领先"] --> B["舆论充斥末日叙事与失业焦虑"] B --> C["民众乐观度约 30%（自缚手脚风险）"] end subgraph China["中国 AI 生态现状"] D["算法与硬件全力追赶"] --> E["官方与公众展现极高科技狂热"] E --> F["民众乐观度超过 80%（社会全面拥抱落地）"] end ``` --- ### [06:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=400s) GrokBot 云端智能体、多智能体集群与英伟达史诗级财报开局 从物理机器人延伸到数字世界的智能体（AI Agents），Sacks 兴奋地分享了自己深度使用 xAI 新产品 GrokBot 的第一手体验。他表示自己已经重度使用并打爆了配额限制，不得不每月支付 200 美元进行升级。Sacks 分析了 GrokBot 相比此前类似产品（如 Open Interpreter、Hermes 等基于本地桌面的框架）的压倒性优势：以往那些框架只能在本地电脑上运行，不仅需要极高门槛的极客配置（甚至为了常驻运行需要单独采购 Mac mini），而且电脑一旦休眠任务就直接中断；而 GrokBot 完全部署在云端，具备“全天候永远在线”（Always-on）的能力，用户设定好 Agent 后，即便是关机或电脑休眠，云端智能体仍在持续自动化推进工作。 Sacks 进而提出，他已经向马斯克建议引入“多人协同模式”（Multiplayer mode）： 不仅支持多个不同专长的 Agent 聚集在同一个虚拟频道中组成“智能体集群”（Agent Swarm），更允许团队中的多名真人成员同时进入该频道，实现人机混合协同。正如大家所分析的，与其指望打造一个包办一切的庞大单一 Agent，不如让多个 Agent 分别吸收特定上下文并形成垂直专业能力。如果能把每个专门的 Agent 变成一个协作频道，让人类同事自由拉人加入互动，该产品将具备无与伦比的网络效应和病毒式裂变传播能力。 在节目后半段，讨论迅速切换到炸裂的资本市场焦点。本周英伟达（NVIDIA）与 Salesforce 接连公布财报，直接终结了市场上甚嚣尘上的“AI 算力资本支出泡沫论”与“软件即服务大崩盘”（SaaSpocalypse）论调。Jason 报出了英伟达刚刚出炉的惊人数据：单季度营收达到惊人的 962 亿美元，同比暴增 106%，远超华尔街预期的 920 亿美元；对于明年的收入指引，英伟达给出了 70% 的超高速增长预期，彻底碾压华尔街此前 45% 的保守预估。最令市场震撼的是其核心盈利能力——单季净利润突破 600 亿美元大关，一举创下人类商业史上所有上市公司单季度核心主营业务盈利的最高历史纪录。 - **GrokBot 与云端常驻优势**：解决了本地智能体依赖硬件开机运行、维护繁琐的痛点，实现了后台全天候自动化执行复杂长流程任务。 - **智能体集群协作构想**：多个专精化 Agent 结合“多真人成员协作”的多人模式，形成类似于 Slack 频道的人工智能协同网络。 - **英伟达 Q2 财报核心财务数据**： - **单季营收**：962 亿美元，同比增长 106%（华尔街此前预期为 920 亿美元）。 - **单季净利润**：突破 600 亿美元，创造全球上市公司历史最高核心主营季度利润。 - **次年营收增长指引**：给出了 70% 的预期增速，大幅高于市场预期的 45%。 ### [10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=600s) 英伟达与 Salesforce 业绩双双爆发：“SaaS 浩劫论”遭市场推翻 英伟达（NVIDIA）与 Salesforce 同期公布的重磅财报震撼了整个市场。Jason 调出英伟达净利润与营收的季度图表，直言其表现堪称“把大门都炸开了”（blowing the doors off），股价直逼历史新高。在此次财报前，英伟达年内仅上涨约 12%，表现与标普 500 指数持平，甚至落后于整体半导体指数，市场此前最大的担忧在于竞争对手的崛起。然而，英伟达目前市值已攀升至约 5.5 万亿美元，成为全球最具价值的公司；在 Polymarket 预测市场上，交易员以 79% 的概率押注英伟达将在年底稳坐全球市值第一宝座。 与此同时，Salesforce 在周四同样迎来史诗级暴涨，单日涨幅突破 20%。其第二财季营收达 113 亿美元，同比增长 11%，符合市场预期；而调整后每股收益（EPS）更是大超预期近 80%，达到 5.90 美元（此前市场预期仅为 3.27 美元）。作为 Anthropic 的核心战略投资方，Salesforce 将全财年的收益预期大幅上调至 460 亿美元。Jason 顺势让 Chamath 开启“胜利巡游”（victory lap），回放了 Chamath 在 5 月 15 日的精准预言——当时 Chamath 指出像 Marc Benioff 掌舵的 Salesforce 这种大型单体巨头被严重超卖，企业级 AI 远非“敲两下提示词（prompt）就能全盘搞定”那么简单，具备可预测的负流失率（negative churn）与强大净金额留存率（NDR）的核心系统必将迎来估值重修（re-rating）。 - **英伟达市场地位**：市值达到 5.5 万亿美元，Polymarket 上“年底前成为全球市值第一大公司”的概率高达 79%（成交量达 630 万美元）。 - **Salesforce 核心数据**：季度营收 113 亿美元（同比增长 11%），调整后 EPS 达 5.90 美元远超预期的 3.27 美元，单日股价飙升超 20%，自 Chamath 5 月喊出触底以来累计反弹约 43%。 ### [12:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=732s) Chamath 解析 AI 演进三阶段：为什么记录系统是最终赢家 Chamath 深入阐述了自己为何在 5 月坚决看多 Salesforce。他认为，当前行业正处于 AI 第二阶段的尾声，即将跨入更为关键的第三阶段。如果将 AI 的发展做生物学隐喻，第一阶段的模型（Model）就好比“大脑”，具备强大的问答与推理潜能；第二阶段的治理工具与智能体（Harnesses and Agents）则相当于给大脑装上了双眼、双手、备忘录以及键盘，使其从原始问答机器变成可自主执行操作的实体。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: AI 演进三阶段示意图 accDescr: 展示 AI 从基础大模型到具身智能体再到深度结合企业上下文系统的演进路径 subgraph Phase1["第一阶段：模型 (Models)"] M["认知大脑<br/>核心问答与推理"] end subgraph Phase2["第二阶段：智能体 (Agents & Harnesses)"] A["工具集成<br/>赋予手、眼、键盘与行动力"] end subgraph Phase3["第三阶段：企业上下文赋能"] C["专业角色适配<br/>律师 / 客服 / 销售"] R[("核心记录系统<br/>Salesforce 等私有上下文")] R --> C end Phase1 --> Phase2 Phase2 --> Phase3 ``` 然而，仅仅拥有四肢的自主智能体依然无法胜任复杂的企业工作。Chamath 指出，智能体若要真正成为一名合格的企业律师、客服专员或销售精英，就必须被赋予海量的具体业务上下文信息。而当今掌握这些核心机密上下文与工作流的，正是掌握核心客户与业务数据的“记录系统”（Systems of Record）。Marc Benioff 没有盲目抗拒大模型，而是选择与顶尖模型合作、支持各种外部 Harness 的同时自研核心工具，稳稳守住了企业私有数据的命门，这正是其营收、指引及留存率全面大爆发的根源。 ### [14:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=888s) Friedberg 的亲身经历：重构轮子 vs. 垂直领域 SaaS 的真正浩劫 David Friedberg 还原了他前一天亲临 Benioff 办公室的现场见闻。在 Salesforce 位于 60 层的演播办公室内，Anthropic 首席执行官 Dario Amodei 与 Marc Benioff 共同接受了 CNBC 专访，随后 Friedberg 还参与了其财报电话会议。Friedberg 分享了自己公司过去一年的真实切身教训：大约一年前，团队利用 Cloud Code、Cursor 等 AI 编程工具，仅用一个周末就拼凑出了一个内部 CRM。然而随后问题接踵而至——权限安全、访问控制、数据加密隔离以及无穷无尽的边缘功能需求，消耗了团队海量的精力。 Friedberg 猛然意识到，自己公司的核心竞争优势在于植物育种（plant breeding），技术团队最应该投入精力的，是为实验室、温室与育种专家打造独特的垂直工作流软件，而不是去重新发明一个 Salesforce、Gmail 或 Slack。当时 Benioff 在电话中极具销售狂人本色，不断推销让其使用 Salesforce，甚至直接派顶级销售入驻 Friedberg 的办公室，直到系统完全配置上线。Friedberg 由此断言，真正的“SaaS 浩劫”（SaaSpocalypse）绝对不会发生在横向通用平台（如 CRM、Excel、Slack）身上，因为没人会为了省钱去重造轮子；真正面临毁灭性打击的，是那些缺乏深厚壁垒、仅针对单一特定场景的“垂直 SaaS”（Vertical SaaS），它们很容易被企业借助 AI 编写的定制工作流轻松取代。 ### [17:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=1048s) Sacks 评 Benioff 的战略反攻：手握 20 年调试底蕴，拥抱 Claude 降维打击 David Sacks 对所谓“SaaS 已死”论调的破灭拍手称快。他直言，市场此前宣扬的“用 AI 氛围编程（vibe coding）一夜之间推倒并替换核心 CRM 系统”纯属空想。大型企业在采购软件时追求的是极致的确定性、严苛的合规保障与经过长期实战检验的高可用性。Salesforce 拥有过去二十多年中修复无数缺陷、处理过各类极端边界情况（edge cases）的技术底蕴；相比之下，AI 智能体本质上是概率性的，企业绝不可能为了节省有限的软件授权费，就冒着核心业务瘫痪的风险，换上一套自制的 DIY 半成品。 在赞许企业软件深厚壁垒的同时，Sacks 重点剖析了 Benioff 本次堪称“打不过就加入”（if you can't beat them, join them）的神来之笔。Salesforce 不仅在其平台内部集成 Anthropic 的模型，更做出了一个极其大胆的战略让步——允许 Anthropic 的 Claude 直接作为主前端界面，全权接管首要的用户交互关系。通过深度打通，Claude 将能够直接访问 Salesforce 中的所有客户数据与执行动作。Benioff 宁愿承担被前端工具“去中介化”（disintermediation）的风险，也要彻底拥抱这股 AI 浪潮，因为他深刻洞察到底层客户的终极需求：用户未来不再想登录进一个个孤立繁琐的 SaaS 后台去编写规则，而是希望在顶层智能体界面中以自然语言调度一切。 ### [20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=1200s) AI 成为全新 UI：Salesforce 如何通过“记录系统”释放沉淀价值 戴维·萨克斯（David Sacks）深入拆解了马克·贝尼奥夫（Marc Benioff）在面对 AI 浪潮时的战略转型。当前软件架构正迅速分化出全新层级：底层是数据库层，往上是应用与工作流层，再上方则是 AI Agent 层，而最顶层正是全新的 AI 用户界面。贝尼奥夫的敏锐之处在于，他主动放弃了对最终用户界面（UI）的绝对掌控权，坦然承认“AI 现在就是用户界面”（AI is now the user interface），从而换取自身在底层更大的核心价值。在 AI 时代，企业必须拥有权威的数据单一事实来源（Canonical source of truth），以消除概率模型带来的不确定性，并允许 Agent 将数据与工作流精准回写。这并不是一次全盘推倒重来的“推倒重建”（Rip and replace），而是基础设施层面的共生叠加。 萨克斯分享了他当天早晨与贝尼奥夫本人的交流，指出外界严重低估了 Salesforce 内部庞大的“沉淀价值”（Trap value）。Salesforce 平台功能极其庞杂丰富，普通人类用户甚至一辈子都无法摸清其全部功能的冰山一角，但 AI Agent 能做到。未来的典型场景是：Agent 犹如一位对系统了如指掌的超级用户（Power user），主动向用户提议触发 Salesforce 内部隐藏的高级工作流，用户只需轻点“始终允许”（Always Allow）。企业不再需要斥巨资雇佣咨询顾问团队来调试软件，Agent 自身就能直接释放平台的全部潜力，从而进一步将 Salesforce 焊死在不可替代的核心地位上。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI 与企业 SaaS 架构层级流转图 accDescr: 展示从底层数据库到 AI UI，以及 AI Agent 如何与记录系统进行读写的架构图 subgraph UserLayer["交互与执行层"] UI["全新 AI 界面 (AI as UI)"] Agent["AI Agents (跨平台智能体)"] end subgraph PlatformLayer["应用与工作流层"] API["API 与 CLI (Agent 接口)"] WF["工作流与应用引擎 (Workflows)"] end subgraph DataLayer["核心事实源 (System of Record)"] SOR["Salesforce / Oracle / SAP / Workday"] DB[(权威数据库 / 消除概率波动)] end UI --> Agent Agent -- "1. 发现沉淀价值 / 执行动作" --> API API --> WF WF --> SOR SOR --> DB DB -- "2. 读取权威事实 (Source of Truth)" --> Agent Agent -- "3. 状态回写 (Write Back)" --> SOR ``` 面对这一变革，SaaS 公司必须将产品重心从“用户界面”（UI）转移到“Agent 界面”（Agent Interface），重点打造顶级的 API 与命令行界面（CLI）。杰森·卡拉卡尼斯（Jason Calacanis）对此深表赞同，盛赞贝尼奥夫是行业内最被低估的产品与销售领袖之一。杰森分享了在达沃斯与贝尼奥夫探讨 Slack 的趣事：当时自己的团队因为拿不到底层数据正计划迁往开源产品，贝尼奥夫立刻拉来销售与技术团队，为杰森开放了最高权限（God access），并逐步推出了新产品“Slack Today”。杰森感慨，此前萨姆·奥尔特曼（Sam Altman）与 OpenAI 招募收购了 OpenClaw 创始人彼得后，该产品创新便停滞不前，而 Slack Today 的体验正以每两周提升 10% 的速度演进。贝尼奥夫一边打造自家内置的免费 Agent，一边张开双臂迎接外部第三方 Agent，双管齐下锁定了胜局。 ### [24:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=1485s) 垂类 SaaS vs 横向 SaaS：“SaaS 大崩溃”与简单外推谬误 查马斯·帕里哈皮蒂亚（Chamath Palihapitiya）随后发起了一场尖锐质问：萨克斯究竟是看多垂直行业 SaaS（Vertical SaaS），还是像他和弗里德伯格（David Friedberg）一样坚定做空？查马斯认为，像 Salesforce、Workday、Oracle 总账（GL）、SAP 以及 IFS 这样的横向庞然大物，本质上是坚不可摧的“记录系统”（System of record），具有几乎无法复制的护城河；相反，垂直行业 SaaS 往往只是特定流程与工作流的封装，没有真正的单一事实来源，在 AI 浪潮下生存空间极其堪忧。 萨克斯则主张必须具体公司具体分析（Case by case）。他尖锐反驳道，就在几个月前，华尔街弥漫的悲观论调还是横向 SaaS 将彻底灭绝，对冲基金经理利奥波德甚至建立起大规模的空头头寸狙击 Salesforce 等大型软件股。查马斯调侃分析称，利奥波德当时陷入了杠杆陷阱，主经纪商要求寻找极具流动性的空头标的来对冲巨额多头，他才顺理成章地编织了一套“做空 Adobe 和 Salesforce”的逻辑叙事。然而现实却狠狠打了空头的脸——经历了所谓的“SaaS 大崩溃”（SaaSpocalypse）狂跌 50% 之后，贝尼奥夫的股价强劲反弹，证明了当初无差别抛售所有 SaaS 纯属市场盲目。 萨克斯深入总结了当下认知中的“简单线性外推”（Simplistic extrapolation）谬误： - **软件消亡论的破产**：市场曾武断认为“AI Agent 会写代码 $\rightarrow$ 所有软件价值归零”，但现实是具备防御性的记录系统能够与 Agent 形成完美互补，顺应趋势的公司反而会更强大。 - **知识工人失业论的夸大**：坊间盛传“AI 能做脑力工作 $\rightarrow$ 所有知识工人丢饭碗”，但这一推论忽视了知识工作者同样能将 AI 工具转化为自身杠杆；主动拥抱技术者生存，顽固抗拒者淘汰。 ### [28:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=1695s) 英伟达史诗级财报出炉：单季千亿营收与开源生态收编 话题迅速转向当天科技界的绝对重头戏——英伟达（Nvidia）公布的创纪录业绩。在正式讨论财报前，杰森提到黄仁勋正在悄无声息地全面押注开源（Open source maxing）。市场传出重磅并购动向：英伟达据称斥资 120 亿美元收购 Hugging Face，并以约 60 亿美元通过人才并购（Acqui-hire）整合了 Poolside（拥有 Laguna 代码模型以及杰森·沃纳等人），总计耗资近 200 亿美元。尽管这笔开支尚不足英伟达总市值的 1%，且该笔交易的具体资产细节在嘉宾间引发了关于究竟是买模型、代码工具（类似 Cursor 与本地运行云代码）还是顶尖工程团队的短暂讨论，但其战略意图已然清晰——英伟达正试图牢牢掌控开源开发者与黑客的核心分发层。 然而，萨克斯与杰森均指出，外界切勿“本末倒置”忽视了最震撼的新闻主线：英伟达交出了一份载入人类商业史册的惊人财报。各项财务指标呈现无与伦比的碾压态势： - **单季度营收**：逼近 1000 亿美元大关，同比增速超过 100%，折合每天进账超过 10 亿美元。 - **季度净利润**：高达 600 亿美元，扣除非经常性项目后，刷新了全球商业史上单季度利润最高纪录。 - **盈利能力**：毛利率维持在极其惊人的 75% 高位。 - **股价与指引**：业绩公布后股价应声大涨 8%，其核心驱动力不仅在于当季业绩的全面爆发，更在于黄仁勋给出了极其强劲且超预期的远期业绩指引。 ### [30:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=1800s) 英伟达粉碎“AI资本开支泡沫论”，黄仁勋全栈突围开源生态 英伟达最新给出的业绩指引显示其明年增速将高达 70%，而华尔街此前的普遍预期仅为 45% 左右。更令人震撼的是，英伟达官方明确表示，若非供应链产能受限，这 70% 的增速数字本可以更高。这一强劲表现彻底粉碎了市场上所谓“AI 资本开支（CapEx）是一场即将破灭的泡沫”的唱衰论调；英伟达用实打实的财务数据向市场宣告：AI 基础设施建设不仅具备真正的长期生命力，而且还将持续深远地延展下去。即便业绩发布后股价应声上涨 8%，英伟达的动态市盈率却依然只有约 12 倍左右，背后的主因是市场仍对其面临的潜在竞争（如 Cerebras 等专用芯片厂商）抱有疑虑。 与会者深入剖析了英伟达近期的战略大转向。黄仁勋正借助对 Hugging Face 和 Poolside 的重磅收购，全面押注开源领域。这一激进举动在很大程度上源于 Sam Altman“招惹了这只猛虎”（poked the tiger）。此前 OpenAI 虽在 2025 年与英伟达敲定了千亿美元级别的合作，但随后 Sam Altman 高调宣布与 AMD 结盟，并着手自研推理芯片；黄仁勋随即以强硬姿态回应，直言英伟达并非非要给 OpenAI 投资不可。如今黄仁勋正在以极快速度横扫开源生态，布局开源自动驾驶项目，并将全球最大的开源模型索引枢纽 Hugging Face 收入囊中，意图让客户在明年直接从英伟达一站式采购整套技术栈。一年前外界还普遍认为开源模型永无翻身之日，如今英伟达却正在成为开源事实上的掌舵者。 科技巨头之间原本界限分明的“客户与供应商”关系正在加速瓦解。虽然英伟达单季度仍有约 240 亿美元的收入来自超大规模云厂商（Hyperscalers），但其自身培育的新兴云（NeoCloud）业务规模已毫不逊色。随着各大云厂商纷纷尝试自研芯片，英伟达也顺理成章地向上游进攻：自研基础模型、托管模型、对外提供 API 与推理算力，摇身一变成为云基础设施服务商。旧商业时代那种单纯划分“资本开支业务看 ROI”或“软件业务看运营开支”的界限已彻底融为一体。未来五年内，顶尖科技巨头都将走向全栈闭环——拥有自己的芯片、数据中心、云基础设施和自研模型，从头到尾贯穿整个产业链，这种正面交锋将对整体科技生态带来深远的良性推动。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 科技全栈垂直整合竞争格局 accDescr: 展示超大规模云厂商与英伟达如何打破原本的供需界限，走向全栈重叠与全方位直接竞争。 subgraph Hyperscalers["超大规模云厂商 (Hyperscalers)"] H_Cloud["自建云平台与数据中心"] H_Model["自研大模型"] H_Silicon["向下自研定制 AI 芯片"] H_Cloud --> H_Model H_Model --> H_Silicon end subgraph Nvidia["英伟达 (NVIDIA)"] N_Silicon["核心 GPU 算力硬件"] N_OpenSource["收购 Hugging Face / 布局开源生态"] N_NeoCloud["向上拓展 NeoCloud / API / 推理服务"] N_Silicon --> N_OpenSource N_OpenSource --> N_NeoCloud end H_Silicon -.->|"蚕食英伟达芯片份额"| N_Silicon N_NeoCloud -.->|"直接竞争云与推理服务"| H_Cloud ``` - **财务预期超预期**：英伟达预计明年实现 70% 增长，大幅超越华尔街预期的 45%，且该增速受制于供应链产能，否则数字更高。 - **估值水平**：经历单日 8% 的涨幅后，英伟达目前的市盈率仍停留在 12 倍左右。 - **超大规模云厂商营收**：英伟达单季度来自 Hyperscalers 的营收规模达 240 亿美元，同时其 NeoCloud 业务已成长至同等量级体量。 --- ### [33:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=2012s) 贝森特入主财政部掀起干预风暴，德鲁肯米勒发文硬刚 美国债券市场掀起了一场罕见的高层交锋。针对长端美债收益率持续攀升的窘境，财政部长斯科特·贝森特（Scott Bessent）在 8 月 19 日果断将财政部的长期国债回购规模从 20 亿美元翻倍至 40 亿美元。CNBC 报道贝森特正在考虑进一步扩大债券购买力度，福克斯商业新闻（Fox Business）更直接披露，贝森特此举旨在“将上帝的恐惧深植于做空长端国债的交易员心中”（put the fear of God into traders）。这种赤裸裸的市场干预主义迅速引发了华尔街资深投资者的强烈反弹。 贝森特曾经的导师、传奇宏观对冲基金经理斯坦·德鲁肯米勒（Stan Druckenmiller）在《华尔街日报》发表署名评论文章，公开反对贝森特的救市计划。德鲁肯米勒核心观点指出：贝森特试图靠行政手段操纵国债价格完全是本末倒置，不仅无法解决长端利率飙升的根源，反而掩盖了病灶。美国面临的核心危机是根深蒂固的财政支出失控——国债总规模已突破 40 万亿美元，“政府效率部”（DOGE）名存实亡，财政削减屡屡落空，叠加海外极其昂贵的战事开销，美国债务正在以每五个月新增 1 万亿美元（年均新增约 2.5 万亿美元）的速度狂飙，预计在特朗普第二任期内累计将暴增 10 万亿美元。 这场论战不仅涉及宏观政策路线之争，更牵扯到美国经济核心权力层罕见的紧密关系。德鲁肯米勒、贝森特与前美联储理事凯文·沃什（Kevin Warsh）三人渊源极深；沃什过去数年一直在德鲁肯米勒的办公室工作，三人彼此尊重且私交甚密。主持人们戏称这犹如历史上操纵帝国的“前三头同盟”（Triumvirate）——一人执掌市场资本呼风唤雨，一人主政财政部调动万亿资金，一人则在美联储掌控货币枢纽，如此密切的私人关系同时坐镇三大经济权力巅峰，在整个美国金融历史上都是前所未有的奇景。 --- ### [35:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=2100s) 深度解析美债收益率曲线：10万亿再融资悬崖与无解的财政死局 戴维·弗里德伯格（David Friedberg）调出美国国债收益率曲线进行了深度专业剖析。回顾 2020 年新冠疫情初期，由于美联储极度宽松且大规模刺激政策的通胀后果尚未显现，整条收益率曲线贴近地面：从 1 个月到 3 年期、5 年期的短端利率均在 0.25% 至 0.5% 以下，哪怕是 30 年期超长端国债利率也仅有 1.7%。从后视镜来看，联邦政府本应在当时将所有债务全部置换展期为 30 年期超长期债券锁定超低利率，但历史无法重写，如今巨额债务依然广泛分布在不同久期之上。 对比当下的美债收益率曲线，局面已演变为不可承受之重：受困于高企的社保支出等刚性开支带来的顽固通胀，市场对联邦政府的长期偿债能力深存疑虑并索要更高的风险补偿。当前 1 个月期短端借贷成本已逼近 4%（约 3.8%），而 30 年期国债收益率更飙升至 5.2%。今年美国财政赤字预计将维持在约 2 万亿美元的恐怖规模；更为致命的是，在未来 12 个月内，联邦政府有高达 10 万亿美元的到期国债必须偿还本金并在市场上重新发债再融资（Refinance）。 弗里德伯格指出，目前联邦政府 40 万亿美元存量债务的平均利息成本约为 3.4%。在当下的宏观体量下，利率每变动 1 个百分点，美国政府每年就要多支付相当于 GDP 1.25% 的超额利息支出。随着 10 万亿美元旧债以超过 4% 甚至 5.2% 的高息集中再融资，政府的利息“失血”将剧烈加剧，财政赤字将进一步失控，陷入自我强化的螺旋式膨胀。贝森特即便把财政部一般账户（TGA）全部掏空，最多也仅有 1 万亿美元的买债火力，在面对未来一年必须借新还旧的 10 万亿美元滔天洪流面前无异于杯水车薪。德鲁肯米勒公开发文批评贝森特，实质上是在为这位门徒提供政治掩护——长端利率飙升并非财政部之过，其根本责任在国会与白宫的预算失控；若统治阶级无法拿出政治勇气大刀阔斧削减开支，等待美国的将是一场无法逆转的债务危机螺旋。 - **美债历史利差对比**：2020 年新冠时期 30 年期美债收益率仅为 1.7%，短端在 0.5% 以下；当前 1 个月期借贷成本达 3.8%，30 年期飙升至 5.2%。 - **债务再融资悬崖**：未来 12 个月内，美国联邦政府将有整整 10 万亿美元的国债到期必须入市再融资。 - **利息敏感度测算**：美国国债平均融资成本当前为 3.4%；综合利率每上升 1%，美国政府每年新增的利息支出相当于美国整体 GDP 的 1.25%。 - **财政干预极限**：贝森特所能调用的国债回购资金极限最多约为 1 万亿美元，难以抗衡 10 万亿美元再融资带来的市场抛压。 ### [40:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=2400s) 收益率曲线压制与德鲁肯米勒为贝森特提供的“政治掩护” 弗里德伯格（David Friedberg）指出，即便财政部长斯科特·贝森特（Scott Bessent）在短期内把国债回购权限用到极限，那也只有区区 1 万亿美元的买盘，而前方等待着他再融资出售的国债规模却高达 10 万亿美元。在这样悬殊的比例下，斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒（Stanley Druckenmiller）在《华尔街日报》撰写的公开文章实际上是在为贝森特提供政治掩护——他是在将责任踢回给国会和总统，大声呼吁必须从源头解决财政赤字问题。查马斯（Chamath Palihapitiya）随后拆解了贝森特入场买债的战术逻辑：这在金融上被称为“收益率曲线压制”（Yield Curve Suppression）。财政部通过主动买入国债推高债券价格，从而压低隐含收益率，这样当面临排山倒海般的再融资再发债时，基准利率就可以锚定在较低的水平（例如从 5.3% 压至 5.1%），以此减缓即将到来的再融资海啸对财政借贷成本的冲击。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 债务危机与收益率恶性循环机制 accDescr: 展示财政赤字、收益率攀升、国家信任度与科技巨头资产负债表替代效应的逻辑关系 subgraph 政治根源 A["国会无节制支出<br/>债务增速 7% vs GDP增速 2-4%"] --> B["10万亿美元到期债务<br/>再融资海啸逼近"] end subgraph 财政部战术应对 B --> C["贝森特推动国债回购<br/>收益率曲线压制"] C --> D["短期人为压低收益率<br/>（5.3% -> 5.1%）"] end subgraph 债券市场终极反噬 D -.->|仅有1万亿弹药 无法抵挡10万亿抛盘| E["30年期国债收益率破 6%"] E --> F["对美信誉度断崖下跌<br/>（收益率上升 = 信任下降）"] F --> G["恶性债务螺旋与经济长期剧痛"] end subgraph 私营资本兜底 A -.->|联邦资产负债表瘫痪 无法主导新基建| H["Big Tech 巨头接棒<br/>（Nvidia / Google / Meta 等）"] H --> I["私营资本自负盈亏<br/>独自支撑美国 AI 基础设施底座"] end ``` 然而，战术操作无法掩盖战略上的绝境。查马斯直言，这并非民主党或共和党单方面的问题，而是国会根深蒂固的体制性顽疾——双方一旦掌权都会肆意超支。目前美国债务以每年约 7% 的速度膨胀，而 GDP 增速仅在 2% 到 4% 之间徘徊，这无异于一场注定爆发的灾难。正如德鲁肯米勒所言，削减法定权利支出（Entitlements）势在必行，而终将迫使国会直面现实的只有债券市场本身。因为债券收益率是衡量对美国信用与信心最纯粹的指标：“收益率上升，信任度就下降”。一旦 30 年期国债收益率冲上 6%，就将正式拉开债务“死亡螺旋”的序幕，带来长达数年的极度经济痛苦。 - 债务再融资压力：贝森特短期内仅有约 1 万亿美元回购额度，却必须为 10 万亿美元到期国债进行再融资。 - 宏观基本面脱节：联邦债务以 7% 的速度扩张，而实际经济（GDP）增速仅为 2% 至 4%。 - 警惕红线：30 年期美债收益率若触及 6%，将标志着不可逆转的财政恶性螺旋正式启动。 ### [43:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=2590s) 联邦资产负债表瘫痪与科技巨头“背负美国经济” 查马斯进一步将当前的债务困境与当下如火如荼的 AI 基础设施建设联系起来。回溯一个世纪前（如工业革命时期），当国家面临重大跨时代技术变革时，始终是美国联邦政府出动国家资产负债表来进行宏观托底和大举投资。然而今天，由于国会开支失控导致国家财政深陷泥潭，美国政府早已丧失了充当最后出资人的能力。因此，像英伟达（Nvidia）、谷歌（Google）、微软（Microsoft）、Meta 和亚马逊（Amazon）等科技巨头，不得不被迫扛起整个国家技术底座的重担。 针对互联网上对英伟达等公司高额资本支出和资产负债表的各种冷嘲热讽，查马斯进行了强烈反驳。他强调，批评者完全没有意识到这些科技企业正在“用自己的肩膀把整个美国经济扛在背上”。尽管总统通过前期经贸协议设法撬动了约 2 万亿美元的外围资金注入美国经济以支持这一轮建设，但这些跨国资金的调拨流程冗长繁琐，终究只是一块权宜的“短期创可贴”。如果国会不能从根本上控制预算，单靠私营巨头自掏腰包无法无限期填补国家财政缺位带来的系统性裂痕。 - 历史对比：百年前的重大技术跃迁由联邦政府财政作为资产负债表兜底，如今美政府已失去该财政能力。 - 托底主体转移：Nvidia、Google、Microsoft、Meta 和 Amazon 等大型科技公司成为实际上的国家 AI 基建承债人。 - 外部资金局限：虽然从贸易协议中为国内经济争取到 2 万亿美元支持，但由于外国政府官僚流程漫长，无法替代本土财政改革。 ### [45:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=2726s) 削减开支的政治死局：公地悲剧与媒体反噬 面对不断加速失控的债务，主持人杰森（Jason Calacanis）向刚在华盛顿政界走了一遭的戴维·萨克斯（David Sacks）发问：特朗普在其第二任期内已是事实上的“跛脚鸭”，为何依然对削减开支讳莫如深？削减支出在政治上难道真的成了一枚谁碰谁死的“放射性核炸弹”吗？萨克斯直言，美国财政本质上陷入了不可解的“公地悲剧”（Tragedy of the Commons）。国会拥有 435 名众议员和 100 名参议员，钱袋子的权力牢牢掌握在国会手中。每个人都拥有投票权，且每名议员都背负着保护各自选区项目利益的政治诉求；加之总统在宪法层面缺乏“单项否决权”（Line-item veto），根本无法单方面强推支出紧缩。 萨克斯以埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）领导政府效率部（DOGE）的经历为例，揭露了华盛顿极度病态的反弹机制。特朗普是史上唯一全力支持此类激进瘦身机构的总统，然而当 DOGE 仅仅试图对某个下属机构进行开刀时，引发的群体歇斯底里便迅速演变成指控马斯克“谋杀数百万儿童”的荒诞舆论，甚至导致特斯拉门店遭到纵火和投掷燃烧弹。萨克斯愤怒地痛斥主流媒体的推波助澜——媒体不仅不报道真实财政危机的严峻性，反而不断煽动对抗情绪。萨克斯悲观地表示，即便是未来由民主党掌控国会，情况也只会更糟，因为民主社会主义者（DSA）等激进派别推崇的全部是规模更加惊人的全新福利开支计划。 - 权力分散机制：众议院 435 席与参议院 100 席各自为政，总统缺乏单项否决权，无法扮演真正的改革铁腕。 - DOGE 遭遇阻击：马斯克主导精简政府部门时，不仅背负极端舆论污名化，线下特斯拉门店甚至遭遇燃烧弹袭击。 - 两党恶性循环：共和党热衷减税，民主党执迷于福利扩张，财政改革在两党体系下彻底沦为死结。 ### [48:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=2927s) 危机的时间表：通胀螺旋与 2026-2028 政治周期碰撞 弗里德伯格应杰森的要求给出了债务危机的爆发时间表与崩溃推演。回顾历史，上一位真正实现预算平衡的总统还要追溯到克林顿时期，自那以后每届政府都在进一步恶化收支。杰森质疑，未来市场债权人是否会直接要求 12% 乃至更高的惩罚性借贷利率，从而迫使美国全盘进入紧缩状态。弗里德伯格则指出，在民主体制下，社会面临痛感时具有一种“递归反馈机制”（Recursive solution）——公众不是在承受紧缩，而是在感受到生活痛苦时通过选票做出极端反应。 弗里德伯格预测，真正的转折点将在 2026 年中期选举至 2028 年大选周期之间爆发。他特别强调，恶性通胀的终极根源在于政府的无节制支出。联邦赤字规模与普通民众承受的住房成本、医疗成本、教育成本以及各类日常消费价格上涨呈现出极高的正相关。政府在各个领域印钱超支越多，全社会的物价就被推得越昂贵，而这种痛苦将促使政治钟摆在下一次选举周期中向激进社会主义诉求彻底倾斜。 - 历史参照：自比尔·克林顿政府之后，再无任何一届美国政府实现过财政预算平衡。 - 关键时间窗口：预计在 2026 年中期选举后至 2028 年总统大选之间，赤字推高通胀的恶果将全面爆发。 - 通胀与赤字强挂钩：高额赤字支出直接推升住房、医疗和教育三大核心民生成本，压缩普通民众生存空间。 ### [50:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=3000s) 永久化财政赤字与2030年代的偿债危机 嘉宾们深入探讨了通胀顽固不化的深层根源。Friedberg 指出，通胀居高不下的本质在于：原本在新冠疫情期间作为临时应急措施的刺激法案，被迅速“常态化”，沦为了持续性的政府支出循环。如果把现在的支出规模拉回到2019年的水平，凭借美国经济自2019年以来的大幅增长，联邦政府目前不仅不会有赤字，反而会有预算盈余来偿还国债。然而现实是，政府把紧急救市资金变成了永久性固定开支，这与2008年全球金融危机（GFC）后如出一辙。 更严峻的问题在于未来的政治死局：随着物价高企、民众购买力持续下滑，选民必然会投票给承诺解决问题的政客。但在当下的政治生态中，绝不可能出现凭借“削减开支、紧缩预算”口号获胜的候选人。Friedberg 警告，这种机制很可能会催生出破坏自由市场机制与个人自由的社会主义式方案。他预测，整个危机可能会分阶段爆发： - **2026—2028年过渡期**：公众对通胀与可负担性危机的反弹加剧，政治极化进一步加重。 - **2030—2032年决裂期**：美国社会保障基金（Social Security）将彻底耗尽流动性，无钱支付款项。 - **地方债务连锁爆雷**：各大州政府无力承担巨额的未注资养老金（unfunded pensions）和地方债券（munis），届时联邦将被迫同时处理社保救助、州政府重组与市政债违约，系统将迎来“大洗牌”。 ### [52:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=3135s) 政府干预的反噬：高铁乱局与普遍性通胀 谈及地方政府的失控支出，主持人痛斥了加州的“断头高铁”项目。加州斥资数百亿美元修建一条“既无轨道又无终点、从旧金山到弗雷斯诺（Fresno）”的高铁，其单程成本甚至超过机票。整个项目预计将耗费高达2500亿美元，而佛罗里达州由私营资本主导的 Brightline 高铁却以极低成本快速落地。这充分暴露了主流媒体的失语与政治阻力的缺失——在《千万别抬头》（*Don't Look Up*）般的荒诞现实中，没有任何建制派媒体敢呼吁彻底关停这一无底洞。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 政府兜底干预导致全行业通胀与制度走向的恶性循环 accDescr: 展现政府在各领域注入资金，导致各行业成本螺旋上升，最终促成公众倒向社会主义政策的逻辑链条。 subgraph GovIntervention ["政府兜底与开支扩张"] A["无限兜底学生贷款"] B["住房政策与利率扭曲"] C["无监管的看护与医疗补贴"] end subgraph MarketDistortion ["成本螺旋式失控"] D["高校行政成本暴增6倍<br/>学费年化复利涨8%（30年）"] E["房价飞涨<br/>年轻人丧失置业能力"] F["医疗成本全面飙升"] end subgraph SystemicFailure ["系统性危机与政治滑坡"] G["全面推高生活成本<br/>政府开支成为通胀终极根源"] H["选民归咎体制<br/>滑向社会主义方案与更大政府"] end A --> D B --> E C --> F D --> G E --> G F --> G G --> H ``` 嘉宾们一致指出，政府干预几乎在每个领域都适得其反： - **高等教育**：联邦兜底学生贷款，导致高校行政管理成本暴增6倍，学费在30年内以每年8%的复合增长率飙升。 - **住房领域**：政策补贴与扭曲导致房价失控，让当代年轻人彻底丧失购房能力。 - **医疗卫生**：政府向无须出勤核验的居家看护发放巨额补贴，推动医疗成本暴涨。 这形成了典型的公地悲剧：欺诈仅是第一层，整个系统存在多达18层的结构性浪费，而没有任何单一力量能自主纠偏，主流媒体也缺乏问责意愿。 ### [55:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=3300s) 归咎心理、认知断层与制度性“财政悬崖” David Sacks 抛出一个关键问题：普通选民能否将宏观链条串联起来——即“联邦过度支出导致美债收益率上升，进而将30年期房贷利率推升至6.5%~6.73%的高位（较30年期美债高约150个基点），最终摧毁了普通人的买房能力”？ 大家一致认为，普通大众根本无法理清这种传导机制。人类大脑在危机面前的第一本能永远是寻找替罪羊（“谁该为此负责？”），选民只会怪罪现任总统或国会议员，随后投票给那些承诺“提供免费住房、免费公共交通、免除房贷，甚至没收房东土地分给穷人”的民粹政客。这种行为无异于向由政府开支点燃的烈火中倾倒更多的政府支出。这种自毁倾向只有在发生如9·11、2008年金融危机或新冠疫情那样的极端危机时，才会迫使社会重构预期，但每次危机又往往沦为政府进一步扩权的借口（“千万不要浪费一场好危机”）。 ### [58:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=3495s) 拯救方案的辩论：AI 的解题潜力与用脚投票 面对几乎无解的财政困局，嘉宾们探讨了现实中仅剩的两条出路： - **将 AI 视为唯一的“机械降神”（Deus Ex Machina）**：全场半开玩笑地将债务责任推给 Anthropic 的 Dario Amodei、加拿大和普京。玩笑背后是一个残酷的事实——只有 AI 带来的指数级生产力爆发，才能让美国经济实现足够超额的增长以稀释债务。这要求市场持续出现像英伟达（NVIDIA）和 Salesforce 本季度展现的亮眼财报，并连续维持10年；若此时因繁琐的 AI 监管卡死大模型审批，美国经济将彻底万劫不复。 - **选民正在“用脚投票”对抗失控支出**：从纽约、洛杉矶和旧金山等深蓝都市向得克萨斯等州的跨州人口大迁移，正在打破“加香槟自由派（limousine liberals）”固步自封的局面。在旧金山，坐拥维多利亚式老宅的既得利益者拒绝批准新建住房，导致年轻人背负天价房租；而在得州，市场化的高效供应使得奥斯汀自2022年高点以来的房价大幅下跌了27%，让普通家庭重新享受到住房可负担性带来的生活尊严。 ### [01:00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=3600s) 住房危机、领导力缺失与德鲁肯米勒的“AI 代笔”风波 节目先是从一段激烈的即兴演讲开始。Jason 情绪激动地指出，自 2020 年 3 月以来，解决住房短缺的方案摆在眼前，只要领导层明确将“建房”列为优先事项，让自由市场发挥作用，问题就能迎刃而解。他以德克萨斯州和佛罗里达州为例：在这些保守派主导、崇尚自由市场的地区，甚至诞生了时速高达 125 英里的 Brightline 高铁，全因政府不从中作梗、放手让私营部门去解决技术与建设难题。在德州，人们只需花 25 万美元就能拥有一套属于自己的住房，而一些群体却在不断阻碍进步、遏制房屋建造。对此，其他主持人打趣称赞这是一段极为精彩的“JCal 式演讲（polemical）”，甚至笑问他是不是提前背过稿，还是雇了 David Sacks 的撰稿人来润色。 随后，话题迅速切换到一个极具争议的“支线任务”：传奇投资人斯坦·德鲁肯米勒（Stan Druckenmiller）在《华尔街日报》（The Wall Street Journal）上发表评论文章，随后被曝出使用 AI 进行写作，而《华尔街日报》甚至表示这完全没有问题。Chamath 对此感到匪夷所思，直言大众往往以为只有左派喜欢搞“道德标榜”（virtue signaling），实际上有一整群人都在做这种自以为是、只见树木不见森林的道德评判。在 Chamath 看来，德鲁肯米勒是当代最伟大的投资人之一（至少能稳居前三四名），当这样的大师开口预测未来即将发生的经济格局时，网上一群看客却在死揪着文章里使用了“破折号（em dash）”或 AI 常用的修辞浮华不放，完全错失了真正重要的信息。 David Sacks 同样坚定支持德鲁肯米勒。针对 Jason 质疑署名专栏文章是否应该由 AI 代笔，Sacks 澄清道，核心观点完全来自德鲁肯米勒本人，是他进行了提示（prompts）、塑造和引导，文章的立场与他过去数十年来的一贯警告完全吻合。如今不借助 AI 工具写作的人反而是不明智的。Chamath 进一步痛批社交媒体 X 上的盲目受众：大家本应认真思考德鲁肯米勒的预警会对自己的公司、投资组合、401(k) 退休计划甚至父母的养老产生何种冲击，并考虑如何对冲风险，结果全网却在对“他用了 AI”大呼小叫、无事生非。 --- ### [01:03:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=3795s) “假唱式写作”还是“创造力杠杆”？工具边界的大激辩 Jason 对此提出了强烈异议，直言这种全篇交给系统的做法堪比“文字界的假唱（lip syncing of writing）”。作为专业撰稿人，他认为把整个观点的表达全部扔给 AI 令人难以接受，就像兴冲冲去听 Adele 的演唱会结果发现她在假唱一样令人失望。他强调，如果自己想要读的是德鲁肯米勒的思想，就希望看到德鲁肯米勒本人的思维构建与文字表达。虽然利用 AI 进行背景研究、语法校对、甚至是请代笔作家润色都可以理解，但直接生成整篇专栏却不加披露，会给读者一种“虚伪与令人不适”的感觉，读者理应知道真实情况。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI 辅助写作争议观点对比 accDescr: 对比 Jason 坚持的传统原创道德准则与 Friedberg/Sacks/Chamath 持有的数字化工具杠杆观点 subgraph JasonView["Jason 的批判立场"] A["读者期待真实声音"] --> B["完全生成 = 文字假唱 (Lip Syncing)"] B --> C["必须强制披露 (Disclosure)"] end subgraph DefenseView["Friedberg / Sacks / Chamath 的工具论"] D["核心观点与输入来自人类 (The Take)"] --> E["AI 作为数字倍增器 (如同 Excel / Photoshop)"] E --> F["关注实质洞察与投资警告，而非文本格式"] end ``` Friedberg 随即展开了长篇反驳，从数字工具与人类创造力演进的本质切入。他质问 Jason： - 艺术家使用 Adobe Photoshop 的滤镜，或者电子音乐 DJ 使用专业混音软件而不是亲自弹吉他录制模拟音乐时，难道也必须向受众逐一披露所用的工具和滤镜吗？ - 制作电子表格的人，难道必须向大家声明自己用的是微软 Excel 或计算器，而不是靠手工在纸上纯手工计算吗？ Friedberg 强调，数字创意工具始终与人类的智慧和技艺并行发展，是对人类潜能的放大和强化。“使用 AI”这一概念本身就极其模糊——无论是修正拼写、润色语法，还是生成全新段落，只要人类提供了输入并对输出进行了筛选与编辑，它本质上就不是一个独立的“人类智能替代系统”，而是一种人类创造力的倍增器。 Jason 则坚持读者对高质量内容有极高的预期。大家之所以失望，并不是为了道德标榜，而是因为他们极其在乎德鲁肯米勒本人的见解，渴望消费真正的人类思想，而不是所谓的“AI 垃圾（AI slop）”。他同时指责《华尔街日报》有失操守，认为媒体和学术界都有责任排查 AI 垃圾，以确保文字是百分之百源自人类，而非通过“AI 魔法猜词黑盒”转译出来的产物。 --- ### [01:07:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=4020s) 写作流程推演与公开免责声明 争论的高潮部分演变为一场关于 AI 实际使用工作流的逻辑追问。David Sacks 在现场直接作出一项面向未来的“公开免责声明（standing disclosure）”：他今后发布的所有文章甚至推文，在公开前几乎都会通过 AI 进行事实核查、逐行润色（line edit）以及优化论点。Sacks 强调，这并不等同于抄袭或完全交给机器托管。 针对 Jason “受过专业新闻训练与普通人不同”的说辞，其他成员步步紧逼地质问：德鲁肯米勒以后写专栏到底能不能用电脑？能不能用字处理软件？能不能用 Grammarly 检查语法？Jason 表示当然可以用这些工具，甚至支持使用 Grammarly（因为他是 Grammarly 的股东），但他坚持“核对校对”与“让 AI 替你写出整篇废话”之间有着本质区别，而且 AI 检测工具显示德鲁肯米勒的文章高达 90% 是由机器生成的。 Sacks 则推测了德鲁肯米勒实际的工作流：他绝不可能只是随便点一下按钮就全盘照收垃圾内容。极大概率是他拥有成熟的观点（the take），随后通过文字或语音口述给 AI，甚至口述给助手转入 AI 生成初稿，德鲁肯米勒在阅读后亲自进行了修改和编辑，最终认可其代表了自己的真实立场并点击发送。因此，将该文章斥为纯粹的“机器代笔”完全脱离了高阶专业人士使用 AI 工具的实际场景。 ### [01:10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=4200s) 德鲁肯米勒用 AI 写专栏引发的争论：是赋能还是对读者的不尊重？ 主持人们就传奇宏观投资人斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒（Stanley Druckenmiller）在《华尔街日报》（The Wall Street Journal）上发表批评美国财长斯科特·贝森特（Scott Bessent）债券回购政策的专栏文章，是否使用 AI 代写展开了激烈交锋。杰森·卡拉卡尼斯（Jason Calacanis）对德鲁肯米勒的做法极为不满，他脑补了德鲁肯米勒坐在纽约办公室里，打开浏览器输入类似“收益率飙升很糟糕”的提示词，让 ChatGPT 生成整篇文章直接发给报社的场景。杰森此前用“假唱”来做类比，戴维·萨克斯（David Sacks）对此反驳道，假唱是把唱过上千次的旧歌拿来放录音，而德鲁肯米勒针对的是刚发生的财政部债券政策，观点完全是原创、新鲜的。但杰森坚持认为，正因为这是针对具体现实的崭新观点，德鲁肯米勒才更应该亲自撰写，这关乎“对读者的基本尊重”。 萨克斯随后追问杰森是否在社交平台时间线上看到“AI 检测工具判定该文由 AI 生成”之前就读过文章，并追问其对文章实质内容的看法。萨克斯表示自己第一时间读到该文时，内容与德鲁肯米勒多年来在各种播客和采访中关于债务危机的论述完全一致，“如果说他在抄袭谁，那也是在抄袭他自己”。杰森承认“抄袭”并不是最准确的词，但他反感作者把 AI 写出来的东西署上自己的名字并揽下所有功劳。杰森进一步用音乐制作打比方，称自己更喜欢马克·诺弗勒（Mark Knopfler，险峻峡谷乐队主唱）那样既能写歌又能亲自弹奏吉他连复段（riff）的真正艺术家，而不是靠修音软件（Auto-Tune）和过度后期包装出来的产物。他直言，虽然自己不会完全无视德鲁肯米勒未来的观点，但对这位全球最顶级宏观交易员的评价会大打折扣，因为一篇区区 800 字的专栏文章完全可以自己动手写或找人工校对，“我觉得他这是在敷衍了事（phoning it in）”。 萨克斯则坚定地为德鲁肯米勒辩护，指出即便是顶级歌手也会借助 Auto-Tune 等工具让自己呈现最佳状态，AI 同样是赋予思考者的“超级超能力”。德鲁肯米勒本人并非以文字见长，但他是一个拥有长期坚定立场的深邃思想者，敢于在公开场合批判同僚兼好友的政策违背常识；利用 AI 工具让表达更加清晰凝练并无不可。两人最终在这个问题上各执己见，达成“保留分歧”的共识。 - **争议焦点**：德鲁肯米勒公开承认使用 AI 辅助撰写批评贝森特的《华尔街日报》专栏文章，引发关于原创性与学术/媒体诚信的讨论。 - **正方观点（萨克斯）**：核心价值在于其独到的宏观思想和独创论点，AI 只是像修音软件或 Grammarly 一样的润色与放大工具，无损其思想的真实性。 - **反方观点（杰森）**：800 字的短篇专栏交给 AI 全权代劳属于敷衍读者，让受众难以分辨文章究竟是作者的精准本意还是算法的模型拼凑。 --- ### [01:15:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=4500s) CIA 局长突访莫斯科传闻与俄乌战局现状 节目话题转向地缘政治动向。中央情报局（CIA）局长约翰·拉特克利夫（John Ratcliffe）周二对莫斯科进行了一次未公开的闪电式突访，并于当天飞回华盛顿。这是自 2021 年 11 月威廉·伯恩斯（William Burns）赴俄警告普京不要入侵乌克兰以来，现任 CIA 局长首次访问莫斯科。华盛顿媒体迅速炒作，称拉特克利夫此行是为了严厉警告俄罗斯不得进攻北约盟国，甚至有情报称普京可能在未来几年内通过网络攻击或有限地面渗透来测试北约的防御决心。 大卫·弗里德伯格（David Friedberg）指出这篇报道在群聊里引发了强烈关注，但萨克斯对此类戏剧化传闻嗤之以鼻。杰森开玩笑插话称拉特克利夫飞去莫斯科其实是去警告普京“写下一篇文章时千万别用 AI 代笔”。萨克斯随后严肃分析指出，美国官方和俄罗斯官方通报均否认了上述危言耸听的报道，称这只是一次常规接触，媒体所谓的“警告俄罗斯不要入侵欧洲”完全是新保守主义者（neocons）多年来惯用的“威胁通胀（threat inflation）”话术，毫无事实依据。 萨克斯深入剖析了目前的俄乌战场态势： - **战略主动与制空权**：俄罗斯完全掌握战场制空权，而乌克兰的防空导弹和防御系统基本耗尽，首都基辅及全国关键目标频繁遭受常规轰击，基础设施遭到毁灭性破坏。 - **能源与冬季危机**：随着严冬临近，乌克兰全境的电力和能源网络正被成体系摧毁，民生与战时保障陷入极端被动。 - **经济与出海通道被锁死**：敖德萨及黑海沿岸港口遭到封锁与打击，粮食出口陷于停滞，乌克兰整体经济面临崩溃风险。 - **资金与兵力极度匮乏**：乌克兰正面临 350 亿美元的资金缺口，美国不再无底线买单，泽连斯基不得不全力向欧洲兜售求援；此外，面对严重的人员伤亡与兵源枯竭，乌方甚至传出考虑征召女性入伍的传闻。俄罗斯人口是乌克兰的四到五倍，具备压倒性的消耗战承受能力。 - **预测市场数据**：Polymarket 数据显示，市场预测俄乌在年底前达成停火协议的概率已骤降至 21%。萨克斯认为泽连斯基应该听取特朗普的建议尽快达成和平协议，因为乌克兰手里已经没有筹码。 在讨论尾声，查马斯·帕里哈皮蒂亚（Chamath Palihapitiya）带出另一个社会议题，对 Meta 为 Instagram 推出严格的青少年保护账户机制表示由衷赞许。查马斯感叹作为家长，每天和孩子在手机上玩“打地鼠”游戏追踪隐藏账号和假账号让人筋疲力尽，Meta 这项保护措施虽然来得有些迟，但确实切实解决了他日常生活中最大的痛点。 ### [01:20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=4800s) 社交媒体对青少年设限与家长的育儿困境 主持人们继续就 Meta 针对青少年出台的新限制展开讨论。大家认为，尽管 Meta 是在舆论和监管压力下“被逼得一路抗拒才终于做了正确的事”，但能迈出这一步依然值得肯定。主持人们呼吁 TikTok 和 YouTube 也能迅速跟进，甚至希望苹果（Apple）和安卓（Android）等操作系统底层也加入这一阵营，直接从设备端为家长减负。对于如今的父母来说，每天耗费心力监督孩子使用电子设备是一件极其疲惫的事情，这让父母的角色从真正的“育儿”退化成了“设备警察”。尤其对年轻女孩而言，沉迷 Instagram 等社交软件对身心健康的负面影响尤为显著。 查马斯（Chamath Palihapitiya）分享了自己的亲身经历，坦言他在孩子社交媒体使用上一直坚守阵地，规定未满 16 岁绝对不准碰社交媒体，但等到孩子 17 岁时，防线还是失守了。他指出，澳大利亚、加拿大和英国等国家都在陆续出台针对未成年人的社交媒体立法限制，这种物理和心理上的双重屏障对孩子的心智极其必要。目前市面上的各类家长监控软件（parental control apps）效果只能算差强人意，家长在防守端永远处于被动状态。与其整天对着孩子大喊大叫让他们放下手机，父母更希望把有限的时间和精力投入到真正有意义的亲子互动中去。 - **多国监管趋势**：澳大利亚、加拿大及英国等国家正在加速推进未成年人社交网络使用限制立法。 - **育儿真实痛点**：现有的家长控制软件存在诸多漏洞，家长难以从技术层面彻底屏蔽不良内容，亟需大平台和操作系统提供系统级原生支持。 --- ### [01:21:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=4900s) All-In 峰会倒计时与重磅赞助商亮相 话题转向即将到来的全明星盛会，弗里德伯格（David Friedberg）兴奋地向听众宣布，距离今年的 All-In 峰会（All-In Summit）仅剩两周时间，多位重磅赞助商将为现场带来丰富的体验： - **Iron（Ironclad）**：作为峰会的首席赞助商回归，并继续设立广受欢迎的“Iron House”专属休息廊，供与会嘉宾在各场演讲和论坛间隙放松交流。 - **Merch.com**：将纳帕活动中的礼品精品店概念带到现场，每位参会者都可以自选并装满一整袋 All-In 官方周边及赞助商提供的特惠福利。 - **甲骨文（Oracle）**：在现场搭建了一台 F1 赛车模拟器。弗里德伯格打趣道，如果有人想体验以每小时 180 英里的速度过弯是什么感觉——“那就像在节目里跟 J.Cal（杰森）激烈辩论一样”——同时又不用担心被送进医院，这绝对是绝佳的机会。 - **安永（EY）**：专门提供了独立静音会议舱（Meeting Pods），方便参会者现场接打电话、举行商务会谈甚至直接敲定交易（弗里德伯格透露峰会现场向来促成了海量商业合作）。 弗里德伯格表示，这些还只是“冰山一角”，主办方还保留了更多惊喜，期待两周后与所有人在峰会相聚。 --- ### [01:22:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=4972s) 科学角落：Moderna mRNA 癌症疫苗的技术原理 杰森将话题引向本期的“科学角落”（Science Corner），询问弗里德伯格关于近期股价暴涨三倍的癌症疫苗公司。弗里德伯格指出，引发轰动的正是 Moderna（其市值在极短时间内从约 200 亿美元飙升至 600 亿美元），暴涨原因是其所谓的“癌症疫苗”取得了令人振奋的临床试验数据。弗里德伯格深入拆解了该疗法背后的底层生物学逻辑，强调这套被称为“新抗原”（Neoantigen）的免疫疗法并非全新概念，其理论根基最早可追溯至 20 世纪 90 年代。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Neoantigen mRNA Cancer Vaccine Workflow accDescr: Flowchart showing the steps from tumor biopsy to in vivo immune activation via mRNA. subgraph Step1["1. 肿瘤分析与测序"] A["采集肿瘤样本<br/>(如黑色素瘤突变)"] --> B["高通量 DNA 测序<br/>与突变特征分析"] end subgraph Step2["2. 个性化疫苗设计"] B --> C["锁定癌症特有<br/>新抗原 (Neoantigen)"] C --> D["合成编码该抗原的 mRNA"] end subgraph Step3["3. 体内免疫激活 (In Vivo)"] D --> E["注射人体<br/>自身细胞合成并分泌靶蛋白"] E --> F["免疫系统被全面激活<br/>精准消灭全身同源癌细胞"] end ``` 该疗法的核心在于识别出癌细胞中独一无二的异常蛋白质或肽段（新抗原）： 1. **肿瘤突变与专属指纹**：癌细胞内部的基因突变会导致其制造出正常人体细胞没有的奇异蛋白质。以黑色素瘤（Melanoma）为例，由于皮肤长期暴露于紫外线辐射，黑色素瘤细胞的 DNA 会产生高度特异性的突变。 2. **提取与测序**：医生通过活检切取极少量肿瘤样本，利用 DNA 测序技术将其放大数百万至数十亿倍并切片比对，找出专属于该患者肿瘤的突变基因序列，这个序列就是癌细胞独一无二的“身份证指纹”。 3. **体外生产 vs 体内表达**：早期的免疫治疗尝试在体外（*ex vivo*）合成出这种蛋白质再注射回体内。而 Moderna 采取的做法与新冠疫苗类似，直接将编码该新抗原的 mRNA 注射进人体，让患者自身的细胞在体内（*in vivo*）制造出这种蛋白质并释放到血液中。 4. **免疫系统击杀**：人体免疫系统识别到这种外来新抗原后会被剧烈激活，大量增殖专门针对该蛋白质的免疫细胞，随后这些免疫细胞便会在全身搜寻并清除所有携带相同指纹的癌细胞。 弗里德伯格强调，严格意义上说，这根本不是传统意义上的“单一药品”，而是一套高度定制化的**医疗流程**（process）。由于目前基因测序技术已经极度成熟且成本低廉，前端获取突变数据和理论上合成 mRNA 的边际成本其实非常低。 --- ### [01:26:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=5200s) 批判资本收割：监管俘获与高昂定价争议 弗里德伯格对华尔街和制药行业将此鼓吹为“前所未有的重大颠覆性突破”表达了强烈的失望与愤怒。他揭露道，这类基于新抗原的定制疗法在现实中早就存在，甚至很多癌症晚期患者直接前往蒙大拿州（Montana）等地的民营诊所，花费大约 50,000 美元就能完成肿瘤测序、定制打印专属肽段并注射体内，不少人由此成功治愈了癌症。这些诊所运行这套流程多年，并未将其包装成某种神秘的 FDA 批准新药。 弗里德伯格对 Moderna 计划对该疗法索价每人 50 万美元的做法提出了尖锐批判： > “这套技术经过了几十年的迭代研发，其绝大部分早期基础研究资金都来自美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）以及纳税人的公共财政支持……而现在一家私营制药公司却将其申请专利并推向 FDA 审批，反过来向患者收取 50 万美元的治疗天价。” 他直言，Moderna 市值从 200 亿暴涨至 600 亿美元的本质是赤裸裸的**“监管俘获”**（Regulatory Capture）。大药企利用繁复的临床审批、安全审查和专利壁垒作为护城河，将原本基于公共资金科研成果、理应开源并普惠全球每家医院的标准治疗流程，垄断成了攫取巨额暴利的工具。这不仅没有推动医学民主化，反而加剧了医疗不公，让人深感遗憾与沮丧。 - **成本对比显著**：民间定制肽段全套流程市场花费约 5 万美元，而药企商业化上市后定价预期高达 50 万美元。 - **公共研发成果私有化**：新抗原疗法的基础科学依赖数十年来 NIH 等公共机构的财政拨款支持，商业专利化与高定价引发了严重的伦理与体制争议。 ### [01:30:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=5400s) Moderna 专利壁垒、医疗旅游与 mRNA 癌症免疫疗法的底层逻辑 讨论从专利防御与医疗成本切入。Jason 提出两个核心问题：首先，Moderna 能否在美国及全球范围内成功捍卫其专利壁垒？鉴于当今“医疗旅游”（Medical Tourism）十分普遍，如果美国本土治疗费用高达 50 万美元，病人是否会直接飞往韩国或日本以 5 万美元的价格接受同类治疗？其次，回顾新冠疫情初期作为 mRNA 技术的首次大规模落地，大众曾产生广泛疑虑，这项技术的演变如今究竟如何？ Friedberg 详细拆解了这段历史与技术本质。他指出，Moderna 多年来的真正主业始终是研发基于 mRNA 的癌症治疗系统。尽管外界称其为“癌症疫苗”（Cancer Vaccine），但本质上这属于“免疫疗法”（Immunotherapy）——传统疫苗的作用是防患于未然，而这项技术是用于清除体内已经存在的肿瘤细胞。Moderna 当年研发多年却迟迟未能商业化，直到新冠疫情暴发才迅速掉头，快速推出了新冠 mRNA 疫苗。 针对专利问题，Moderna 围绕制造 mRNA 的工具、防止 mRNA 整合进人类基因组，以及阻断传统复制机制（确保 mRNA 不会在人体细胞内不受控扩增）建立了严密的专利保护。但 Friedberg 强调，治疗癌症并不绝对依赖 mRNA。只要提取出肿瘤细胞的独有突变 DNA 序列，完全可以走传统路径：将该 DNA 序列植入大肠杆菌（E. coli），在生物反应器（Bioreactor）中进行发酵表达，大肠杆菌便会根据“DNA $\to$ RNA $\to$ 蛋白质”的中心法则大量制造该蛋白质抗原；提纯后注射回体内，同样能激活人体免疫系统攻击肿瘤。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 癌症抗原免疫疗法的两条路径对比 accDescr: 展示传统大肠杆菌重组蛋白路线与mRNA打印体内表达路线的流程对比 subgraph Biopsy["1. 肿瘤基因测序"] DNA["测序癌细胞 DNA<br/>定位独有突变特征"] end subgraph ProteinRoute["路径 A：体外反应器重组蛋白"] EColi["导入大肠杆菌 (E. coli)<br/>在生物反应器中培养"] Isolate["分离并纯化靶标蛋白质"] end subgraph mRNA_Route["路径 B：Moderna mRNA 打印"] Print["体外直接'打印'合成 mRNA"] end subgraph ImmuneResponse["2. 激发人体免疫"] Shot["注射入患者体内"] Kill["免疫系统被精准激活<br/>特异性识别并清除癌细胞"] end DNA --> EColi EColi --> Isolate Isolate --> Shot DNA --> Print Print --> Shot Shot --> Kill ``` mRNA 的革命性在于**极度廉价与高效**：它省去了体外繁琐的大规模蛋白质制造和纯化步骤，仅需在体外“打印”出对应的 mRNA 打上一针，让人体自身细胞完成蛋白表达。Friedberg 抛出一个发人深省的问题：虽然 Moderna 在特定专利技术上筑起了壁垒，但这套治疗理论和科学逻辑在学界早已透明且被充分理解，“我们真的应该把癌症治疗的垄断权拱手让给一家公司吗？” - 随着技术扩散，廉价且高效的癌症免疫疗法将在海外遍地开花，引发跨国医疗旅游。 - 主持人提到，他们共同的一位朋友正依托蒙大拿州的“试用权法案”（Right to Try Act），以极低的成本建立低门槛的同类治疗业务。 ### [01:33:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=5580s) 早期早筛（Galleri）与新兴疗法：CAR-T 与血癌革命 Jason 补充强调，所有前沿癌症疗法的核心前提是“早筛早诊”，例如 Grail 公司研发的基于血液检测的 Galleri 癌症早期多检测试。他大声呼吁听众一定要“早做检测、经常做检测”。 Friedberg 顺势盘点了正在改写肿瘤治疗格局的全新疗法模式（Therapeutic Modalities）： - **CAR-T 细胞疗法（Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell Therapy）**：从患者体内提取 T 细胞，利用 CRISPR 等基因编辑技术重新“编程”这些 T 细胞，使其专门识别癌细胞表面的特定突变蛋白，扩增后再输回体内大举猎杀癌细胞。 - **高昂成本与显著疗效**：目前 CAR-T 疗法成本高达 100 万美元左右。 - **实体瘤与血液肿瘤的差异**：对于实体瘤，癌细胞紧密抱团形成肿瘤包块，T 细胞渗透较为困难；但在多发性骨髓瘤（Multiple Myeloma）等血液肿瘤中，癌细胞单个游离在血液中，输注的 CAR-T 细胞极易在循环系统中捕获并消灭它们，因此 CAR-T 在血液癌症中的治疗效果极为惊人。 Friedberg 总结道，无论是 CAR-T 疗法还是新抗原 mRNA 疗法，现代医学正在涌现一系列针对癌症的颠覆性武器，全人类应当对此感到极其振奋与乐观。 ### [01:35:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=5700s) 节目收尾与幕后花絮 Jason 对 Friedberg 带来的前沿科学分享表示感谢，并提议未来专门拿出一期节目深入探讨“试用权”（Right to Try）对医疗创新的重大意义。随着正式节目的录制结束，四位主持人切换回标志性的幽默互损与胡扯状态（Banter）。录音室里回荡着关于宠物的调侃、互相开玩笑的荤段子以及关于推出播客周边商品（Merch）的碎碎念，在欢声笑语与“I'm going All-In”的口号中为整期节目画上句号。 ## Notable quotes > [33:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=2012s) 将上帝的恐惧深植于做空长端国债的交易员心中 — Scott Bessent > [40:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=2400s) 收益率上升，信任度就下降 — Chamath Palihapitiya > [43:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=2590s) 用自己的肩膀把整个美国经济扛在背上 — Chamath Palihapitiya > [20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=1200s) AI 现在就是用户界面 — Marc Benioff > [01:03:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=3795s) 文字界的假唱 — Jason Calacanis > [01:10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=4200s) 如果说他在抄袭谁，那也是在抄袭他自己 — David Sacks > [01:10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=4200s) 我觉得他这是在敷衍了事 — Jason Calacanis > [01:26:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=5200s) 这套技术经过了几十年的迭代研发，其绝大部分早期基础研究资金都来自美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）以及纳税人的公共财政支持……而现在一家私营制药公司却将其申请专利并推向 FDA 审批，反过来向患者收取 50 万美元的治疗天价。 — David Friedberg > [01:30:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=5400s) 我们真的应该把癌症治疗的垄断权拱手让给一家公司吗？ — David Friedberg > [01:33:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks&t=5580s) 早做检测、经常做检测 — Jason Calacanis ## Mentioned Jason Calacanis, David Friedberg, David Sacks, Chamath Palihapitiya, Eric Weinstein, Michael Kratsios, Jay Bhattacharya, Dario Amodei, Elon Musk, Jason Koon, Christian McCaffrey, Marc Benioff, Sam Altman, Scott Bessent, Stan Druckenmiller, Kevin Warsh, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, John Ratcliffe, William Burns, Vladimir Putin, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Mark Knopfler, Nvidia, Salesforce, Anthropic, xAI, GrokBot, Tesla, Optimus, Hugging Face, Poolside, AMD, Cerebras, Oracle, SAP, Workday, Slack, Cursor, Cloud Code, Open Interpreter, Hermes, Meta, Instagram, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, TikTok, YouTube, Apple, Brightline, Moderna, Grail, Ironclad, Merch.com, EY, Grammarly, The Wall Street Journal, Polymarket, DOGE, NIH, FDA, Galleri, CAR-T, Right to Try Act ## Video description (0:00) Bestie intros: Recapping recent interviews and the state of American science (3:31) China's Robot Olympics, Optimus update, Grok Bot (9:05) Nvidia and Salesforce rip after big earnings: AI Capex Bubble and SaaSpocalypse narratives get reversed (33:32) Bessent gets called out by Druckenmiller for bond market interference (1:01:33) AI writing controversy: Druck used AI to write his WSJ Op-ed (1:15:00) CIA Chief visits Moscow, Meta's settlement and new teen rules (1:22:52) Science Corner: Moderna's mRNA cancer vaccine Follow the besties: https://x.com/chamath https://x.com/Jason https://x.com/DavidSacks https://x.com/friedberg Follow on X: https://x.com/theallinpod Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@allin Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://x.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://x.com/TheZachEffect Referenced in the show: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/27/nvidia-nvda-q2-earnings.html https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/article/how-nvidia-silenced-the-bears-105017893.html https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-announces-financial-results-for-second-quarter-fiscal-2027 https://polymarket.com/event/largest-company-end-of-december-2026 https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/18/treasury-yields-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/24/bessent-1-trillion-treasury-general-account-bond-buybacks.html https://seekingalpha.com/news/4636322-wall-street-sees-bessent-putting-fear-of-god-into-bond-vigilantes https://www.wsj.com/opinion/let-the-bond-market-speak-81529d74 https://www.wsj.com/world/cia-director-john-ratcliffe-makes-surprise-trip-to-moscow-c1c68fa6 https://polymarket.com/event/russia-x-ukraine-ceasefire-agreement-by #allin #tech #news [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5dMAKl_ks)

[33:32] Scott Bessent: 将上帝的恐惧深植于做空长端国债的交易员心中 [40:00] Chamath Palihapitiya: 收益率上升，信任度就下降 [43:10] Chamath Palihapitiya: 用自己的肩膀把整个美国经济扛在背上 [20:00] Marc Benioff: AI 现在就是用户界面 [63:15] Jason Calacanis: 文字界的假唱 [70:00] David Sacks: 如果说他在抄袭谁，那也是在抄袭他自己 [70:00] Jason Calacanis: 我觉得他这是在敷衍了事 [86:40] David Friedberg: 这套技术经过了几十年的迭代研发，其绝大部分早期基础研究资金都来自美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）以及纳税人的公共财政支持……而现在一家私营制药公司却将其申请专利并推向 FDA 审批，反过来向患者收取 50 万美元的治疗天价。 [90:00] David Friedberg: 我们真的应该把癌症治疗的垄断权拱手让给一家公司吗？ [93:00] Jason Calacanis: 早做检测、经常做检测

[18:15] He is integrating Salesforce into Claude. He's willing to allow Claude to be the front end... Benioff here is willing to risk disintermediation in order to ride this AI wave because he knows it's what the customer ultimately wants. [61:33] Jason Calacanis: I do think it's kind of the lip-syncing of writing... I really want to hear him construct... To me, it feels like I went to see Adele, and she's lip-syncing. [69:05] David Sacks: Druckenmiller said, 'I'm not the greatest writer.' What makes him interesting is he's a thinker. He has a take... and he uses AI to basically make his writing better. [90:00] A vaccine means you prevent yourself from getting something, whereas in this case, you're actually getting rid of something you already have. So I don't like the word vaccine. [93:45] For blood cancers like multiple myeloma, the efficacy is incredible with CAR T therapies now... In aggregate, we should be very excited and optimistic about where this is headed.

[0:00] All right, everybody, welcome back. to the number one podcast in the world, your favorite podcast, your podcaster's favorite podcast. Yes, it's the all in podcast. The core four, the fantastic four. The original quartet is here. David Freeberg, hot off of his deep state conspiracy interview with Eric Weinstein. Amazing. You did a little run to DC. Great episode, Freber. It was fun. Eric is one of a kind. I saw Kratios too, kind of two sides of the coin of science in America was the... basis of those two interviews. They were fun. Who is Eric Weinstein? He's a scientist who works with Peter Thiel from Harvard, has done some really... Used to be at Thiel Capital. Yeah. And he... He had a podcast for a hot minute. He is a heterodox thinker in science. What is his heterodoxical thought about science? There's all these things that everyone takes as fundamental premises in modern physics, like the string theory, as an example. And he thought it was bullshit and called it out as bullshit. So he's been kind of outcast in the scientific community. It is bullshit. Right. And so he's made this case and he's proposed alternative theories that kind of create a grand unification theory of physics. And then he's been outcast by the scientific community and people say that he's a quack and he's moron and he's talked about UFOs and he's talked about Jeffrey Epstein and people kind of say, well, this guy's fringe or they use these different terms to chastise him. And over time, you know, the point is similar to what Kratzios has said, like so much of science has kind of followed this sheep like mentality where everyone has to line up. agree to the same general theory or you get outcasts, you don't get grant funding, you don't get tenure, you don't get jobs, you don't get invited to do lectures. You have to follow the mainstream in science or your outcasts. And it used to be that science was all about heterodoxy. I know, but it's very rational to say, Until string theory is proved it's unproved and so if you want to use the adjective bullshit, that's fine It'll probably offend some people but he's more right on the substance of what he's saying than he is wrong. It's unproved, right? It's like Jay Bhattacharya being like hey, you know kovid may have come from a lab leak and when people were saying this they were they were told you were creating conspiracy theories you're pushing misinformation and When there is no misinformation, if there's no absolute truth that you're talking about, it's theory. Everyone was starting with theory on where the COVID came from. You're talking about a level of corruption in a very narrow, specific realm of science, which is the funding and grant approval apparatus. And getting tenure and getting professorships. And so if you don't follow the voting rules. the methods, the theory. If you don't follow the mainstream, you're outcast. By the way, I buy that. I don't know Eric Weinstein, but I buy it. The argument is that this is what has led to stagnation in science in America. Because if you're not part of the mainstream, you get excluded. And because everyone has to now think in the same way, You don't have heterodox thinking, you don't have outside of the scope thinking, which means we're not pushing the envelope and discovering new things anymore. And that's a very kind of pointed issue right now. That's why I went and talked to Kratzios. You said differently. There's probably a lot of incrementalism in 2026 that didn't exist in 1926. Totally. Exactly right. Think about the general theory of relativity being published. It was completely outlandish, but people still studied it. assessed it, they didn't discredit it and say, oh, you're an idiot. And if you're thinking about this general theory of relativity as being real, you're a moron. That's what goes on today in science, where if you say stuff that's too far outside of the realm of the standard approach to things, you're, you're chastised, you're outcast, you're excluded. Do you guys see the Olympics? You see the robot Olympics sacks? Check this out. I did see it. Yeah, this is pretty crazy. They had these Olympics. in China. Oh, my God. They copied how Friedberg actually runs it. Look at this. Look at that. Yes. That is definitely a Friedberg sprint. The Friedberg sprint. I like it. Doing the Friedberg sprint. Look at this one. He backs up and then boom. That's more my sprint. That's like me skiing right there. Yeah. Look, and there's Jason Kuhn setting records at 42 years old. Yeah, this is Jason Kuhn right here. Here's Jason Kuhn. Yeah. With his shirt off at the poker game. Really great. Put your shirt back on, Kuhn. You know, I was thinking about this, Sax. You know what I realized? I think you're 100% right about the PR. And I realized that the Chinese, the CCP is brilliant at PR. Look what they did. They got a bunch of Chinese people to fill a stadium and cheer for AI and robotics. They're cheering for it. They're rooting for it. And then we got Dario saying all jobs are over. We're gonna be the last company in the world. And it's the end of days. I give the Chinese a lot of credit. We're not talking about Dario this week. We're not talking about Dario this week. Your grand unifying theory is that in a country of a billion people, they couldn't find 4,000 to show up. to watch a bunch of robots run around a track? Are you really? That's your grand unifying theory? It is true that China is much more optimistic about AI than we are. AI [5:00] Optimism in China is over 80%, meaning they pull on the question, do you think AI will be more beneficial and harmful? Over 80% of Chinese people say yes. In the US, that number is in like 30%. So, I've been saying for a while that the U.S. is ahead of China in every category except one. which is optimism. And that is the biggest risk to us. Winning this AI race against China is doing something that will shoot ourselves in the foot because we're so pessimistic about what AI might do. I think it's all psyops. They're making you feel, you see that, show the robot blowing up at 16 seconds, Nick. this is all stage. It's a psyops. This is a science they make you feel bad for the robots, they make you cheer for them. This is going to be like a major thing. No, it's the red robot. The funniest thing was when the red robot lost his legs. There was like a couple tweets that I thought were hilarious, like one guy was like, Oh my god, he tore his HDMI his CPU. And then and then the second one, which is not funny, because I know Christian McCaffrey, he's a great guy. He's like Christian McCaffrey in week three, and you just snap off very very mean Congratulations to the CCP. By the way, Optimus. Have you guys seen the latest Optimus videos from Elon by chance? Has he shown any of you guys? Haven't seen any. He's not publishing publicly. I saw the latest Optimus. it would win half of these things already. You guys see it. It's He's making sick progress. He's not showing it publicly, but I saw it. Without the sparks coming out of its midsection? No sparks, but I saw a video. that I said to him, I said, is this CGI or is this real? And he said, no, this is real. They just sent it to me this morning. And it's like, whoa, Optimus will be the best selling podcast. I think product. Yeah. And you know, the hard part, as I understand it with these robots is you can train them to do a specific action like running that race or jump or whatever. But the hard part is when they encounter a condition that they weren't programmed to expect. and specifically when they have to interact with something in the physical world, that's when it gets tricky, right? Can they do the whole folding laundry or pick something up without breaking it or dropping it or whatever? And, Specifically something that they weren't taught to do. That's where it gets tricky. Yeah, the fidelity of the optimist and its ability to do novel things, you kind of nailed it. I don't want to say any more. You've been playing with GrokBot though, right, Sax? Yeah, oh yeah. You got GrokBot shotted, you've been GrokBot maxing? I just reached my GrokBot usage limit and have to upgrade, so. 200 bucks a month. I've been, yeah. It's been really interesting, actually. Yeah, it just does what you tell it to do, right? Like, it just gets it done. Yeah. What's great about GrokBot is that it's always on. It's in the cloud. You set up your agents, and then... They can keep working even when your computer is off or it goes to sleep. The other, you know, agent harnesses that were kind of doing this were like Open Claw or Hermes. They were just on your desktop. So if your computer went to sleep, they would stop. You have to do all these Mac minis. And also they were like very hard to use, very power usury. Super complicated. This is like by far the easiest. It's still a lot of work to get it set up, working right, perfectly or whatever, but it's fun. And it's the easiest it's ever been, and you can really see where it's all going. Yeah, it's pretty amazing. I told him he should make it multiplayer mode. So like, You can put two agents in the same room, but then being able to put two people from your team in the same room, And then, you know, having humans in the loop, it's going to go super. That's such a good idea. That will make this thing go so freaking viral. Yes. If you can just add, because then, you know, what's cool about the agents is you actually have an agent swarm. You actually have lots of different agents performing different tasks and they get good at different things. You know, some people ask, why don't you just have one agent? It turns out that if you have multiple agents, then the agents develop more context and expertise. So they get more specific, but yeah, you could then use each of those agents as a channel. and invite people to it, and then they participate in that. And then they add another person. Yeah, it's... Yeah, then it could get very, very viral. Yeah, it's a great product. All right, let's get to work. We got a lot going on. NVIDIA just had a record-setting earnings report. I mean, they blew the doors off this and also... We'll talk a little bit about Salesforce also coming back and the SaaSpocalypse. ending stock was up in videos that is 9% on huge numbers and even huger guidance 96.2 billion in revenue In the quarter, Chama, up 106% year over year, more than double. Wall Street's expectation was 92 billion. They guided for 70% growth next year. That is well above what Wall Street was expecting at 45%. So let that sink in. The number of people are going crazy over, $60 billion in net profit. That is the most profitable core business quarter of any public company ever, Google and Amazon. They've had higher one-off quarters, obviously. [10:00] Here's your chart. Nvidia Net Income and Revenue Quarterly. Just blowing the doors off of it. Stock is up. Reaching its all-time high again. Getting close. Heading into earnings, NVIDIA was only up 12% year to date. on par with the S&P 500, but They were blagging the broader chip index. I guess the headwind chamath is that people believe There's competition coming. We'll talk about that. NVIDIA is the world's most valuable company. 5.5 trillion. Polymarket says 79% chance. Here's your Polymarket. Our great partner. Polymarket 79% chance Nvidia ends the year. as number one 6.3 million in volume In other news, Salesforce up over 20 on thursday after they also reported a big quarter revenue up 11.3 billion 11 year over year uh that was in line with expectations but they uh beaded their adjusted eps by 80. 590 versus... $3.27. Since they got a big jump because... They are major investors in anthropic, They raised the full year gains to 46 billion. you called it let's give chamat his victory fap here he goes the victory fap the lap Shmoth on May 15. What's your take on this? You've been pretty critical of the SaaS space in previous episodes. I think the high end of the market where Mark operates where the large monoliths operate is quite safe. What people are finding is, hey, hold on a second. This is a lot harder than we thought. It's not like boop, boop, boop, put in a prompt and beep, bat, boop, it all works. It's not how it works. I think we're a little oversold. Now I think this consolidation and the re-rating can happen in the opposite direction. So what is the opposite trade? The opposite trade is, who has constructive net dollar retention who has negative churn that's been really predictable which is a way of saying who has the best relationships those guys i think are positioned to crush all right there you have it shammap your thoughts on Nvidia and Salesforce blowing the doors off of their platform. quarterly earnings reports. There's a lot there. So maybe we'll start with Salesforce first, and then I'll go to NVIDIA. Because I think the NVIDIA one is actually a good segue into talking about the national state of finance. I don't know, it was pretty obvious to me in May that... Salesforce specifically, was meaningfully oversold. I think What I was trying to say there, and maybe I can say more precisely now, is we're getting to the end of of this second phase of AI. So if the first phase of AI... were models. and think of like a model as a brain the second phase of ai is harnesses right and agents which is the analogous equivalent of giving a brain a pair of eyes and hands and a notebook for memory and a keyboard to type things on. So you're sort of taking this primordial object that was really good at Q&A and you're making it more useful, almost like an autonomous being. But we're starting this next phase soon. At least I see it. in the enterprises that I work with, which is that That's still insufficient. And what you now need to do is make that autonomous agent much more informed and give it context and allow it to do a job much more intelligently. So meaning you take a brain. You give it arms and legs and limbs and eyes and et cetera. But then you have to train it to be a lawyer or be a customer service rep. or be a sales agent or what have you. To do that next step, you need a ton of contextual information. So the people that control that today. The large systems of record What I said before and what I'll double down on now is that those guys hold an incredibly special place in the ecosystem if they do it right. And I think what you're seeing is... Mark is finding a way to play well with the models, support harnesses but also build his own and now start to push into this next phase. And I think that's why... His net dollar retention is strong. That's why his revenue is strong. That's why he's guiding up. And that's why the stock's ripped. I think it was like a 43% since I said it. had bottomed. I mean, it took a few weeks. Yeah, it was up 20% today just on that. And Freberg, I think you were in... Were you on CNBC or were you just on the quarterly call? I went to Benioff's office for the earnings. set up yesterday. So Dario was there. Dario and Mark did their CNBC bit. They set up a studio for the earnings call. on the 60th floor, you know, where we've all had dinner up there. And then I did the earnings call with Mark because, you know, About a year ago, I think I mentioned this to you, Timo, [15:00] We kind of over a weekend built a CRM tool internally using Cloud Code and Cursor and stuff and kind of spun it together and stood it up. And we were using it and it's like, well, you got to add this feature and you got to change this and then account and security and access and where's the data repository that makes it protected. And there was a lot of kind of back and forth on all the features we ultimately needed to build to make it truly useful and scalable. Meanwhile, we've got competing interests at our company. on where we can build software that's unique to our company, like plant breeding software, which is what we do as kind of our unique advantage as a company is plant breeding. So how do we build a better breeding technology platform? How do we build software that gives the people in the lab and in the greenhouse and the breeders tools? And so we started building all these internal tools and eventually, realize our time, our efforts, our energy is better spent building the workflows that are unique and create value for our organization uniquely, versus recreating a bunch of software that other people have already made. Where's your best ROI, your best return on time spend and your best return on... dollars spent. And it's not on rebuilding a communications tool like Slack. or a messaging tool like Gmail or a CRM tool like Salesforce. And at the time, Mark and I were talking on the phone. He's like, you know, hey, try Salesforce. I'll set you up. Come on, do it. And I was like, no, no, no. And then he's like, yes, yes, yes. And he's so persistent. You guys know Mark. He's like, so persistent. He put his best sales guy on a text with me and kept texting every day. Are we up yet? Are we up yet? Are we up yet? Until the sales guy, I said, okay, go to my office. He goes to my office. He gets set up and then we're done. And then we realized, oh my God, this is actually a much better way for us to do this. So I do think, and I've shared this in the past, I think the horizontal platform companies, these tools that are horizontal, CRM works across many different verticals, industry verticals, and Gmail works across many industry verticals and Slack and so on. Excel, no one's going to go rebuild Excel. The real value is in the software that's unique for your vertical. That's where AI plays a role in building custom workflows and custom software. And so I think that's kind of how I view this, the real SaaSpocalypse. It's more of a vertical SaaSpocalypse, which is software that's designed for just one vertical. 100%. And that's where I think things get blown up. I totally agree with the platform I sell for. I totally agree with you. I totally agree with you. Sax, let's talk about Mark Benioff. He is... just an incredible salesperson who just fought through this saspocalypse and then figured out a way out of being put in the bucket of SaaS roadkill, and then just massively integrating AI into the platform. Maybe you've known him for a long time. Maybe you could talk about him as an executive and what we can learn from what he just did. in terms of going from in the market's mind roadkill, to leading the pack, let's say, in SAS again? Well, this narrative of the SASpocalypse was totally overdone. I mean, this whole SAS is dead. narrative is just getting shredded today with Salesforce being up over 20%. You could go back and look at some of the clips I've been saying now for months, I do not believe that core systems of record like CRM are going to get ripped and replaced with something vibe coded. I've been saying that for a long time. enterprises want certainty, they have compliance, they want professionally managed software that's been running and debugged for years. I mean, just think about all the bug reports that have been filed against Salesforce for over 20 years, right? And that's the hard part to get right. I mean, when I play with all these agents and AI, you're dealing with something that's probabilistic and there's so many edge cases. When you're dealing with a core system of record, you just want to know that it works. And the expense of it is low enough that you just don't want to basically jeopardize one of your core systems by ripping it out and replacing it with something built in-house in a kind of DIY way. So I just think this whole SaaS apocalypse narrative was overplayed. Now, At the same time, to your point, Jason, I think Benioff is doing all the right things here. And you could kind of say it's... if you can't beat him, join him type approach, which is he made this deal with Anthropik, What is that deal? I mean, first of all, he's going to be offering Anthropics models inside of Salesforce. More importantly, I think, this is really the critical thing. He is integrating Salesforce into Claude. He's willing to allow Claude to be the front end, to have the sort of the primary user relationship And Claude is now going to be able to access all the data in Salesforce, and all of the workflows all the actions that a user can take so in other words benioff here is willing to risk disintermediation in order to ride this ai wave because he knows it's what the customer ultimately wants you know you don't want to go into salesforce or any sas application to write your agents you want to [20:00] Create agents. in the AI program that you're using, And you want those agents to be able to run across all of your SaaS. platforms. So, He's willing to, again, to give up a big piece of the user relationship in order to make himself more relevant. Now, why... is this ultimately good for his business and not bad is because, like I said, I still think that you need systems of record. You need the AI agents to basically go to those systems, get information, the data from a canonical source of truth, You just don't want there to be any probabilistic variability around that. And you want AI agents to be able to write back to those systems. And you want to be able to write back to those workflows. So, What's happening here is that it's not a rip and replace. Their layers are getting built. Right, you've got the database layer. Then you've got applications and workflows, and then you've got agents, and then you've kind of got the AI. user interface and Benioff is saying that the AI... is now the user interface. He's basically acknowledging that he's leaning into it. Now, here's the thing. I talked to him this morning, actually, and a point he... Brought with me. that I think is underestimated. is that he says there's a lot of trap value in Salesforce, meaning we know it's got this incredibly broad, rich platform with tons of functionality. The average user is never going to find all those things. But the agent will. So think about all the cases where now the agent is going to go to the user and say, hey, I just saw. that there are these actions you could take in Salesforce that seem to line up with what you're telling me to do. Do you want me to do this? And the user is going to say, yes. which then codifies salesforce as the system of record yes yes exactly because now think about the agent as a power user of salesforce that knows how to use salesforce perfectly you don't necessarily need to hire this like team of highly priced consultants to figure out salesforce the agent knows how to do it so can unlock the full value of salesforce and all these actions and then after you and your agent You, the user, are just going to click the Always Allow button. And now the agent can basically tap the full capabilities of Salesforce. So, I mean, that's where this is headed. But now it raises the question, okay, so how do SaaS applications... play into this ai and agent wave you have to have great apis and you have to have a great cli the command line interface which is how the agents are going to relate to the sas tools i think in the past the way that most sas products thought they spent a lot of time on their user interface and now they really got to think about the agent interface not just user interface you have to build the best agent interface and you've got to I think relax the idea that you're going to fully control the customer relationship. You have to think of agents. created by the AI companies, as being an extension of your platform and not feel threatened that you're losing the customer relationship if you can do all those things and become a source of truth in a system of record, then you've got a big opportunity. I got to say, he's like one of the most underestimated and underappreciated product and sales executives in our industry because I was talking to him when we were at Davos Saks about Slack. And he was like, Tell me about what you're doing. And I was like, Listen, You have all my data. I can't get my data. My team wants to move off slack. They want to use this open source product specifically so I can get all this information. He again, to your point, Freberg put me on with the sales team. And now I have complete God access to our slack. And they built a product called slack today, which they've been slowly rolling out. And it does the promise of open claw. And what Sam did by buying out the founder of open claw, right after he bought Open Claw's founder, Peter, and he started working at OpenAI. just open claw just faded, like no more innovation. And I'm not trying to say this to say Sam did something nefarious, or that open clause, you know, terrible or anything, but they just lost their edge. And now the version of slack today is like a seven out of 10. And it's getting like 10% better every couple of weeks, I'm noticing. So he's going to do a parallel link sacks. He's going to have his own agents, and he's going to let you come in with your agents. His agents might be a little bit behind, but you're also going to get those agents for free inside of Salesforce. It's like two ways to win. I mean, look, I think that SaaS products can offer their own agents, and they can offer their own AI and co-pilots and all that. with those products. and basically get the data from them, use them as the system of record, as the source of truth, and then write actions back to them when appropriate. And I just think that founders should lean into that trend instead of fighting it. Because if you fight to stay in control and say that, Only our agents are the way to interact with our system, then people will just move to, they'll leave. So are you long? [25:00] Vertical SaaS or are you short it like Freeberg and I are? I think it's specific to the company and what its modes are and how good a system of record is. Case by case. I don't think Vertical SaaS has a system of record. I don't think that's what they do. I think they're workflows. This is the key point where these horizontal monolithic companies like Salesforce are just unique. Workday. Oracle with respect to their GL. It's just very difficult, SAP, IFS, it's very difficult to see a path where you can replicate these businesses. And they become the repository and the single source of truth, as you said. But vertical SaaS is workflows, and it's a process. And I just wonder what survives. Well, look, I think it's a good question, and I think it's case by case. But look, just a few months ago, everyone was saying that horizontal SAS wasn't going to survive. And one of Leopold's major positions in that fund was to short, all these SaaS products, including Salesforce. And what we've seen is that has turned out to be wrong or totally overblown. To be fair, I don't know that he understood the difference between vertical and horizontal sass because that was a funding short problem meaning he had to go to the big stocks in order to be able to short enough to be able to get the leverage that he wanted so i think He may have just worked backwards from his own mental narrative to make it all sound correct. But I suspect it was a leverage trap where he's like, I need to be really massively net long these other names. And his prime broker is like, well, You've got to find shorts, liquid shorts. And he's like, okay, Adobe and Salesforce. Well, but look, I mean, to be fair, I think that was the dominant narrative as of just a few months ago with Sasspocalypse and Benioff stock was getting hammered by the market. down 50% now it's up back 20. So I think a lot of people were just indiscriminately selling all SAS. And I think That if I had to say there's like one takeaway from the news today is that I think simple extrapolations, of the future based on these trends don't work out right the simple extrapolation here was ai agents can code therefore all software is going to zero that was the simplistic extrapolation now what we're seeing is no actually there are certain systems of record that are extremely compatible and complementary to AI agents. And if they are positioned right by their founders, they can lean into this trend. And by the way, I think the job loss narrative is another one of those simplistic extrapolations. What is the job loss narrative is now AI can do knowledge work, therefore knowledge workers are all going to lose their jobs. It completely ignores the fact that there's ways for knowledge workers to take advantage of the tools and lean into it. So the same way that Benioff is taking advantage of the agent trend, knowledge workers are taking advantage the technology, you survive. If you don't, you die. I mean, it's pretty straightforward. I just Two things that happened very quietly, and Jensen is clearly open source maxing now. He bought Hugging Face for $12 billion. And he did like one of these aqua hire deals with poolside. for six billion total about 20 billion in, um, 20 billion in acquisitions, which is far less than 1% of the market cap of Nvidia. And thank God you can do M&A again in this country. But he's now... owning the distribution layer for open source. If you don't know Poolside, they make the coding model Laguna. So now NVIDIA has the place where developers and hackers go to figure out which open source. Sorry, I don't think that's what went over. My understanding is that the, because Jason Warner tweeted this morning about a new model drop. I was confused by this because I, There could be two things that they're buying. The 100 engineers that are going over to NVIDIA, they could be working on what Poolside has, which is effectively a version of Cursor, and cloud code that runs on-prem, that runs in a highly open-weight. No, then they also have a model. What I'm saying is they have a model, and then they also have this agent harness that you can direct a coding. So it wasn't clear to me in the announcement. I didn't read it carefully. Yeah. What it is that they bought. I think we're kind of burying the lead here, by the way. It's like, look, they're reportedly doing these deals with Poolside and Hugging Face, and those are big open source acquisitions. Yes. If the reporting is true. But look, here is the lead today, I think. First of all, NVIDIA had a blowout quarter, doing over 100% year over year. A billion a day in revenue now. Yeah, almost 100 billion in revenue just for the quarter, $60 billion. of profit, 75% gross margins. I mean, excluding one-off items, this was the most profit ever generated by a company in history. Jake, let me just underscore what you said in the intro, which is Really, I think the reason why the stock is up 8% today is not just the great quarter, but the fact that they guided – [30:00] to 70% growth next year, whereas the street was only expecting around 45%. So that's pretty amazing. And that 70% number would have been higher, but they said they were supply constrained. Yes. So, you know, what is the takeaway, I think, for the larger market here? It is that the AI boom is continuing. The other narrative that's getting shredded today is that this AI CapEx is a bubble. It's basically... going to end very soon. And what Nvidia is basically saying with its numbers and forecasts is actually This AI CapEx is going to continue well into the future. it's got real legs. And, The amazing thing is that After these numbers, even despite the 8% bump, NVIDIA is only trading at 12 times earnings. Yes. And that reason is people think that competition, obviously, Cerebris. And the point I was going to make earlier, I think Jensen is going all in on open source based on these two acquisitions, hugging face and pull side. And I think Sam Altman poked the tiger. If you look at what he did he had done that huge hundred billion dollar deal with nvidia back in 2025 And then he announced the AMD deal. And Jensen was clearly not pleased about that. And he talked about right after Sam kind of did this announcement that he's going to make his own inference, jalapeno, jalapeno, and that he was going to do the deal with AMD. Then Jensen came out was like, Well, by the way, we don't actually have to do these investments in open AI. And I think he's speed running open source, and you're going to be able to buy from Nvidia next year, just your entire stack. He's going for it. He is going to own open source and That is a really interesting moment in time for us to look at because we were sitting here six months ago, 12 months ago, open source would never catch up. He's doing an open source self-driving project, and now he owns Hugging Face, the leading open source indexer where everybody goes to try the new models. I think this is a This is actually the huge story. I think the generalized takeaway should be that You're going to see all of these businesses converge and they're all going to be competing with each other in every which way possible. So this idea that you have this very delineated separation of customer and supplier, I think is melting away. NVIDIA still relies meaningfully on the hyperscalers for their revenue. I think it was $24 billion in the quarter. But they now have built up a NeoCloud business that was equivalent, which is incredible, right? Yes. And I think what you're going to see is as more people try to compete with them, so now your customers, the hyperscalers, are saying, we're going to spin our own silicon. It's completely appropriate for NVIDIA to say, well, we're going to spin our own models. They do that. and then you're going to see them go up the stack and host the model. Then you're going to see them supply APIs and supply inference, and they're going to be a cloud provider. And so to your point, Jason, I think the right way to think about it is in business 1.0, it's like you used to be like a CapEx business, right? And people would say, okay, what's your return on investment? Or you'd be a software business and you're like, okay, what's your OpEx, right? And what's your return on investment? It's all melting together. Every company is going to do everything. You're going to look at these big companies in five years. They're all going to have their own cloud. They're all going to have their own models. They're all going to have their own silicon. They're all going to have their own data centers. Soup to nuts, they're going to go top to bottom. And then it's going to be about which is better. And that, I think, is actually better for the broader ecosystem. It's better for all of us. it. In response, Besson doubled the Treasury Department's elongated bond buybacks from $2 billion to $4 billion on August 30th. 19. CNBC reported best and is considering ramping up bond buying and Fox business that he wants to put the fear of God into traders that are shorting long dated bonds so a lot of intervention ism going on here at Stan Druckenmiller Besant's former mentor published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal opposing his plan. His main point was Besant is wrong for trying to manipulate prices rather than fixing the core reason yields are rising. america has a spending problem we've talked about it over and over here 40 trillion dollars no more doge no more cutting costs and obviously we got a war that's quite expensive Every five months, Freeburg, I think you said last episode, we had a trillion. So we're adding 2.5 trillion a year. We'll add 10 trillion during this. Second Trump election. Charm. Your thoughts on... What's going on here, Freiburg, in terms of the bond market and besant? and Druckenmiller going back and forth. Shamatha, you and I can also talk about using AI to write pieces, write your pieces. Yeah. I'll start with the relationship as you highlight [35:00] that Besant And Druckenmiller worked closely together and are close and respect each other. And Kevin Warsh in a similar position, he was working with Druckenmiller the last number of years in his office every day. They're extremely close. This is a triumvirate. that I don't think in history you've had three people who are so close in these positions. One, leading in kind of market activity with drug. one running treasury and the other one running the Fed. It's pretty unprecedented. to have this sort of closeness. in those positions. And, you know, I think that... What's that? Yeah, right. Caesar. You call it a triumvirate. The triumvirate. Who's Caesar, who's Pompey, and who's Crassus? I'm going to leave that to them to debate. But if you pull up the yield curve from COVID era, I think it's worth just taking a look at the Treasury yield curve. So this shows Depending on the duration, is it a one month or a 30 year treasury bond? So across that whole time duration, what's the yield? You know, how much does the federal government have to pay an interest to get people to loan them money for that duration? And so this is right around COVID era, kind of 2020. you can see that because interest rates were low and the inflationary effects of stimulus that came about during COVID had not yet hit the market. We were looking at sub half a percent, sub a quarter percent, all the way after the three year and five year. And then a slight climb up where you could actually get 30-year treasuries at 1.7%. Again, going back in history, it's always easy to rewrite history. The federal government should have rolled all of its debt. into 30 years at this point, but the debt is balanced across this Treasury curve. So let's look at where the Treasury yield curve is today. So this is what is the market charging the federal government to loan it money to pay its bills, and on the low end of the Treasury curve, You're looking at just under 4%. So for the federal government to borrow money for one month, they have to pay 3.8% VIG to the lenders for that money. And if you go out the 30-year, It's now at 5.2%. So it is very expensive now to... borrow money if you're the US federal government. And the reason is persistent inflation, I would argue because of excess government spending on social programs and other things. And the big problem at this point is the federal government is spending so much that if the federal government were to cut spending aggressively, the argument and the concern is it would hit unemployment and it would cause a recession because the federal government is such an intricate part of the But it's causing inflation. and it is causing deficit spending. So this year, The deficit will be roughly, call it $2 trillion. dollars and as a result the market is saying we are worried about the US fiscal solvency over the long run or there's a higher risk as a result we're going to charge you a higher interest 5.2% on the 30 year. Now, what does this mean for the federal government will today the federal government's average cost of debt is 3.4%. That's what we're paying on interest on average on the 40 trillion dollars of debt that the federal government has outstanding for every 1% change. in the interest rate the u.s government has to pay 1.25 percent of gdp in excess interest each year. 1.25% of GDP. in interest each year for that 1% change in the interest rate. And we're now looking at a 30-year at 5.2 and a short-term rate over 4. So the federal government has a problem because over the next 12 months, they have to refinance $10 trillion of debt. That debt is coming due. Those bonds are now due. They have to pay the principal back to the bondholders, and they got to go back to the treasury market and sell more treasuries to borrow more money to refinance. So the borrowing cost now is going to climb up. And when that borrowing cost climbs up, the federal government's burn goes up. And the fiscal deficit goes up. So my theory and my argument on this is there is no action that Besson can take. that's actually going to have a meaningful effect on the long end of the curve. We have fundamental fiscal spending problem with the federal government right now. And I think that The note that Druck wrote, whether AI wrote it or he wrote it, it doesn't matter. The point of the note is correct. And the note is meant to provide cover to Besant. He is saying it is not Besant's fault or Besant's responsibility. to solve the yield curve problem. It is Congress's responsibility. It is the President's responsibility. It is the responsibility of the holders of the budget and the accounts that should stand up and say we are going to cut spending because if we don't cut spending, There is going to be a spiral, which we are now going to face over the next 12 months as we have to refinance $10 trillion of debt. So Besant's doing his job as Treasury Secretary. He's saying, I'm going to market. I'm going to buy treasuries. I'm going to try and lower it. But he only has maximum, maximum, maximum a trillion dollars he could use to buy debt. He's still got to go sell $10 trillion of treasuries in the next 12 months. [40:00] $10 trillion, he's got to sell. So even if he maxed out his buying authority in the near term, that's only a trillion of buying. And then he's got to turn around and sell 10. Is it the market market is and so drugs, drugs note is coverage. for Besant and it's pointing responsibility back to Congress, back to the president to say, guys, We have to solve this deficit problem. So is this like kayfabe performative between the two of them? And they're kind of like supporting each other. I don't think they're allowed to talk. I don't think they do talk. I don't think that drugs allowed to talk to Kevin or I don't think any of them are allowed to talk to each other. So I don't think that's happening. But I think that Druck is sending his signal. to the market and saying, "Guys, this is not Besant's responsibility. The burden's not on his shoulder. He can't be Atlas. He can't lift this earth. He can't solve this problem. You guys have to act." I think it's coverage for Besant. Got it. Okay, that's what I'm sort of getting at. Chamath, what's your take here on what's going to happen going forward. You know, we're past 5%. Does this break? What does it do to interest rate cuts? And how bad could this get if we can't get it under control? The tactical answer to the question that you asked before is why is he in the market buying bonds? It's called yield curve suppression, meaning when you buy bonds, you bid up the prices and the implied yields go down, which allows... Scott to then finance at a lower... borrowing costs because then if yields are 5.1 versus 5.3 and then now you're issuing bonds, they're marked against that 5.1 print versus 5.3. So the yield suppression is trying to help. what Freebrook talked about, which is just this refinancing. tsunami that is coming. Okay, but look, just take a step back for a second. I think the very big issue is that Congress is ultimately responsible for spending. Congress is completely unable to do anything to get these budget deficits under control. It is. Consistent, it's not a Democrat nor a Republican problem. It is a congressional problem, meaning both sides consistently spend way more. then they should. So you have the debt growing at 7% and you have GDP between 2% and 4%. So that's a recipe for disaster. What Druck said in that note is you have to cut entitlements. He's probably right. The question is when and who will force the United States to confront this issue, who will force the United States Congress to confront the issue. And what he is saying is the bond market is going to start to do this. because that single price is the true reflection of the good faith and trust in the United States. And as that yield goes up, the very simple rubric is trust is going down. Yield goes up, trust goes down. The other thing that I would say is this is happening at an incredibly awkward moment, which is that we are supposed to be in the middle of an enormous financial build out to support AI. And if you go all the way back like 100 years you know the industrial revolution the grand bargain all of this stuff The United States government was the balance sheet, right? They are the ones that were able to step in. And unfortunately, because if it's financial situation, the US government is not able to do that. That's why, thank God, we have companies like NVIDIA and Google and Microsoft and Meta. and Amazon who take on that burden. I just wanted to tie it to this other thing because there's so much chirping, by the way, on the internet about the balance sheet of Nvidia and blah, blah, blah, and I think people completely miss that these guys are putting the entire US economy on their back. A hundred years ago, it would have been the US government that did this, but the US government is not in a position to do it because Congress cannot get their act together on spending. the president actually has done Something pretty incredible, which is on the tail end of those trade deals, if you guys remember, he was able to find $2 trillion to pump into the U.S. economy to support this buildup. But the practical reality is that two trillion, comes from other nation states and their processes are long and meandering. So you have the situation where all this money has to be invested, it should be backstopped by the US government, it's not in a financial situation to do so. The president has done some magic to try to relieve it in the short term. But it's only a short-term band-aid. The real solution, as Freebrook says, is Congress needs to come together and realize that they must now fix this problem. Because if you see yields, If you see the 30, you're at 6%. It is the beginning of a death spiral. It's not going to be immediate. Okay, so don't freak out. but it is the beginning of some extreme pain and that pain will last years and the only thing that solves it now is getting the budget [45:00] Under control, which is a congressional act, it must happen. Whether it's this year or the next year, it just has to happen. Sex. The president was quite vocal about cutting costs early on in the presidency, but we haven't heard much from the commander in chief about this is the issue that no politician can touch cutting spending. It's just too toxic because Trump's in his final term. He's lame duck by definition, right? It's the second and only term, hopefully, unless he decides to take a third. But... He hasn't been vocal about this. And is it just too radioactive for anybody in politics? And you got to spend a little time, you dipped your toe there in D.C., Is it just too toxic for anybody to take on spending cuts? He sent you on in there. that was, you know, pretty spicy. And it's obviously, um, not occurring now. We're not cutting things massively. In fact, the debt's going faster than it had started a year ago. So what's your thought here, Sacks? Maybe you can... Move it out from just Trump. Yeah, look, part of it is it is a tragedy of the commons, meaning you've got 435 members of the House, 100 senators, and they all get a vote. And then you've got the president and no one of them controls the spending. In fact, the spending, the power of the purse originates in the house and then goes from there. So it is very, very hard to control spending when you have so many people weighing in. If it was just... you know, a couple of people getting together in a room and sorting this out, they probably could do it. But when so many people have an incentive to, to basically protect their programs, it gets very, very hard. So that's the tragedy of the commons part of it. And the reality is the president... doesn't have a line item veto. It'd be great if he did. He doesn't have... the powers constitutionally to completely rein this in and despite what the resistance liberals say he's not a king. I mean, he doesn't have those kinds of powers. That's basically the heart of the problem. And you're right. He did back Doge to the hilt. He's the only president to ever back something like that. And what happened? Elon got to the point of cutting one agency or one sub agency. And the hysteria was so great that they accused him of killing millions of children. It was total nonsense. But Tesla dealerships were getting firebombed. And that's the other piece of this is, how do you make reform, how do you reform spending, how do you rein it in, when the media, isn't on your side and is not willing to report this stuff accurately. That's the worst part of it. I mean, the media, they don't have an incentive politically to engage in log rolling, but they do absolutely nothing to report the story accurately. I mean, just think about how the media is reacting to all of that. So it's really a difficult problem when you start off with the fact that no one person controls it. You know, it really is this tragedy of the commons. And then you don't have the media. basically doing a good job reporting this accurately. So, you know, I don't know how we get reform on this. And let me just say that if the Republicans lose control, of Congress, I don't think that's going to make it better because you see now that the political energy in the Democrat Party is all towards these massive new spending programs that the DSA wants. So, you know, if you vote for, quote unquote, change by voting the Democrats in, That's not going to help either. Because again, they just want more and more spending. So I don't know what the solution to this is. Freebrook, give us a timeline here. Obviously, the Republicans love to cut taxes and the Democrats love to increase spending. And here we are. This has not gotten better through three or four presidents. The last person who did this was, I guess, Clinton balanced the budget. But this has been getting worse and worse. At some point, we're all in agreement. to have some austerity measures. When does that hit in your mind? Is there a breaking point in terms of interest to GDP? What Maybe the people on the other side just saying, hey, I want 12%. You guys have bad debt. I want 12% on it. And we just say, we can't pay 12%. And we just have to go into full on austerity measures. Is there a breaking point? If so, when? Well, the question is, what does it break to? We... as a democracy... have this recursive solution which is as the people feel some sort of pain, they react with a vote. This goes... back to this point about do we break for socialism because what ends up happening post the midterms so I think sometime between 26 and the election cycle in 28. The inflation problem and remember the inflation problem is fundamentally rooted in government spending so deficit spending is correlated very nicely with the cost of housing. with the cost of healthcare, with the cost of education, and with the cost of everything else. So the more the government is spending on... various things, the more expensive things get, [50:00] And so inflation is persistent because what we thought were temporary emergency stimulus measures during COVID... very quickly got normalized and became persistent spending cycles. You know, if we went back to 2019, we would actually have a budget surplus right now as a country. Our economy has grown so much, since 2019, that if we had the same spending levels as we had in 2019, our federal government would be making a profit, paying down the debt. And the reality is we've, take in this emergency spending and made it a... permanent spending. We did the same thing, by the way, after the global financial crisis in 2008, there were some crazy stimulus things that happened. And we persisted that spending. And so... The question J. Cal is really like, what happens next? So if the inflation remains high, people's affordability continues to go low, they're going to vote for something that's going to give them a solution. And I don't see a political message winning. that says the federal government will now spend less. We're going to cut a bunch of stuff. So I worry that the one-way solution here is... something that is very damaging to individual liberties, to a lot of the rights, a lot of the things that make a free market work. And that is some of these more kind of socialist principles and socialist candidates. I think that's kind of the breaking point. So I think it's more of like a, you know, spectrum, and then the reaction during that kind of transition phase 26 to 28 can be negative. Then the next big thing is going to happen around 2030 to 2032. And that's really where Social Security doesn't have any money to pay anymore. I think during that era is also when a lot of the states are going to become bankrupt. We're not going to be able to pay their obligations. And when the states can't pay their obligations around 2030 to 2032, you're going to have both the social security bailout and restructuring as well as the state bailouts and restructuring. And that might be the time that all of this stuff breaks. Wow. So you're saying we'll see munis. Yeah. And people will default on their debt in the states. That would be cataclysmic to have to bail out something like California. Because the obligations on the unfunded pensions in the states are so significant and not to mention just the debts. I mean, look, California's got tens of billions of dollars. It's spent on this stupid railway that goes nowhere where there's no tracks. And there's no political will to even stop that. It would be the easiest cut in the world. Just think about the idiocy. No one is saying we shouldn't do this. Why is no one saying we shouldn't do this? That's what I'm saying about the media. They don't. Dollars of space. Why should the media all over this? Anybody who is in favor of a railway to nowhere should just be shamed out of existence. A quarter trillion dollars for a train from San Francisco to Fresno that costs more than an airline ticket is so idiotic. it's like the movie don't look up like look up this thing is absolutely ridiculous turn this thing off why is no one even just saying turn it off It tells you everything you need to know. Private company built a bright line in Florida and they seem to figure out how to do it at a fraction of the price. So like, what are we even talking about here? Like private industry, if this was a good idea, would have built it. Yes, Friedberg, private industry would see an opportunity and they would have built it. There is no opportunity across the board. These government programs, cause more harm than good. When the government intervenes in underwriting student loans and gives everyone a loan, Administrative costs went up by 6x and tuition skyrocketed 8% a year, compounding for 30 years because the government said we'll underwrite any student loan. The same with housing, and now no young people can afford a house. The same with health care, where they said we'll pay people to stay home and not work to take care of people, and we won't check on whether or not they're actually taking care of people. And the cost of health care skyrocketed. You go across every one of these government programs, and every one of them has the adverse effect of driving up costs and inflating everything. We need a hundred. And the clear route of inflation in this country. The core root of it, is government spending and the reason we are going to end up becoming a socialist country is because we aren't reigning in the government spending and looking it in the mirror and saying guys this is idiotic what are we doing we need and now the markets to chama's point are telling us this is idiotic we are not going to underwrite this anymore and we need to have to your point about media sacks 100 nick shirley 60 minutes whoever it is to just say hey this spending this to go recapture that money. This is like, we're burning money that we don't have. The fraud is layer one. There's like 18 layers to this. Layer one is fraud. Yes, of course. Given the... Tragedy of the Commons, the structural nature of it, that there's no one person who's in control of it. You need massive public pressure to control it, and there's none of that. And there's no effort to create that public pressure by the mainstream media. So it's like, how do you even get out of this? I don't think it happens that way. It has to be an acute moment. Yeah, you're saying there has to be a crisis and then people react. [55:00] But then to Freeberg's point, we may get socialism because people may not connect what the real causes of the crisis are no that's my question for you is socialism is much more likely when you know a hundred years ago when these things are less interconnected america can't decide to do that you understand why because all of our debt is interconnected to domestic actors international actors it's not a decision there is no button you can push to do that and the reason is you would go bankrupt overnight so i think the reality is that we will hit some kind of a fiscal wall something will get terribly broken and like in COVID, or like in GFC, or like in 9-11, Those are the only moments where you can have structural changes in expectations. The structural changes that have had the most impact on our lives. happened in these acute moments. In 9-11, in GFC, and in COVID. Yeah, and every one of them, it ended up becoming a never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste moment where it always argued in favor of some big... power by the government. What was your question for me? Okay. So you think about like affordability of houses, right? That depends on mortgage rates, 30 year mortgage right now. I'm looking at the average of 6.5. 73 percent a little under seven percent it's about 150 basis points above the 30-year treasury, right? So do you think the average person can connect the dots here that, Higher spending means higher treasury rates, which means higher mortgage rates. And that leads you to not be able to afford the same level of house that you would because... your monthly payments much higher. I mean, do people connect those dots about what's happening? No, no. The people want to blame someone. Every time there's a crisis, this group, even us, when we get together on a podcast, something bad happens we always have this question who is to blame it's the first thing a human does i mean that's the human brain that's how it works it's like there's some problem who do we blame that's the first thing you think about You don't think objectively what's the solution to the problem. You think, "Who do I blame?" That's the first thing you want to do. And then, The question is, when mortgage rates go up, who do you blame? the current president my congressman blah blah blah re-elect someone that's the response and the person that shows up and says, I'm going to give you free housing, I'm going to give you a free bus, I'm going to give you free mortgages, I'm going to take away the land from the landlord and give it to you, you vote for that person. So I do worry that the kind of mechanistic response to what you're describing, Sachs, which is a very problematic situation for people is the lack of affordability of being able to get a home. is give the keys of the kingdom over to someone that's going to put more fuel on the fire. And the fire is government spending. And the fuel is more government spending to try and, quote, solve a problem that's caused by the fire. And I think that's really where I worry about this. So... I think I know how we can blame Dario. Okay. Start with a rant. What did he do? Here's the thing. Our only hope. is AI, right? Because only AI can create the exponential growth necessary to make our economy grow big enough that we can grow out of the problem. And if we hold back AI by creating some new regulatory apparatus that takes years to approve new model releases, then we're cooked. I blame Dario and Canada and Putin. Those are the three people who are working. Anyway, I'm just kidding. I'm joking. We're joking, Dario. The debt is not Dario's fault. Come to all the time, Dario. No, seriously, come to Olin Summit. Listen, I want to just point out something. We are kind of counting on AI as the deus ex machina. to grow our way out of this thing. And we really need, I mean, We need more quarters like NVIDIA and Salesforce just posted. We need that to happen for like 10 years to grow our way out of this thing. One of the things that is a great silver lining is that we're seeing people migrate around the country or to other countries. as a way to vote against out of control spending. I lived in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. And I did not appreciate how evil the socialist and limousine liberals were until I got to Texas after a couple years in Texas, I have seen what having affordable homes does to a family an individual, you have people in those cities who are so miserable because they can't afford a home, they're paying exorbitant rents. And these people who already own their, you know, Victorian homes, etc. in San Francisco, Refuse to build. And then in the great state of Texas, if you look at this chart, housing prices since the 2022 peak in Austin are down, down, not up, Saks down 27%. [60:00] 25% since March of 2020, 25%. It can be done. You need to have leadership that says housing is a priority. Therefore, we're going to let you build more houses. It's being done in Texas, in Florida. Those, conservative, let the free market work environments, let them build the Brightline. They have high-speed trains going 125 motherfucking hours, miles per hour, because they let, and they got out of the way, and let private industry figure out how to build high-speed trains. This is a distinct issue in certain groups where they want to stop, progress they are de-selling the creation of homes and when you get homes people feel great about their lives people in texas are happy that they have a home for 250 000 they're everywhere these things can be solved it just takes leadership and that's what we don't have is leaders saying enough already we're just going to let people build more houses all right let's keep moving through the docket i love a good jcal polemical I'm just pissed off about it because you know, it's a total non sequitur. So it is a non sequitur in some ways, but you know, we're dancing around here. Who's going to be the leader who will say you practice that before? No, I didn't practice it. I'm just just came to you at the top of your head. It's just a set. Yeah, well, actually, I hired Sax's writer to do some punch ups for me about putting on the side. It is. Obviously a leadership issue. It's too expensive. Sure. I'll get him to watch it. Let's do a little side quest here. What did you think of Druckenmiller? writing his piece with AI and getting busted and then the Wall Street Journal saying, hey, it's totally fine. I thought that it was the left that virtue signaled. But I actually think it's a class of people that virtue signal. Okay, here we go. And they judge and they're judgmental, and they can't see the forest from the trees. And this is probably they're like the loudest chirpers in the peanut gallery. Hmm. Stan Druckenmiller is the most incredible investor of our generation. Maybe, sorry, maybe like top three or four? He's up there, yeah. And so just shut the up and read what he says. And you have an opinion and you're like, oh, my God, he has an M dash. Oh, my God. He used the AI flourish. It's like you're missing the script. He's telling you what's about to happen. Sacks, you agree. You think that the opinion pieces in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times should be written by AI, not the person who puts their name on it? It's still written by him. He didn't say it was written by him. He admitted it's 100 percent. He prompts it. He shapes it. He guides it. Yeah, a more precise way of putting it is the take is his. And then he uses the AI to help him write it. Look, I don't get all the pearl clutching about this. I mean, you've got to be pretty dumb these days not to use AI to help you write. And he's definitely not dumb. This is his opinion. It's his take. It's consistent with everything he's been saying. in the past for decades and in fact the piece cites many times yeah he's right Yeah, the piece mentions the many times in the past he's waited on this. I think that this clearly came from his mind and he uses the AI to help him write it. The morons on X should be like, wait a minute, how does this affect my company? How does it affect my portfolio? How will it affect my 401k? What will it do to my parents' retirements? How should I think about hedging this? Instead of that conversation, All of you people were like, oh my god, he was AI. I think, J.K.L., do you have a problem with this? Are you one of the people who has a problem? I do think it's kind of the lip syncing of writing. As a writer, I find it offensive to let the system give your entire opinion, as opposed to using it for research, which is totally fine. Use it for proofreading, totally fine. But to me, it feels like I went to see Adele, and she's lip syncing. I really want to hear him construct. Don't use Excel. Only go to the guys that do handcraft. No, no, no, no. Here's the thing. I would rather see him write... He said Adele, not Excel. I'm saying Excel. Don't use an Excel spreadsheet. I don't trust those guys. I only trust the guys who do the calculations by hand. But if you were going to give your opinion, and it's not written by you, to me, That is disappointing that it's not disclosed. I think it's a much higher standard to say, I'm going to write this in my own voice. Sure, I could have somebody who's a ghostwriter help me polish it. I could check my grammar with it. I could do research with it. Those are all the valid uses. But I don't like this idea that you're going to write something in AI and then I read it and I don't know. That to me feels icky and it feels insincere. I would prefer people to say upfront, I didn't write this, but I'm kind of in agreement with Sad. I find it personally offensive. Yeah. Interesting opinion. May I respond? Sure. I was trying to get your opinion. Go ahead. Yeah. Go ahead. What do you think is the difference between that concept and having artists be required to disclose whether or not they used Adobe Photoshop and the very specific filters that they used in Photoshop or DJs that use [65:00] specific software to use, create electronic music as opposed to doing analog recordings of the music by hand with guitars. Sure. Or people that, for example, are using Microsoft Excel to create spreadsheets as opposed to writing it all down? Do I have to disclose that I used Excel, or that I used a calculator, or that I used a synthesizer, or that I used a Photoshop as opposed to doing it in an analog way? At the end of the day, digital tools for creativity and creative output are done in parallel with the human ingenuity and the human craft and the human creativity is expressed, magnified, and in many cases improved with digital tools. And the definition of is someone quote "using AI" is as nebulous as the rest of those, which is, am I using, quote, "AI" to improve my spelling, to improve my grammar, to create novel sentences from scratch, to create novel paragraphs from scratch. At the end of the day, if I give the AI a whole bunch of inputs, take the outputs and edit that output, am I, quote, "using AI"? This is, I think, one of the fundamental issues is we treat AI as the standalone, simple kind of intelligence replacement system. And the heuristic is not accurate with respect to how humans actually use it and how it is, like all other tools, a magnification of human creativity, ingenuity and potential. go ahead the reason is the expectation of the reader the reader has a high expectation and this is an important issue And the reason why people were so disappointed in this in a very large way was not because they're virtual signaling is because they actually care about Stan's opinion. And they want to consume his opinion and make sure it's not the AI slop opinion. That's why people felt betrayed by what he did. Now, this is a new trade. I think they did. Yes. Because they also felt the Wall Street Journal betrayed them because the Wall Street Journal should be checking that anything submitted is not AI slop. looking at students work and making sure their papers are not AI slop because we want them to have learned something and they want the same thing when a teacher is teaching that people don't want to pay for a teacher who uses AI slop either. And so we as a society have to decide when do we need it to come from the human and understand it's 100% human or 60% human. And when do we think we trust the ion? I want to hear his actual opinion. I have questions, many questions. Okay, question number one. are you suggesting that stan didn't read this thing that was generated or i'm sure he did read it yes okay so it when he read it before that's an open question did he okay i think he well he defended it yes i hope he did okay so do you have an issue with the fact that he read it he thought yeah this is what i think boom and hit the send button that's a betrayal to you i think not interpreted through the AI magic guessing word box. You need to tell me. I understand. I just want to understand. I have a disclosure I'd like to make. Uh-oh. What did you do? This is a standing disclosure for all future publications that I put out, including tweets, is that I try not to publish anything without running it through AI first to fact check it, to line edit it, and to help me make the best argument I can. So this is a standing disclosure. that if I've written something and published it, it's probably been through AI. Same. I'm totally fine with moving. I'm totally fine with proofing, to be clear. Proofing, fact checking, great uses of AI. Grammar checking are great use of AI. Now you're debating the slider of how much he proof checks. It's really two different things. I understand you don't understand this concept because you're not a trained journalist like I am. But I can tell you there's a distinct difference between being proofread and having somebody plagiarize or write some shit for you. And that's what this is. And that's why people object. Question. is stan druckenmiller his next op-ed is he allowed to use a computer of course of course okay okay okay let me keep going is he allowed to use a word processor or is it just like the notepad I mean, you obviously understand he can use any of those tools. Okay, what about Grammarly? He should disclose it. Wait, what about Grammarly? Is he allowed to use Grammarly for grammar? I encourage him to use Grammarly. I'm a shareholder in Grammarly. Jacob, what do you think his process was on this post? Do you think that it was simply delivered to him fully baked and then he just said, go with that? That's what the... AI detection software said is that this is like 90% written by AI. I'd be surprised if that was his process. Here's my guess. This is just a guess because I don't know. This is just a guess. I don't know. My guess is he had the take. And he probably told the AI the take, either in writing or just speaking to it, or, you know, essentially speaking to his assistant, who basically dictated it and put it in the AI. And then he probably got an output and he probably made corrections and edits to it. And that was probably something like his process. I don't really believe this thing was just split out. as AI slop and then he just said [70:00] This is Jake Cal's image of what happened. He's sitting in his office in New York. He gets in front of a browser. He opens chat GPT and he writes yields up bad gets the whole thing. He emails the op-ed. If you can't appreciate the lip syncing. It must have come from him. If you can't appreciate the lip syncing analogy, it would be as if you've had it. Okay, here's the problem with the lip sync analogy is... He's criticizing something that just happened. It was this Besson buyback policy, right? He's criticizing his former colleague about something very specific about that the Secretary of the Treasury just did. What's the lip syncing? A lip sync is when you have a song that's been performed a thousand times. This is novel and new. Even more evidence of why he should write it himself. It's really about the respect of the audience. You should respect the audience enough to take the time to write it yourself, not let the audience. I was part of the audience. I personally, you can have a different take than me. That's allowed. I was like, oh, this is a useful data point for me about a reminder. Hey, listen, some people. The difficulties of yields. Wait, can I ask you, did you read the article and have an opinion about the substance of it? Yes, there was. Well, I mean, I wanted to know if they were coordinated and this was some sort of like. No, no, no, that's not the substance. Did you know, did you know as AI generated before someone printed that on the timeline? Well, no, it came up in my timeline first as. Exactly. I read it and did not detect. Hold on. You asked me a question. Let me just answer it. It came up first. I saw the plagiarism, the AI slop, whatever. It's not plagiarism. That's how people in journalism build up. Hold on. I read it when it first came out. I didn't see the stuff in the timeline about the software supposedly detecting it as AI. Yes, I got hit by the timeline first. It sounded completely consistent. With the many other times I have heard Druckenmiller speak about the debt problem, Okay. On podcasts and, written versions or whatever I didn't know So if he's plagiarizing from someone, he's plagiarizing himself. Yeah, I mean, listen, plagiarism is not the right analogy here. It's not perfect because this is a new thing. But... It is. So it's not plagiarism. It's not listening. He's taking credit for what the AI wrote. And I would prefer him to take the time to respect the audience to write it himself because I have respect for him. And I want to understand his true opinion, not as interpreted through AI. Just like when I hear somebody sing a song, I would like to know that they don't auto-tune it and they haven't. post-produced it to the point of absurdity that's me i believe the artist should give you their actual art give you their actual position without using the eye that's just my opinion even the top that's my preference even the top performing artists use auto-tune and like all these other tools to basically make themselves sound the best and in a similar way here we know that ai gives people superpowers druckenmuller said i'm not the greatest writer what makes him interesting is He's a thinker. He has a take. It's a long held position that he's had. And he's willing to even criticize his former colleague and I assume friend because it violates, you know, his view of the world. And he's saying he uses AI to basically make his writing better. I don't get it. I don't have a problem using it as a glamour-y type tool. I just don't like the idea that it wrote it in full, which is what the claim is. Now we don't know, we'll talk to Stan when he's at the event, we can, I will tell you, I prefer listening to a band like Mark Knopfler, where he actually can write the song, play the guitar riffs, I prefer that in my art, or in an opinion or in a novel to being written by AI. That's my preference. And that was the expectation of the audience. But this is a new Now that you know, Druck will continue to use AI because he said it. Will you just ignore what he has to say? No, but I will not think as highly of him and I don't think it's respecting the rights. Just watch your interviews. So you're saying the substance of what he says will no longer matter to you or you're going to discount the substance less. No, you just said that. I think you're going to discount the substance less. I will wonder, what is his actual opinion but what you're saying is i constructed which came out okay Personally, personally, You're going to trust the greatest macro trader in the world less tomorrow than today because he used the tool to write. We're beating it. I will wonder if it's actually his opinion and how much work he did. And I feel it's disrespectful that he didn't do it himself. That's how I feel. I will wonder, it'll make me wonder if that is actually his perfect opinion and crisply his, because I think he's phoning it in. And I just don't like people phoning it in. It's only 800 words, write it yourself. Work with a proofreader. It's totally fine to do your research that way. Listen, we're going to agree to disagree on this one. [75:00] The CIA director made an unannounced visit to Moscow, John Ratcliffe, Made a surprise visit on Tuesday and flew back the same day. First visit by sitting CIA director since November 2021. That was when Bill Burns went to warn Putin not to invade Ukraine. He invaded three months later, obviously. Washington reporting Ratcliffe was there to warn Russia should not attack a NATO country. New US and tower reportedly. shows Putin could be planning to test Nito's resolve with a limited assault in the next few years and cyber attacks, small land incursion, etc. Polymarket says only 21% chance we get Russian Ukraine ceasefire by the end of the year. Freberg, you were on fire in the group chat about this. What's your thoughts on what's going on here? There's wild speculation. Wall Street Journal and others have reported that the message that was delivered was don't invade NATO, and don't use nukes on Ukraine. So there's been this kind of wild speculation about what this means. It just seemed like There's something meaningful going on, but to Sax's point in our group chat, this is speculation. There's no evidence or... Putin's made more than that. The president, I think called into a show to basically say that that story was not true. And the contact, was routine. And then the Russian readout, said roughly the same thing. So the truth is, we don't know what the meeting was about, but... You know, quite dramatic. I think I think it's all speculation. I know what it was about. Oh, here we go. Trucks AI infused memo on the Wall Street Journal. He was warning Putin to not use AI to write his next essay. Putin warning, warning. We're going to read it, maybe AI. We flew over there to deliver a very strict message, which is we expect non-AI tool usage because we are journalists at our core. Yeah, I think it's possible, J. Cal, that the trained journalists got this one wrong and were engaging in wild speculation and hyperbole. Without actually knowing what the meeting was about. I mean, wild speculation is what we do here. It's a podcast. It's the whole point of the show is to speculate what the hell is going on here. First of all, both the American and the Russian side have denied these dramatic speculative claims that somehow Ratcliffe was there. to warn the Russians not to invade Europe. I actually believe those denials are, Because it wouldn't make sense for the Russians to invade NATO countries. This is the same kind of threat inflation that we've heard for years from neocons about Russia's supposedly imperial ambitions to conquer all of Europe. There's simply no basis for believing it. And frankly, the war is not going badly for the Russians. It's certainly taken a lot longer than anyone thought, and Russia has paid heavy pricing casualties. I don't know that the numbers are what you said, Freeberg. But I think if you look at most of the sources now covering the war, What they're saying is the Russians are making slow but steady progress and it's Ukraine. Who is suffering the most? First of all, the Russians have air superiority. The Ukrainians are basically out of air defense. So Kiev is getting bombed on a routine basis. The Russians are able to pretty much destroy whatever they want at will. So, The Ukrainian infrastructure is paying a heavy toll. And this is coming on the eve of what is expected to be a pretty cold winter. and Ukrainian power is getting taken out. Moreover, Odessa and the Black Sea ports of... Ukraine have been bombed and basically shut down. So their economy is paying this incredibly low. heavy price right now. They're not able to export grain. So their economy is basically getting... destroyed, And they're running out of money. Zelensky is running around saying that he needs another $35 billion or they're going to be out of money. The U.S. is not funding that, but he's trying to get that from the Europeans. And then their casualties, although we don't know the numbers, are also huge. And now there's been stories about them potentially drafting women. because they're so low on soldiers. Keep in mind, Russia has four or five times the population of Ukraine, so they're able to sustain Ukraine. much greater armies so things do not look great for ukraine and frankly zelinski should listen when president trump told him you don't have the cards in this war you should make a deal Zelensky didn't want to do that. He didn't want to make a deal. He still doesn't want to make a deal. He should make a deal. And, um, Frankly, I don't think Ukraine's going to come out on top on this thing. Chamath, do you have anything you want to add there? Or we'll just wrap. Thanks to Meta for solving my biggest problem, which is imposing limits on Instagram. Yeah, okay. We didn't even get to that story. It's a big story. I'm tired of playing whack-a-mole with my kids, and I can't do it. And they have fake accounts and secret accounts and this and that. And yeah, please, thank you. You should have done it sooner, but I'm glad you did it. Yeah, I will give them... amount of credit for [80:00] Yeah, they got dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing, but now the right thing's been done. I hope TikTok and YouTube do the same thing. Yes, join the party. It'll make the life of a parent. much simpler It'll allow us to actually parent versus just policing device usage. I'd love to see Android and Apple join the party here. It's exhausting being a parent of a child with a device. It's exhausting. And it's terrible for young women to be on these Instagrams. We held the line to 16 years old, but 17, we lost the battle. Where did you hold the line, Jamal? The kids for social media. No, my kids aren't allowed until they're 16, but that's not the point. It's just that look we talked about this I've been very consistent about this. This could have happened a lot sooner. I'm glad that it happened and I applaud Meta for doing what they did. I hope that TikTok and YouTube do the same thing. Limitations are coming around in Australia and Canada and the UK. They'll probably appear in other places. It's physiologically and psychologically really helpful for kids to have these limits. So – Yeah. these parental control apps aren't that great. They do a decent job. They don't do a great job. So I'm always on my back foot as a parent. and it's frustrating and I would rather just spend time with my kids on other things other than screaming at them to get off their phone. Yeah, the tools are hard to implement. Hey, Freeberg. What's going on with the summit? How are we dealing for the summit? Well, I'm excited to share with you that the All In Summit is just two weeks away. This year, we've got some incredible sponsors helping us bring some big ideas to life. Iran is back. The presenting sponsor of the Olin summit big thank you to our friends at iron make sure you visit the iron house at summit always great time Make sure you visit the Iron House at Summit. That's the on-site lounge where you can kick back, relax, and hang out between sessions. And new this year. New. You guys remember it from Napa, the gifting boutique brought to you by merch.com. Every attendee fills a bag with all in merch, plus special offers from sponsors. You walk in, you walk out, you got a bag full of goods, you're going to be very happy. Oracle is back. They're bringing an F1 racing simulator to the summit. If you've ever wanted to know what it feels like to take a corner at 180 miles an hour, sort of like being in a debate with J. Cal here on the All In VOD. Without ending up in the hospital, this is your chance. And EY is taking care of business. bringing their meeting pods, which is a quiet space for folks to step out, take a call, close a deal, do meetings, which, by the way, happens a lot at the summit. People are doing deals. Just the tip of the iceberg. We've got other major stuff happening to our amazing sponsors and just the tip. We are keeping everything else under wraps. More fun stuff coming. We're excited. We will see you all at the All In Summit. It's going to be a great party. Hey, Freberg, what's going on with this cancer vaccine and the stock that tripled in the last two weeks? We didn't get to it last week, but I know I want to hear about it. I'm sure the audience does. Yeah, Moderna stock, I think is what you're talking about, right? Yes. I think they went from like a 20 billion market cap to 60 billion market cap on... the positive readouts from this thing that's being called a cancer vaccine And I think it's worth highlighting how this cancer therapy system works. This goes back to the 90s, where there was this idea that you could create what are called neoantigens. These are small peptides or proteins. that mimicked a peptide or protein that's unique to a cancer in your body. And so that antigen, which means that your immune system sees it as an invader, causes your immune system to start to make cells that destroy that protein. And so by putting that protein in your body, your immune system gets activated and it gets turned on to go and find that protein in other parts of your body. and destroy that protein. So the objective is figure out what is the protein that is unique to a particular cancer, make that protein, stick it in your body, and your immune system will go and destroy the cancer that's in your body. And so this immunotherapy, the system of basically using an antigen that's designed for a cancer in your body to go and attack it, has been around since, call it the late 90s. And there was this big revolution in DNA sequencing, where we identified that we could take Samples of cancer. Put them in a DNA sequencer. and look at the sequence of the genes the proteins that are made, because they're made from genes that are unique to that particular cancer, and therefore make a personalized neoantigen that's personalized to the unique cancer that's in your body, because all these cancers... mutate and they're different and no two cancers are identical. How do they get that key for me personally versus you? How do you get that? They would take a sample of your tumor or cancer cells. So when you take your [85:00] let's say you have you know, melanoma. And the reason that melanoma is one of the kind of biggest targets for this immunotherapy. is that melanomas have very kind of unique DNA mutations. Because of UV light hitting the skin, And so the particular cancer that you'll get in a melanoma that you have is going to be very unique with respect to the rest of your body. It's going to be a very unique mutation. So they take a little bit of the melanoma, They get the DNA out of it. And when you do DNA sequencing, you multiply the DNA by millions or billions of times. You put all that DNA in a DNA sequencer, it gets chopped up in red. And then the sequence data comes back and it says, This is what makes this cancer unique. It's this little sequence of the DNA. And that sequence of the DNA causes that cancer to make a unique protein that is basically like a key or an ID or a fingerprint of that cancer. They then take that DNA, and make protein from it, put that protein in your body, and now your immune system goes crazy and starts attacking that protein, because it's like, oh, antigen, antigen, I got to go get it. Now that those cells are activated, those immune cells are activated to that protein, they'll eventually go destroy that cancer. So, this has been successful. There have been hundreds of trials with this neoantigen-based therapy. for many different types of cancer and there's all these trials that have tried to figure out what's the right technique for delivering the neoantigen do we make the protein and then stick it in your body Or, in this case, with what Moderna did, Make mRNA and stick it in your body. and the mRNA causes your own cells to now make that protein and spit it out, ends up in your blood, and now your immune cells got activated. So rather than making the protein ex vivo, which means outside of your body, You're making the protein in your body in vivo, and now your body's making the protein. So the idea with the mRNA concept... is you can get one shot. That shot goes into your body and now your body is making that protein, just like we made the COVID vaccine. Yes. Your cells would make a particular protein segment that would activate your immune system and it would go kill that cancer. There's other questions around what are the other adjuvants, what types of cancer can you use this system for? And then combination therapies, are there other cancer drugs that you can do this in combination with. And all the trials that have been going on are all about this delivery mechanism, the technique that's used, the types of cancer, the dosing, and getting all of that stuff right. Now, what's interesting about this is it is much more of a technique than a drug. in the traditional sense it's a process of it's a process right so the process customized per person so there's some cost to doing it per person. That's right. But the cost, because I do DNA sequencing at my company all day long. Getting that sample, very cheap. Getting the DNA data, very cheap. Actually doing a lot of the upfront work, very cheap. Now, theoretically, making the mRNA, or making the protein should also be pretty cheap. But it's human trials and human safety. And so there's a lot of questions around how do you make sure that everything's safe? And what's the right combinations that people don't get overreacted immune systems, or that people don't have adverse side effects. So that's all of the tuning of this. But I think what frustrates me the most about all of this, and everyone's kind of lauding this as some unique breakthrough and special and powerful, and it's not. Because a lot of people are going to places like Montana, and they are getting peptides printed for their particular cancer sequence, and they are making their own neoantigens, putting it in their body, and getting cured of their cancer. You can pay someone $50,000 to do this for you today. There's a lot of clinics that'll do it, and it's not a special FDA-approved drug. To your point, J. Cal, it's a process. The process is, take the DNA sequence from my cancer, make a protein, put it back in my body, my immune system goes and destroys the cancer in my body. Great idea. So why is Moderna saying that they're going to charge $500,000 for this? And that's what I think frustrates me about all this. Everyone's lauding this and everyone's very happy about this. But I'm actually pretty sad and frustrated and disappointed by this. I don't think. that this technique, which has been largely developed through several decades of iteration, research, and development, which was largely funded by NIH and other public funding dollars, that has led to this incredible concept of neoantigen immunotherapy for cancer, which can eradicate or theoretically eliminate many different types of cancer, Should now be patented FDA approved and charged half a million dollars for people to get treated for this. Yeah. And so what I don't like about this story is, is that a private pharmaceutical company has seen their market cap go from 20 billion to 60 billion because they went through this regulatory process to create what in my mind is a form of regulatory capture and making the case that it's all about safety and trials and we've got patents and all this other stuff when fundamentally there's an underlying technique that was funded by a lot of public research dollars that i think should be more open-sourced more ubiquitous and every hospital [90:00] should be trained on how to do this process, to treat cancer patients. And it should become much more of a ubiquitous thing. Do you think that people have two questions that we can end it on that? But do you think they're going to be able to successfully defend this patent? In the United States and then also globally, because there's obviously a global world here and people do travel for treatments now medical tourism is a thing. So if it's a half million dollars here, can it be done for 50k in South Korea, Japan, other places? Yeah, and then second, whatever happened with MRNA? And the COVID vaccine and a lot of the concerns people had, we never got an update on that. But obviously, this podcast started during all of that. And that was the first rollout at scale, correct? For mRNA as a technology. So how do you feel? For years, Moderna was working towards this mRNA-based cancer system. They're calling it a vaccine, but it's really immunotherapy. A vaccine means you prevent yourself from getting something, whereas in this case, you're actually getting rid of something you already have. So I don't like the word vaccine. But Moderna worked on this for years, and they never really kind of got to market with it. And then COVID came about, and they pivoted very quickly and got this COVID vaccine out. Moderna has a whole bunch of patents on the techniques and tools that they use. to make mRNA and to make sure that it's not integrated into the human genome and it doesn't actually use a traditional kind of replicating system. So you can't actually replicate that mRNA, which means it won't start propagating in your body because your cells... typically might start making copies of RNA if it ends up in yourself. So there was a lot of stuff that Moderna developed. that made their particular mRNA technology patented and safer and so on. So I think that they do have strong patent coverage on their particular set of tools for mRNA. But, What I described earlier, so if I take the sequence of your cancer cell, And I look at the DNA of it and I'm like, I found what makes it unique. There's this little sequence. And now I take that sequence of DNA. and I can stick it in a bacterial cell, E. coli, in a little tank, what's called a bioreactor, and that bacterial cell will now start to make that protein. Because I've taken the DNA and put it in the E. coli cell. So now the E. coli cell is coding that DNA. into RNA, into proteins, because that's the sequence, right? DNA turns into RNA, turns into proteins. So that E. coli cell, there's billions of copies of those cells, they make billions of copies of the protein, you isolate the protein out of the bioreactor, and you can inject it into your body. And when you inject that protein into your body, and now your immune system gets activated. So you don't necessarily need mRNA, is my point. And mRNA is a really effective way of doing this. It's super cheap because you don't have to go make all the protein outside the body. You can literally just print the mRNA and get one shot, and you're done. But that end-to-end system, the real cost of doing that, is very low. And so, This is one of those things where we have a very big fundamental question. that we should all be asking, which is like, should we be giving the monopoly on cancer treatment? to this company that went through this FDA process and filed a bunch of patents on certain techniques, but the general theory, the general thesis, the general therapeutic process, It's well described, well understood, generally understood. and should be available everywhere. And I think over the next couple of years we are going to see this cancer immunotherapy based system start to proliferate. And you will see this happening overseas, very cheap. It is very efficacious. And we act, you and I actually have a friend in common who's kind of standing up a business to do this in a very cheap way. up in Montana where you have a right to try and they can make this stuff. So we are going to see, I think, more of this come to work. But it is for certain types of cancer, very efficacious, very safe, very effective. So I'm excited by this news. And if the norm requires, just for people who are listening who are normies, All of this cancer treatment requires early detection, and that's something that people have been working on with the blood test, the Galleria, I believe it's called. So getting to the cancer and getting regularly tested is a critical part of this, yes? So you're talking about a Galleria test by grail? The blood test, yeah. The blood test, yeah. Just early testing is the key piece for all of us to keep in mind. Get tested early and often for cancer. Yeah, and remember, there's a bunch of these new what are called modalities, new modes of therapy, therapeutic modalities that are being used to destroy cancer. One was CAR T therapy, where you take T cells out of your body. And you use CRISPR or some other system to reprogram those T cells to go after, remember that protein I described. So you actually program the T cells to go find a specific protein in your body and destroy it. So they go find the protein that's unique to a specific type of cancer cell, and the T cells get put back in your body and they destroy it. CAR T therapy. CAR T therapy costs a million dollars. And for people with blood cancers, where the cancer cells aren't clumped together in a tumor, But blood cancers, the cancer cells float around individually in the blood. And so by putting keys [95:00] in your blood, It's very easy, or it's much easier for the T cells to find the cancer cell, Grab them and destroy them. And so for blood cancers like multiple myeloma, The efficacy is incredible with CAR T therapies now. So that's a new type of modality. This is a new type of modality, this mRNA or neoantigen therapy. So there's all these new techniques that are being used to destroy cancer. And I think in aggregate, we should be very excited and optimistic about where this is headed. Wow. Thanks for sharing. And let's hope for the best with implementing this. And I love this right to try. That seems to be something we should talk about in a future episode. We'll see you all next time on the All In Podcast. Bye-bye. Your winner's line. Your winner's line. Besties are gone. That's my dog taking a notice in your driveway. Sex. Oh, man. My abutasher will meet me at what's up. We should all just get a room and just have one big Hugh Georgie because they're all just useless. It's like this sexual tension, but we just need to release them out. Wet your feet. Wet your feet. We need to get merch. I'm going on. I'm going all in