Palantir Nvidia Deal Drives Sovereign AI Shift Over IP Leak Fears

担忧IP泄露，Palantir联手Nvidia推动主权AI转型 平台抽取专有数据危及企业生存，企业客户正放弃集中式前沿AI实验室，转向本地开源基础设施。 主持人分析了Palantir与Nvidia开源合作的战略意义，并批评了Anthropic在垂直市场的扩张，认为此举冲击了Figma等成熟的商业生态系统。他们审视了相关宏观数据，指出高强度的AI应用目前正在拉动企业员工人数增长，而非导致大规模失业，同时讨论了商务部解除出口限制的影响。最后，节目探讨了最高法院在“特朗普诉芭芭拉案”（Trump v. Barbara）中维持出生公民权的判决，并深入剖析了加州日益沉重的结构性债务、税基外流以及迫在眉睫的财政可持续性危机。 Palantir 宣布与 Nvidia 达成合作，基于开源 Nemotron 模型推出“主权 AI 操作系统”（Sovereign AI Operating System），确保美国政府机构对底层硬件、数据及模型权重拥有完全所有权。 (0:21) Anthropic 推出垂直应用 Claude Design 直接与合作伙伴 Figma 竞争引发信任危机；同时 8090 的企业软件测试显示，采用封装开源模型的技术栈相比直接调用顶级商业闭源 API 能降低 16.4 倍成本。 (8:50) Nvidia 正全力将自身打造为全栈开源模型提供商，旨在扶持更广泛的长尾企业客户自建模型，从而打破少数闭源模型实验室对算力采购的买方垄断威胁。 (25:00) Ramp 与 Revelio Labs 涵盖超 2.1 万家企业的数据研究显示，高强度采用 AI 的公司员工总数增加了约 10%、初级岗位招聘增长了 12%，直接挑战了所谓“AI 立即导致大规模失业”的叙事。 (40:00) 在解决与未授权海外关联相关的国家安全担忧后，美国商务部正式解除了对 Anthropic 旗下 Fable 5 模型的出口限制，并恢复了 Mythos 5 的正常使用权限。 (50:24)

The All-In Podcast hosts argue that enterprises must reclaim 'intelligence sovereignty' through open-source AI and on-premises infrastructure to avoid vendor capture, while also critiquing the media's AI labor narrative, constitutional rulings on birthright citizenship, and California's fiscal solvency. AI Sovereignty and Frontier Model Risks (0:00) Palantir's partnership with Nvidia to build a Sovereign AI Operating System using Nemotron open-source models reflects a growing enterprise revolt against closed foundational labs. Palantir CEO Alex Karp and host David Sacks argue that feeding corporate data into centralized platforms like Anthropic or OpenAI turns foundational providers into future competitors. Sacks highlights Anthropic launching Claude Design to directly challenge Figma—a partner whose valuation dropped roughly 50% while Anthropic's soared—and rolling out competing vertical products like Claude Code and Claude Legal. Chamath Palihapitiya points out that with the long-term cost of capital reaching 8% to 11%, half of large U.S. firms fail to beat their Return on Capital Employed, making reliance on expensive closed APIs unsustainable. Internal benchmarking at Palihapitiya's 8090 software factory showed that wrapping an open-source model in a proprietary harness delivered a 16.4x cost reduction compared to closed models alone. David Friedberg adds that life sciences firms are rejecting Anthropic's attempts to pool proprietary biological data under NDAs, accelerating an industry shift toward a distributed architecture combining centralized foundational training hubs with private, on-premises inference spokes. Empirical AI Adoption Versus Job-Loss Narratives (35:00) The panel challenges prevailing narratives of immediate, catastrophic employment loss driven by AI. David Friedberg characterizes claims of rapid net job destruction as an unfounded scare tactic, distinguishing temporary task displacement from overall workforce contraction. While Jason Calacanis suggests that sectors like customer support, data entry, and ride-hailing drivers will face rapid disruption, Palihapitiya notes that companies like Uber continue to expand overall hiring and driver networks. Citing a study by Ramp and Revelio Labs covering more than 21,000 U.S. firms, Sacks reports that high-intensity AI adopters experienced a 10% headcount growth over two years—and a 12% boost in entry-level hiring—while non-adopters saw headcount stagnate. Palihapitiya also points to Klarna quietly reinstating human customer support after initially claiming AI would replace the department. In the physical realm, however, Calacanis forecasts that advancements from robotics startups like Figure and Tesla's Optimus will fully automate package sorting and last-mile delivery within ten years. SCOTUS Birthright Ruling and Immigration Reform (58:12) Examining the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in Trump v. Barbara, the hosts analyze the legal limits placed on President Trump's executive order attempting to eliminate birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders. Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion affirmed the 14th Amendment's protection as constitutional, but Sacks contends that the ruling improperly strips Congress of its authority to address modern edge cases like birth tourism, arguing the amendment was historically targeted at reversing the 1857 Dred Scott decision. Friedberg advocates distinguishing between legal permanent residents and temporary visitors, suggesting birthright citizenship should be reserved for children of lawful residents. In evaluating long-term immigration frameworks, the hosts favor productivity-driven criteria over zero-sum policies. Friedberg proposes a 'makers versus takers' model to admit individuals who create more economic value than they consume, while Calacanis suggests a five-year ban on public welfare for new arrivals paired with expedited green cards for entrepreneurs reaching concrete capital thresholds. California's Fiscal Vulnerabilities and Budget Deficits (80:00) The panel disputes Governor Gavin Newsom's claim of a balanced California state budget through 2028, pointing to structural revenue instability and compounding long-term liabilities. Friedberg explains that state spending grew 65% between 2019 and 2026, rising from $215 billion to $355 billion. State revenues are heavily exposed to tax flight: half of California's $142 billion personal income tax base depends on the top 1% of earners, with the top 1,000 individuals contributing $22 billion annually. Since 2019, an exodus of 15 Fortune 1,500 firms and 2,100 mid-to-large companies has reduced the tax base, prompting the state to enact compensatory levies like an 8% software subscription sales tax. Furthermore, California faces $1.4 trillion in state and local debt alongside an estimated $664 billion to $1.5 trillion in unfunded pension obligations that hold seniority under the 'California Rule.' Friedberg warns that an eventual federal bailout could spark interstate political friction, while Sacks forecasts heightened wealth confiscation and fiscal insolvency over the coming decade. The hosts conclude that long-term resilience—whether for technology enterprises retaining their data assets or state governments managing public finance—requires fiscal discipline, operational independence, and self-reliance rather than dependence on centralized platforms or state intervention.

本期节目重点探讨了前沿AI实验室与下游企业之间的利益冲突及开源替代浪潮，分析了自动化对就业市场的真实影响、开源技术的地缘政治监管、最高法院对出生公民权的裁决，以及加利福尼亚州面临的结构性财政与债务困局。 企业数据主权与开源大模型架构重塑 (0:00) Palantir与Nvidia合作采用Nemotron开源模型为美国政府构建定制AI平台，确保政府全面掌控硬件、数据和模型权重。Palantir首席执行官Alex Karp指出，企业对Anthropic和OpenAI等前沿实验室的信任正在瓦解，原因是客户在采购API的同时正面临专有知识产权被吸纳的风险。David Sacks以Anthropic推出Claude Design直接与其客户兼合作伙伴Figma竞争为例，指出Figma估值在一年内腰斩，且Anthropic首席产品官在产品上线前三天刚辞任Figma董事，说明闭源模型正系统性吞食上层应用生态。 成本效益驱动开源落地与分布式架构转型 (8:50) Chamath Palihapitiya援引波士顿咨询公司（BCG）的研究指出，在长期资本成本回升至8%到11%的背景下，全美半数大企业的已动用资本回报率（ROCE）无法覆盖资本成本。8090的基准测试显示，在企业内部控制框架中运行开源前沿模型，成本比直接调用闭源顶尖模型降低了16.4倍。David Friedberg结合其在Ohalo的经历证实，制药巨头正普遍拒绝向试图收集专有数据的模型厂商妥协；AI部署正加速从单一中心化云端向“大型基座训练枢纽、企业级微调中枢与本地私有化推理节点”的三层分布式架构演进。 劳动力自动化的现实与人类溢价 (35:00) 针对AI引发大规模即时失业的论调，David Friedberg认为这一叙事缺乏证据，混淆了“岗位流失”与“岗位转移”。David Sacks引用Ramp与Revelio Labs针对2.1万多家美国企业的研究指出，高强度采用AI的企业在两年内员工规模反增约10%，初级岗位招聘增长12%，未采用AI的企业员工增长则陷入停滞。讨论强调外包客服主要影响海外低端岗位，而本土交互服务反而呈现出“人类Alpha”溢价，例如Klarna在激进宣称全面去人工化一年后重新恢复了人工客服机制。但在硬件端，Jason Calacanis预测机器人技术将在十年内彻底替代包裹分拣与末端物流。 AI进出口监管博弈与开源地缘动态 (50:00) 美国商务部长Howard Lutnick解除了对Anthropic新模型Fable 5的出口限制。此前因对SK Telecom等合作方的合规疑虑，加上Amazon首席执行官Andy Jassy向官方通报安全护栏测试失效，该模型一度遭到管制；最终在联合创始人Tom Brown取代CEO Dario Amodei主导交涉后重获放行。Sacks指出这是企业过度夸大模型威胁与最初拒绝回滚所致的极端案例。谈及中国开源模型如DeepSeek和Kimi时，Sacks主张限制存在间谍风险的物理联网硬件，但反对封禁开源模型，强调本地部署的开源代码无法回传数据，封锁开源只会使本土企业承受更高的闭源垄断代币成本。 出生公民权裁决与生产导向型移民构想 (58:12) 最高法院在Trump v. Barbara案中以6比3裁定特朗普废除无证移民及临时签证持有者子女出生公民权的行政令违宪，首席大法官John Roberts撰写多数意见确立宪法第十四修正案保护。Sacks批评该裁决脱离了1866年应对内战后黑人权益的历史初衷，挤压了国会应对“生育旅游”等现代漏洞的立法空间。针对未来移民制度，Friedberg提出以“创造者 vs 索取者”为划分标准，主张接纳经济贡献超越公共消耗的个体；Calacanis提议对新入境签证实施五年社会福利禁令，并为达到资本或营收门槛的全球创业者开辟快速定居通道；Sacks援引Pew民调说明，51%的受访者支持遣返部分有犯罪记录的无证群体，仅16%支持完全不遣返。 加州财政收支错配与地方治理危机 (80:00) David Friedberg反驳了加州州长Gavin Newsom关于3510亿美元平衡预算的主张，指责其借助200亿至400亿美元举债掩盖赤字。自2019年以来加州支出膨胀65%，且收入严重依赖极少数高净值人群：全州1420亿美元个人所得税中，前1%纳税人承担了50%（700亿美元），前1000名富豪贡献了逾11%（220亿美元）。自2019年已有2100余家中大型企业迁出，导致加州每年损失1%至1.5%的调整后总收入。叠加1.4万亿美元公共债务及高达6640亿至1.5万亿美元的未注资养老金负债，Sacks警告，加州对软件服务与商业保险等领域持续加税的做法可能在十年内诱发硬着陆甚至债务违约危机。 本期节目强调，无论是在软件架构还是公共财政领域，依赖中心化垄断或借贷掩饰亏空的模式都将面临边际收益递减的惩罚。对于企业而言，掌握数据控制权和本地计算能力是防御平台掠夺的关键；对于政府而言，唯有以生产力为基准进行制度设计并收紧财政纪律，才能避免深层的治理与信任危机。

## Background 本期内容由知名科技投资播客《All-In Podcast》于 2026 年 7 月 27 日在 YouTube 平台发布。节目简介显示，四位主持人围绕 Palantir 与英伟达联手打造开源主权 AI、Alex Karp 在 CNBC 上的激烈表态、AI 就业替代争议、Anthropic 旗下 Fable 5 解除出口限制、最高法院关于出生公民权的最新裁决，以及加利福尼亚州州长纽森宣称的“平衡预算”与加州潜在的财政崩盘危机等重磅议题展开了深度交锋与剖析。 ## TL;DR 节目围绕科技主权与美国内政经济的核心矛盾展开。主持人们首先高度肯定了 Palantir 与英伟达联手打破封闭基础模型垄断的“主权 AI”路线，揭露了 Anthropic 等闭源实验室垂直蚕食生态伙伴商业机密的行径，并以实测数据论证了企业自建私有开源控制平面的战略与成本优势。随后，针对 AI 是否引发大规模失业的争议，嘉宾们援引两万余家企业的真实薪酬数据反驳了媒体炒作的失业恐慌，指出采用 AI 反倒加速了企业初级岗位的扩张。最后，播客深入探讨了最高法院推翻特朗普取消出生公民权行政命令的法理争议与移民政策重塑，并以详实的财务账本层层剥离加利福尼亚州依靠借债粉饰的预算骗局，警告高昂税负与数万亿美元未拨备隐性负债恐将把深蓝州推向违约重组与宪政危机的边缘。 ## Atmosphere & style 整期节目的氛围极其热烈且张力十足，兼具一线投资人犀利的商业洞察与老友相聚时毫无拘束的互损插科打诨。从开场对前沿模型实验室“魔盒背刺”与技术垄断的口诛笔伐，到中段围绕无人驾驶替代人类司机真实数据的拍桌互呛，辩论过程火药味与智力密度兼备。后半段在拆解加州财政黑洞时，对话在严肃冷峻的债务推演与对极左政治叙事的辛辣讽刺间游刃有余地切换，最终在独立日真情流露的爱国寄语与经典的播客烂梗欢笑中收尾，给听众带来如同置身顶级风投私密智囊闭门会般的畅快与临场感。 ## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=0s) Palantir 携手英伟达推出基于 Nemotron 开源模型的“主权 AI 操作系统”，强调政府和企业必须牢牢掌控底层算力、私有数据及模型权重，防范闭源模型巨头对垂类生态的掠夺。 - [40:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=2400s) 针对 AI 摧毁就业的舆论恐慌，Ramp 与 Revelio Labs 对全美 2.1 万家企业的实证研究显示，积极引入 AI 的企业其员工规模两年内平均反增约 10%，初级岗位更是扩张 12%。 - [50:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=3000s) 白宫解除对 Anthropic 旗下 Fable 5 模型的出口管制，起因系前 CEO Dario Amodei 被换下，且此前亚马逊举报该模型安全护栏崩溃，经高层沟通妥协后限制得以解除。 - [01:21:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=4890s) 加州州长纽森号称通过了 3510 亿美元的“平衡预算”，实则借助发债与会计障眼法掩盖巨额亏空，且前 1% 人口贡献了一半个税，高税负与企业外流正将加州推向违约悬崖。 ## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=0s) Palantir 联手英伟达推出“主权 AI 操作系统”，主张将硬件、数据和模型权重“三权合一”，拒绝将核心军事控制权和生产资料外包给硅谷闭源大模型公司。 - [02:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=140s) “智能主权”有别于传统的防御性“数据隐私”，其核心在于认知自主与决策掌控，防止商业机密和知识产权被前沿实验室吸走以孵化竞品。 - [03:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=225s) Anthropic 等闭源实验室被指责既做平台又做裁判，在监控 API 调用数据后亲自推出 Claude Design、Claude Code 等垂直工具，正面收割 Figma 和 Cursor 等合作伙伴。 - [10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=600s) Chamath 旗下的实测表明，采用中立的独立控制平面结合开源模型，虽比纯闭源模型耗时多约 3 倍，但可为企业带来高达 16.4 倍的惊人成本节省。 - [15:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=900s) 生物医药等核心实体行业纷纷拒绝大模型厂商以 NDA 换取数据联合训练的提议，未来的 AI 基础设施正从中心化云辐射向“大中心、中中心与分布式外围”的本地混合架构演进。 - [25:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=1500s) 英伟达推出开源大模型 Nemotron，以“硬件底座 + 顶级免费开源权重”全面对抗 OpenAI 与 Anthropic 的潜在双寡头垄断，助力顶层应用与长尾企业实现智能主权。 - [30:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=1800s) 企业界预计掀起本地专用算力采购潮，未来或呈现 70% 部署在大型公有云、20% 本地专用硬件、10% 其他云平台的“轴辐式”混合算力分配格局。 - [33:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=2032s) 媒体与政客热炒的“AI 引发大规模失业”被批为迎合管制的骗局，实证数据显示高强度拥抱 AI 的企业无论整体规模还是初级岗位招聘均呈现不降反升的正相关。 - [43:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=2588s) 随着自动化普及，“人类阿尔法”（Human Alpha）将成为稀缺高溢价资产，纯粹的真人服务和情感互动在客服升级与高端消费场景中反倒更具价值，Klarna 的全 AI 客服撤回即是例证。 - [53:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=3216s) 美国对海外开源模型大开绿灯符合国家利益，因为开源模型具有“去国籍化”本质，本土部署能有效避免本国企业承受闭源“Token 税”，同时降低全球经贸博弈风险。 - [01:00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=3600s) 最高法院裁定驳回特朗普废除“出生公民权”的行政命令，但判词也引发关于第十四修正案“原意主义”与现代非法移民、生育旅游乱象之间司法鸿沟的激烈争论。 - [01:12:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=4367s) 健康的移民政策应坚持文化同化原则，并重归“创造者 vs 索取者”（makers vs. takers）框架，通过设立福利冻结期与经济贡献门槛，吸引全球顶尖建设者。 - [01:25:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=5100s) 加州财政危机严峻，其税收严重依赖前 1% 富豪与高企的企业所得税，随之而来的税基大流失与隐性养老金负债缺口可能在未来引爆债务重组甚至撕裂联邦的宪政动荡。 - [01:35:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=5700s) 加文·纽森在激进的《亿万富翁税法案》上采取骑墙迎合态度，既得罪了硅谷出资人又无法满足迅速左倾的民主党极左基本盘，导致其 2028 年总统候选人提名预测走势腰斩。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=0s) Palantir 联手英伟达推出“主权 AI 操作系统”与 Alex Karp 的 CNBC 访谈 节目开场，主持阵容齐聚。正值盛夏，全员进入状态。本期节目的重磅头条是 Palantir 与英伟达（NVIDIA）正式宣布达成“主权 AI”（Sovereign AI）战略合作。根据协议，Palantir 将基于英伟达的 Nemotron 系列开源模型，为美国政府机构量身定制前沿级专用模型。Palantir 将这套全新平台命名为“主权 AI 操作系统”（Sovereign AI Operating System），其核心在于：美国政府机构将拥有底层硬件、业务数据以及模型权重的完整掌控权。与此同时，Palantir 在社交媒体上发布了一份引发全网热议的宣言：“数据留存是你的宝藏，轻易交付无异于自掘坟墓。交出数据，意味着你将既有的致胜秘诀拱手让人，并亲手为他人制造颠覆你的生产资料。” 随后，Palantir 首席执行官亚历克斯·卡普（Alex Karp）现身 CNBC，以他标志性、犹如罗宾·威廉姆斯式行云流水的独白风格宣布了这一合作，并在长达 20 分钟的采访中猛烈炮轰 Anthropic 等闭源前沿模型实验室。卡普在受访时毫不留情地直言：“说我们的客户对前沿大模型实验室感到不满，简直就像说我在伯克利教职工大会上受尽欢迎一样轻描淡写——那是一种根深蒂固的不适与信任瓦解。我私下里最喜欢跟达里奥（Dario Amodei）辩论，我不是在针对萨姆（Sam Altman）或达里奥个人，但现在的局势确实完全走样了。全美企业普遍的想法是：我在这里优哉游哉地浪费时间调用 Token，自己捞不到任何实质价值，核心知识产权全被他们吸走了。当国防部找上门说‘我需要这个军事应用’时，到底是谁来控制模型权重？是军方，还是这帮大模型公司？我们难道真要把这个国家的战场控制权，外包给硅谷的那帮主流共识精英吗？这简直荒谬透顶！” - **核心合作架构**：Palantir 采用英伟达 Nemotron 开源模型，为美国防务及政府机构开发定制前沿模型，打造“主权 AI 操作系统”。 - **三权归一**：政府客户必须完整持有算力硬件所有权、私有数据所有权及模型权重（Model Weights）控制权，拒绝依赖第三方黑盒 API。 --- ### [02:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=140s) 什么是“智能主权”：从数据隐私到认知自主 针对外界将卡普的言论戏称为“电视直播上的精神崩溃”，主持人们笑称这不过是“卡普日常的周二发挥”。事实上，早在当年二月份，主持团队就深入讨论过这一战略走向，甚至率先提出了“智能主权”（Intelligence Sovereignty）这一核心概念。当时讨论的焦点在于：企业是否甘愿把自身组织内部的所有商业机密和知识产权，拱手让给萨姆·奥尔特曼这类每年背负数十亿美元运营开支、急需变现的大模型公司？前沿实验室为了支撑其庞大的开销，终究会亲自下场吞噬各行各业的垂类应用。 主持团队进一步厘清了“智能主权”与传统“数据隐私”的本质差异： - **数据隐私（Data Privacy）**：属于防御性边界，本质是“你不能偷看我的照片，不能翻阅我备忘录或日记里的内容”。 - **智能主权（Intelligence Sovereignty）**：关乎更高的认知自主权与生产力掌控权，本质是“你不能教我如何思考，更不能利用你的 AI 来分析我的照片、邮件与往来信息，反过来规训我对世界的理解与判断”。 正因如此，开源模型、开源智能体（Agents）以及运行在本地硬件上的推理计算，对企业而言具有生死攸关的战略意义。企业与消费者必须掌握训练和微调私有语言模型的能力，避免沦为数据提供者与模型租户。 --- ### [03:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=225s) 大卫·萨克斯深度解析：重塑“AI 安全”与前沿模型实验室的垂直收割 大卫·萨克斯（David Sacks）接话指出，传统主流媒体将卡普的发言定性为“情绪失控崩溃”，恰恰证明卡普击中了痛点，道破了深层真相。卡普实际上重新定义了企业级语境下的“AI 安全”（AI Safety）：真正的企业 AI 安全，不是硅谷安全公关口中的大模型对齐，而是具备技术实力的客户对算力、模型架构、数据技术栈以及企业核心“阿尔法”（Alpha，即独门商业秘籍与核心资产）的绝对控制权。企业必须牢牢掌控自己的生产资料，防止无形资产被外部平台虹吸。 萨克斯随后揭露了 Anthropic 等前沿实验室“既做平台、又做裁判、再做竞争对手”的商业收割路径，并以设计巨头 Figma 的遭遇为例进行了深度剖析。据媒体披露，Anthropic 毫无预警地推出了垂直设计工具 Claude Design，直接跨界与当时的商业伙伴 Figma 展开正面厮杀。Figma 创始人公开表示 Anthropic 对其隐瞒了真实意图；更具戏剧性的是，Anthropic 的首席产品官（CPO）此前一直兼任 Figma 董事，直到 Claude Design 正式发布前三天，才仓促辞去董事职务。这一突袭导致 Figma 股价年内暴跌近 50%，而 Anthropic 自身的估值却节节攀升。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 前沿模型实验室垂直收割开发生态的路径示意图 accDescr: 展示前沿闭源实验室如何通过提供底层模型、监控高价值应用、最终推出竞品完成垂直整合的商业闭环。 subgraph 基础设施层 ["第一阶段：垄断基础模型"] A["开发者/企业接入封闭模型 API<br>(如 Cursor / Figma)"] B["沉淀企业调用数据、Prompt 与业务流"] A --> B end subgraph 监控发现层 ["第二阶段：捕获高价值赛道"] C["前沿实验室监控 API 用量与增长曲线"] D["识别出高利润垂类<br>(代码辅助、设计、法律等)"] B --> C C --> D end subgraph 垂直收割层 ["第三阶段：下场自研并降维打击"] E["推出自研垂直应用<br>(Claude Code / Claude Design 等)"] F["合作伙伴估值暴跌 / 沦为垫脚石"] D --> E E --> F end ``` 这种模式并非孤例，Anthropic 随后接连推出 Claude Science（科研）、Claude Security（安全）、Claude Legal（法律）、Claude Financial（金融），以及核心吸金产品 Claude Code。其收入迎来爆发式增长的真正起点正是 Claude Code，而该产品的灵感与落地，完全是 Anthropic 在观察到其大客户 Cursor 在代码辅助赛道大获成功后，选择直接“垂直整合”亲自下场竞争的结果。这种垄断打法与昔日微软（依托 Windows 垄断捆绑 Word、Excel 再到浏览器）和谷歌（从单纯输出站外搜索链接转向将流量全盘锁在自有产品体系内）如出一辙。 因此，萨克斯强调，Dario Amodei 一面大肆游说宣扬“开源模型极度危险、必须予以立法限制”，一面利用闭源模型截流客户资产。所谓“危险”，绝非针对想要掌控自主权的企业，而是开源生态直接动摇了闭源垄断的商业根基。如果企业继续把核心数据送入黑盒 API，就是在亲手签下慢性死亡的卖身契。 - **Figma 案例**：Anthropic 原高管入驻董事会，直到自研竞品 Claude Design 推出前三天紧急辞退，合作伙伴股价随后腰斩。 - **Cursor 案例**：早期作为 Anthropic 最大客户之一开创了 AI 代码辅助品类，随后 Anthropic 推出官方 Claude Code 进行正面蚕食。 - **企业防线**：真正的企业级 AI 安全要求在模型层保留自由选择权，把专有知识产权与推理算力封存在内部主权体系中。 --- ### [08:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=495s) 查马斯在 8090 的开源模型企业级实测 在萨克斯将前沿实验室的商业算盘剖析得淋漓尽致后，话题转到了 Chamath 身上。Chamath 旗下创办的 8090 近期正密集开展开源模型的企业级落地实测，并在社交媒体上分享了一手数据。 面对询问，Chamath 谈及作为创业者与企业操盘手在底层选型时的思考逻辑：创立一家科技企业，绝不能仅着眼于当下唾手可得的技术红利，而必须具备远期推演能力——即如果未来技术演进、闭源壁垒以及成本曲线按照某种确定趋势演变，企业今天应该如何提前布局。他开始详细阐述 8090 在实际业务流中全面切换并测试开源模型的实战心得与性能反馈。 ### [10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=600s) 企业的资本困境与“魔盒背刺”：为什么要打造独立控制平面 Chamath 从企业面临的严酷商业现实切入，指出当前全行业终于迎来了“集体清醒”的时刻：一方面，企业自身的业务极其复杂，急需借助 AI 实现降速增效与加速创新，但前提是必须保护核心优势不外泄；另一方面，企业必须拥有一个完全中立、独立的第三方控制平面（Control Plane）来统筹 AI 能力，避免被头部基础模型公司彻底锁死与剥削。他高度赞赏了 Palantir 首席执行官 Alex Karp 在 CNBC 采访中的“情绪爆发”与犀利论断，认为 Karp 直击了目前商业模式的核心痛点。 为了系统性拆解这一逻辑，Chamath 用三条核心脉络展开论证： 1. **资本成本与回报率危机**：根据 BCG（波士顿咨询公司）关于各类企业已动用资本回报率（ROCE）的最新研究，随着长期利率回升至历史平均水平，如今企业的资本成本（借贷成本）已飙升至 8% 到 11%。残酷的现实是，全美目前有一半的大型企业所创造的投资回报率根本无法覆盖这一资本成本；全球范围内更有约七分之一的企业长期处于 1% 到 5% 的极低回报泥潭中。企业容错率极低，根本无法承受交出自身核心壁垒的代价。 2. **“魔盒”的潜伏背刺与开源偏见**：传统的闭源大模型厂商往往像拿着一个“魔盒”向企业兜售：“只要把你所有的数据和流程都倒进盒子里，一切都会变好。”然而没过多久，这个魔盒就会在暗中孵化出与客户直接竞争的同类产品。前 Meta 产品经理 Qu Xiaoyin（曲晓音）在社交媒体上指出，很多企业仅仅因为部分开源模型源自海外就产生安全顾虑，宁可支付高出 100 倍的溢价去用闭源 API。但事实上，企业完全可以在美国本土的数据中心利用自己的 GPU 私有化部署开源模型，实现数据物理隔绝。盲目拒绝开源不仅白白浪费百倍成本，更是亲手将自身核心业务数据“奉送”给少数几家前沿模型实验室。 3. **软件工厂的基准测试实证**：Chamath 介绍了其团队自主研发的软件工厂（一种模型中立的第三方控制平面）在一项典型企业任务中的真实测试表现——将陈旧的遗留代码迁移并维护至全新现代化框架中。测试对比了纯模型调用与搭载控制平面架构的实际开销和表现： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 企业代码迁移方案成本与效率对比 accDescr: 展示纯模型与软体工厂加权组合在成本和延迟上的对比 subgraph ClosedSource["闭源阵营 (Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8)"] A["Claude Opus 4.8 单独运行"] -->|基准对比| B["软件工厂 + Claude Opus 4.8"] B -.->|效果| B1["成本降低 1.4 倍<br/>速度提升 1.5 倍"] end subgraph OpenSource["开源阵营 (前沿开源模型)"] C["前沿开源模型单独运行"] -->|集成架构| D["软件工厂 + 开源模型"] D -.->|效果| D1["成本暴降 16.4 倍<br/>耗时增加约 3 倍"] end ``` Chamath 强调，尽管开源方案在 OpenRouter 上运行时多花费了几个小时，但换来的是高达 16.4 倍的惊人成本节省。在了解这些事实后，若企业依然放任自身数据外泄给闭源厂商，无异于“玩忽职守、愚蠢至极”。 - BCG 研究表明，半数美国大型企业的资本回报率不及 8%~11% 的资金成本，1/7 的全球企业长期回报率仅有 1%~5%。 - 独立控制平面搭配 Claude 即可实现成本便宜 1.4 倍、执行快 1.5 倍；搭配顶级开源模型虽然慢 3 倍，但成本直接暴降 16.4 倍。 --- ### [15:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=900s) 生命科学领域的拒绝潮与“大中心-分布式外围”新格局 面对 Jason 提出关于 Ohalo 是否会信任前沿模型实验室并交付核心私有数据的尖锐质问，作为 Ohalo 首席执行官的 David Friedberg 给出了极度坚决的否定回答，并现场爆料：Anthropic 此前一直在生命科学领域四处游说各大企业，希望大家签署 NDA（保密协议）并贡献出宝贵的高价值行业专有数据，共同研发一款针对生命科学领域的行业垂类模型，以此换取该模型的早期访问特权。 然而，几乎所有被接触的大型生命科学公司都迅速识破了其中的陷阱并果断予以拒绝。Friedberg 分析道，这些生命科学巨头耗费了数十年时间、砸下数百亿美元进行实验与产品开发所积累起来的私有数据，是其最不可替代的核心资产。一旦将这些数据拱手相让给大模型厂商与其他公司的数据混合训练，企业自身的立足之本瞬间就会被“大宗商品化”（Commoditize），彻底丧失差异化壁垒。 随后，Friedberg 对未来几年 AI 基础架构演进的拓扑形态做出了深入预测： - **旧思维（双层中心辐射）**：此前业界普遍认为 AI 是典型的“大中心、大辐射”（Large Hub, Large Spoke）格局——少数筹集数百上千亿美元的超级模型实验室构建巨型训练集群（大中心），企业再通过超大规模云服务商（Hyperscalers）和新型云（Neoclouds）的大型集群以 API 形式进行推理分发（大辐射）。 - **新常态（三层立体混合架构）**：未来的真实形态正在转向“大中心、中中心与分布式外围”（Large Hubs, Medium Hubs, Distributed Spokes）。基础大模型仍由少数超级大中心承担，但各行业企业会自建或租用中型训练集群，结合开源基础模型和内部专有数据微调出私有核心权重；在推理端，除了公有云外，企业正在大量利用自有数据中心甚至 IT 机房搭建本地专属算力，在本地安全闭环中运行企业级工作流。 Jason 随即结合硅谷科技巨头的发展历史进行补刀。他引用微软当年的“合伙人替代策略”指出，当年的 Lotus 1-2-3、WordPerfect、WordStar、VisiCalc 都曾是微软的亲密生态伙伴，但随着微软要做大市值，这些应用迅速被 Excel 和 Word 彻底绞杀并吞并。同理，估值数千亿上万亿美元的顶级 AI 实验室为了支撑市值，必须向下夺取应用层（Application Layer）。Jason 提到，Sam Altman 此前亲赴 Y Combinator（YC）为创业公司许诺赠送 200 万美元免费算力 Token，其底层逻辑与微软如出一辙：Altman 拥有长期执掌 YC 的老道眼光，他渴望借此提前看清最前沿创业者所探索的创新方向与底层构想，进而迅速将其吸收融合进自己的主模型平台。正如科技界残酷的铁律：“天下没有免费的披萨，也没有免费的啤酒。” ### [20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=1200s) 创始人的血泪教训：从“免费 Token”陷阱到“智能主权”的必然觉醒 讨论由对平台巨头历史周期的犀利警告拉开帷幕。嘉宾们警示创业者：当 Sam Altman 走过来对你说“给你一些免费 Token”时，你的警报器就该拉响了。这与马克·扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）当年的手段如出一辙——先用免费额度和扶持资金吸引所有人来到 Facebook 平台，接着在时机成熟时连根拔起。历史上，无论是 80 年代与微软（Microsoft）同床共枕、2000 年代投靠 Facebook，还是在 2020 年代依附 Sam Altman 的人，醒来时无一不发现自己被“割喉抢夺生计”。对创业公司的核心忠告就是：如果与他们合作，他们终将吞并你的整个业务，切勿盲目信任他们，必须拥有并运行自己的模型。 Chamath Palihapitiya 则从商业模型和股权定价的角度做出了区分。他认为 OpenAI 相比 Anthropic 处境更稳健，其股权定价也更合理，并不是因为模型质量或团队有高下之分（两家都是顶尖团队），而是因为 OpenAI 拥有极具韧性且多元化的消费级业务（Consumer Business）作为退路。反观 Anthropic，其面临的核心危机在于已经丧失了基本的行业信任——他们无法安分地呆在自己的“沙盒”内，反复表现出利用宿主数据学习、随后反手颠覆宿主组织的倾向，最终会被整个生态边缘化并迫使客户寻找替代方案。Chamath 透露，他曾将自己对开源模型（如智谱 GLM 等）评测 Harness 的测试结果发给业内知名大佬，对方指出只要结合测试线圈提取的遥测数据（Telemetry）进行后训练（Post-training），开源模型的表现完全能够逼近 Anthropic 旗舰级模型的水平。这就引出了一个不言自明的商业抉择：既然如此，企业为何不在美国本土的自主硬件上、由美国本土工程师全流程闭环控制开源模型？这不仅便宜得多，而且绝对安全可控。 Jason Calacanis 与 Chamath 进一步推导了企业 AI 架构演进的终局：创业公司最初往往从 Claude 或 OpenAI 的 API“套壳”（Wrapper）起步，接着转向开源模型搭建专属线圈，而最终的终局必定是分叉（Fork）模型并在本地自建私有硬件，例如通过 Abacus 等方案打造符合 HIPAA 等严苛合规标准的专属模型，这就是“智能主权”（Intelligence Sovereignty / AI Sovereignty）。历史上唯有苹果（Apple）真正尊重过开发者生态，因为苹果做的是“分发租赁”（Renting Distribution），宁可把自带的备忘录做成极简工具、花了将近十年才慢吞吞跟进 Evernote 早期的功能，从而收取 30% 的抽成；然而大模型公司做的不是分发，而是“出租智力与判断力”（Renting Intelligence and Judgment）。你绝不可能向同一个向你竞争对手出租大脑的供应商去租赁智力，否则商业机密会直接“溢出隔板”沦为共有财产，导致产品陷入最低公分母竞争，最终重蹈波士顿咨询（BCG）报告所指出的“无法对投入资本产生任何超额回报”的悲惨困境。 - **三代平台掠夺史**：80 年代微软操作系统、2000 年代 Facebook 社交图谱与 2020 年代 OpenAI 大模型生态的残酷蚕食路径如出一辙。 - **Anthropic 信任危机**：因跨界吞食合作伙伴业务（如投行、法律分析等高价值垂直应用），打破了基础模型提供商与宿主应用的共生沙盒契约。 - **自建路线图演进**：API 套壳调用 → 采用开源模型+自建 Harness → 融合自有遥测数据做后训练微调 → 本地硬件私有化完全拥有权重（实现智能主权）。 --- ### [25:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=1500s) 英伟达脱下拳套与三层 AI 堆栈的权力博弈 随着技术通缩效应的加剧，AI 模型 Token 的价格呈雪崩式下降。英伟达（NVIDIA）推出的开源大模型 Nemotron 正在迅速改写战局——在 Perplexity 开启深度思考（Deep Thinking）模式下调用 Nemotron，95% 的搜索和推理场景普通用户已经根本无法区分它与 Claude 的差异。Jason 指出，黄仁勋（Jensen Huang）此前之所以刻意在公众面前和采访中对英伟达自研的开源大模型保持低调，完全是因为微软、OpenAI 等大客户对英伟达大模型进展神速感到极度恐慌和警惕。然而局面急转直下：随着 OpenAI 自研定制芯片、Anthropic 开启芯片自研、AMD 联手各大实验室攻城略地，以及埃隆·马斯克计划建立自己的 Fab 晶圆代工厂，黄仁勋与英伟达终于“脱下拳套”（The gloves are off），准备通吃整个全栈——通过提供顶级硬件与顶级免费开源模型的捆绑，依靠 CoreWeave、Colossus 等算力托管网络直接抗衡闭源巨头。 David Sacks 随即深入剖析了英伟达与 Palantir 结盟的底层商业逻辑。从产业拓扑来看，AI 堆栈从底到顶清晰地分为三层：最底层的芯片层（Chips）、中间的模型层（Models），以及顶层的应用层（Applications）。目前模型层呈现出 OpenAI 与 Anthropic 构成的双寡头垄断雏形，且 Anthropic 的 Dario Amodei 正在积极推动激进的“安全监管游说”，试图通过政策寻租将这种双寡头在法规层面永久固化，声称其他开源模型都不安全。对于顶层的应用巨头（如 Palantir）和底层的硬件垄断者（如英伟达）而言，这种模型层双寡头局面是它们共同的噩梦。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI 产业三层堆栈博弈架构 accDescr: 展示顶层应用、中间模型层与底层芯片层之间的对抗与战略联盟关系 subgraph AppLayer["顶层：应用层 (Applications)"] Palantir["Palantir 等行业落地应用"] Enterprises["企业端客户 (Enterprises)"] end subgraph ModelLayer["中层：模型层 (Models)"] Duopoly["闭源双寡头<br/>(OpenAI & Anthropic)<br/>• 推动监管捕获<br/>• 自研底层芯片"] OpenModels["开源模型生态<br/>(Nemotron / 开源权重)"] end subgraph ChipLayer["底层：芯片与基础设施层 (Chips)"] Nvidia["英伟达 (NVIDIA)<br/>• 硬件+免费开源模型"] CloudHosts["CoreWeave / 私有集群"] end Palantir -.->|"避免被单一模型绑架<br/>保护私有知识"| OpenModels Enterprises -.->|"构建企业智能主权"| OpenModels Nvidia ==>|"联合推出全栈解决方案"| Palantir Nvidia -->|"扶持开源生态<br/>瓦解买方垄断"| OpenModels Duopoly -.->|"试图上下挤压"| Palantir Duopoly -.->|"自研芯片摆脱依赖"| Nvidia ``` Sacks 强调，Palantir 绝不希望顶层应用被一家模型供应商掐住咽喉，企业更不可能为了用 AI 就把核心商业秘密拱手相让；而英伟达同样不希望面对单一或两个独大的买方垄断（Monopsony Buyers），尤其是当这些买方已经开始研发自研芯片背刺英伟达时。英伟达最理想的生态是让成千上万家企业利用开源模型在英伟达硬件上自行训练与微调，形成庞大的长尾买家群体。因此，除了 OpenAI 和 Anthropic 这两家企图垄断中枢的巨头之外，全行业的芯片商、开发者、应用软件公司与实体企业，所有人的利益都空前一致：必须彻底打碎模型层的垄断企图，促成一个充分竞争、开放的模型层市场。 - **三层产业结构**： - **应用层（Applications）**：Palantir 等垂直软件提供商与千行百业的实体企业。 - **模型层（Models）**：Anthropic 与 OpenAI 形成的潜在封闭双寡头。 - **芯片层（Chips）**：英伟达领衔的高性能计算芯片与算力网络。 - **英伟达 Nemotron 策略突破**：从低调隐藏到全面推向台前，英伟达以“硬件底座 + 顶级开源模型”的双轮驱动，粉碎基础模型大厂对产业链定价权的控制。 - **竞争与监管原则**：Sacks 指出，美国体制惩罚反竞争行为而非惩罚自然形成的垄断，但监管层绝不能助纣为虐配合巨头的“安全游说”去限制开源，维护模型层的激烈竞争才是保障生态活力与公众权利的唯一道路。 ### [30:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=1800s) 企业本地算力狂潮与“前置部署工程师”（FDE）的渗透 围绕模型推理成本与开源竞争，主持人们展开了热烈讨论。大家盛赞 David Sacks 在华盛顿特区为推动公平竞争环境所做出的努力，认为这为 2026 和 2027 年激烈的 AI 竞争打下了极佳的基础。未来三年内，每 token 的成本预计每年将暴跌 90%，用户将能以极低甚至免费的成本获取比现在聪明千倍的模型。这种极致的价格优势将对现有市场形成巨大颠覆。 David 指出，面对这种趋势，企业界即将掀起一场本地硬件采购狂潮，买家不仅限于新型云（neoclouds）和超大规模云服务商（hyperscalers），普通企业本身也将大举采购硬件。企业在精打细算后会发现，依赖第三方云不仅存在服务器宕机和可用性风险，而且在本地运行开源模型的成本极低。过去整个行业花费数年时间劝说企业“全面上云”，但在 AI 时代，这种共享基础设施的理念可能不再适用。未来的基础设施架构更可能是一种“轴辐式混合模型”（Hub-and-Spoke）： - 约 70% 的工作负载依然部署在大型公有云上； - 约 20% 转移至本地部署； - 剩下的 10% 分散在其他云服务上做多元化尝试。 在此模式下，企业无需再为“浪费 token”而焦虑，即便员工自己写出一些只能用几周的临时小工具、猛烧几十亿 token，企业承担的也仅仅是机房的电费而已。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 企业AI混合算力分配架构 accDescr: 展示未来企业在公有云、本地硬件与第三方测试云之间的算力与推理资源分配比例 subgraph Allocation ["未来企业算力与推理分配 (Hub-and-Spoke)"] direction TB Cloud["70% 大型公有云 (Hyperscalers)<br/>处理主要弹性和大规模通用负载"] Local["20% 本地专用硬件 (Local Compute)<br/>跑开源模型、保护核心数据、免费任烧 Token"] Niche["10% 其他新型云 / 试验云<br/>多模型探索与冗余备份"] end Allocation --> Benefit["核心优势：消除停机依赖、杜绝数据泄露、边际成本仅为电费"] ``` 随后，Chamath 与 Jason 提到了巨头们的新动作：微软刚宣布投资 25 亿美元组建自己的 FDE（Forward Deployed Engineers，前置部署工程师）团队，亚马逊也砸下 10 亿美元打造类似组织，Anthropic 和 OpenAI 同样紧随其后。Chamath 讽刺道，这些巨头派 FDE 敲开企业大门、声称要深入研究业务并将数据融入模型，其行为宛如“耶和华见证人”传教，企业必然会果断拒绝：“我不想加入你们的教派，我要拥有属于自己的模型和资产。”未来的终极形态将是“每人一台服务器”：企业宁可为每位员工配备一台装载海量内存的 Mac Studio 或 Dell 高性能主机（人均硬件投入在 1 万至 2 万美元），让员工在本地肆无忌惮地狂烧 token，同时通过配套笔记本进行安全同步与控制，从根本上防止数据外泄。 --- ### [33:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=2032s) 媒体叙事陷阱：AI 导致大规模失业是个“骗局”？ 话题顺势转入 AI 对就业市场的真实影响。Friedberg 明确指出，当前根本不存在所谓的“滑向大规模失业的滑梯”。两年前媒体和公众脑海中固化的悲观叙事，如今正被现实数据彻底击碎。然而，媒体记者为了维护自身的权威和信誉，绝不可能轻易改口承认当年的预言破产；一旦叙事转向，他们的公信力便荡然无存。不仅媒体如此，许多政客和参议员也反复高喊“失业危机”，其核心目的无非是借此干预和控制 AI，从而兜售他们热衷的社会主义管制体系。 Friedberg 强调，企业采用 AI 的过程其实非常笨拙、复杂，绝非按下一个开关让天才 AI 接管一切、瞬间裁掉所有员工。相反，企业在利用 AI 削减部分成本的同时，更是在寻求扩大营收： - “告诉全世界 AI 正在剥夺和摧毁工作，这完全是一个骗局（absolute scam）。” - 人类就像是一群刚拿到新工具的猴子，获得新工具后只会去解决更多的问题，从而创造出远多于被摧毁数量的新岗位。 --- ### [35:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=2100s) 针锋相对：概念替换、无人驾驶与真实就业数据激辩 Jason 对 Friedberg 的观点提出强烈抗议，他认为必须厘清“岗位流失（Job loss）”与“岗位置换（Job displacement）”之间的微妙差异。Jason 坚持认为，某些特定岗位正在以超乎想象的速度消亡，首当其冲的就是客户支持（Customer Support）、基础数据录入、业务流程外包（BPO）以及出租车司机等。这些低垂的果实就像当年打字机房（typing pool）和信使被文字处理软件淘汰一样，将会有数以百万计的工作被置换。 这一论断立刻引爆了现场的激烈交锋： > **Friedberg：** “你完全是在胡扯，因为这种事根本没有发生！告诉我哪家企业把客服团队全关了？这事现在和我们同在一个房间里吗？证据到底在哪？” > **Jason：** “消费者更喜欢直接跟完美的 AI 对话。在旧金山等 Waymo 投放超过数百辆车的城市，Uber 和 Waymo 已经停止招募司机，司机数量不是持平就是在下降。这不是对未来的预测，你去问问 Waymo、Uber 和 Lyft 的 CEO，他们都会明确告诉你！” > **Chamath & Friedberg：** “你这是在诡辩！上次我们在台上专访 Uber 的 CEO Dara Khosrowshahi 时，他亲口表示由于外卖配送等业务带来的生产力提升，Uber 平台上的工作机会和司机实际行驶里程反而在增加！” Friedberg 与 Chamath 犀利指出，每当有人要求 Jason 拿出当下的现实数据作为证据时，Jason 总是把话题滑向“这在未来一定会发生”的前瞻性推测。虽然无人驾驶（如 Waymo、Tesla 等）技术确实在向前推进，但目前 Waymo 的运营规模仍停留在几千辆，Tesla 更是只有几十辆测试车，现实世界根本没有出现司机被大规模清洗的宏观数据。双方就未来预言与当下事实的边界展开了火药味十足的唇枪舌剑。 ### [40:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=2400s) Ramp 与 Revelio Labs 真实数据：拥抱 AI 的企业雇员不降反升 围绕自动驾驶对人类司机的冲击，讨论一度陷入白热化。Jason 指出，在 Waymo 已经达到关键规模的成熟市场，人类司机的数量确实在减少，甚至平台已经停止招募新司机；尽管 Uber 首席执行官 Dara Khosrowshahi 曾提及公司整体招聘成本上升，但 Jason 强调那是指企业内部雇员而非底层网约车司机。Sacks 随即反驳这一观点，拿出了一份扎实的实证研究以终结无休止的口舌之争。 Ramp 联手 Revelio Labs 发布了一项针对全美超过 21,000 家企业的薪资与 AI 支出联动研究。数据显示，在 AI 上投入最积极的企业，其增长速度最为迅猛，在引入 AI 后的两年内，员工规模平均增长了约 10%；更为颠覆认知的是，初级岗位（Entry-level）员工人数非但没有被抹杀，反而以 12% 的速度更快扩张。相反，未采纳或低频使用 AI 的企业，其员工人数则基本处于停滞状态。Sacks 指出，目前的实际数据完全不支持“AI 正在当下引发大规模失业”的叙事，相反，采用 AI 与团队扩张呈现明显的正相关。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI Adoption and Headcount Growth Correlation accDescr: Diagram illustrating the findings of the Ramp and Revelio Labs study comparing high AI adopters with non-adopters. subgraph HighAdopters["高强度 AI 采用企业"] A["大幅增加 AI 预算投入"] --> B["业务增速大幅领先"] B --> C["整体员工数 2 年增长 ~10%"] B --> D["初级岗位人数增长 12%"] end subgraph LowAdopters["非/低强度 AI 采用企业"] E["无或低 AI 预算投入"] --> F["业务增长迟缓"] F --> G["整体员工规模陷入停滞"] end ``` - **Ramp 与 Revelio Labs 样本量**：涵盖全美逾 21,000 家企业，对比实际工资单记录与 AI 采购支出。 - **岗位分布特征**：研究强调增长并非局限于特定工种，而是在工程、销售、行政以及客户支持等全岗位逐步展开。 - **投资人视角的对立**：Jason 反驳称，自己投资的诸多初创公司正是以彻底淘汰翻译、电话接线员、催收员和网约车司机为目标筹集数亿美元；而 Chamath 则指出，在其实际参与投资和运营的企业中，迄今没有看到任何一家因采用 AI 而裁员。 --- ### [43:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=2588s) “人类阿尔法”与 Klarna 翻车教训：人类在环成为高价值溢价 面对自动化浪潮，Friedberg 提出了一个独特的反向叙事：“人类阿尔法”（Human Alpha）。他用售货机与调酒师的关系打比方：自动贩卖机的诞生并没有消灭酒吧里的调酒师，优秀的调酒师凭借调酒手艺与情感互动，今天的收入反而比 20 年前更丰厚。同样的道理，哪怕有按摩椅，人们依然愿意花 200 美元找按摩师做一小时推拿；去拉斯维加斯或纽约高端晚宴，人们也宁愿支付高额溢价雇佣专业专车司机，而不是坐进冰冷的 Waymo 自动驾驶汽车里。 讨论随即切入金融科技公司 Klarna 的经典公关反转。大约一年前，Klarna 高调宣称将通过 AI 替换整个客户支持部门，大肆进行“公关人设收割”（aura farming）；然而仅过去一年多，他们就不得不收回这一激进举措。因为从品牌信誉和客户体验的角度看，保证“在需要时永远能找到真人服务”是极其关键的安全感。Sacks 和 Friedberg 剖析指出，许多平庸的 CEO 缺乏独创见解，极度热衷于借媒体炒作周期宣布要“开掉整个客服团队”，最终却被现实打脸。 - **人类在环（Human in the loop）的高溢价**：未来随着机器接管基础事务，纯粹的人际互动将变成奢侈体验，消费者乐意为其支付高额附加费。 - **客服支持的分层现状**：Sacks 澄清，真正可能被 AI 抹去的只有 Level 1（如处理重置密码等机械工单）的极初级岗位，但这类业务早年间就已大规模外包给菲律宾等低成本国家，并非美国本土的就业主力。 - **海外市场脆弱性**：美国本土保留的客服多为处理复杂争议与纠纷升级（Level 2、Level 3）的高技能人员，AI 替代难度极高；因此更可能首当其冲遭遇结构性就业冲击的反而是承接初级外包的海外发展中国家。 --- ### [46:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=2818s) 人形机器人进入分拣战场与麦当劳点餐的“现实温度” Jason 随后展示了由 Brett Adcock 创立的人形机器人公司 Figure 的最新进展：其研发的人形机器人成功完成了长达 200 小时的包裹分拣测试。Jason 极度自信地断言，“这是它有史以来最笨拙的一刻，未来只会越来越强”，并透露在与马斯克交流并亲眼见识过特斯拉 Optimus 后，确信 Optimus 的能力更加惊人。他预测，一旦亚马逊的贝索斯和安迪·贾西（Andy Jassy）在仓储系统中全面部署 Optimus，十年之内“任何人类包裹分拣与末端配送工种都将不复存在”。 这场严肃的工业革命推演很快被日常琐事打破，现场气氛变得十分欢脱。Sacks 指出，仓储物流的自动化早已随处可见，FedEx 和亚马逊的分拣中心早已布满传送带与自动化推杆，自动化并不等同于必须使用人形机器人，就像麦当劳普及自助点餐机多年也未曾使用机器人。此话一出，四位科技富豪立刻饶有兴致地讨论起各自在麦当劳的点单习惯： - **麦当劳菜单偏好**：Jason 自曝是坚定的“麦香鱼”（Filet-O-Fish）拥护者；Chamath 钟爱巨无霸（Big Mac）；Sacks 则透露自己最近在麦当劳尝试了一款类似 In-N-Out 风格、带有压制肉饼（Smash Patty）的测试新品“Homegrown Burger”。 - **最后一公里的颠覆**：讨论回到正轨后，Jason 强调人形机器人真正的质变点在于“最后一公里”——当 Optimus 走下特斯拉无人驾驶货车，亲自穿过草坪走上门廊、敲响房门并将包裹放好。 - **建筑施工场景的效率跃迁**：若将机器人劳动力延伸到现实生产力瓶颈（如房屋营建），将带来难以估量的繁荣。加州审批盖一栋住宅动辄耗时三年，而在中国仅需极短时间，机器人施工队的出现有望彻底改写传统实体行业的生产周期。 ### [50:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=3000s) Anthropic 换帅解局与 Fable 5 出口解禁内幕 在关于机器人建造房屋解决住房危机的短暂讨论后，话题迅速转向 Anthropic 旗下顶级模型遭遇的监管戏剧性转折。主持人戏谑地称商务部长霍华德·卢特尼克（Howard Lutnick）颁布了“特赦圣旨”，允许达里奥·阿莫代伊（Dario Amodei）将其最新模型 Fable 5 推向市场。此前两周，美国政府以国家安全为由，对 Anthropic 的 Fable、Mythos 等模型实施了极其罕见的出口管制，起因是据报道 Anthropic 将 Mythos 违规扩散给多达 50 家未获授权的实体（其中包括传言与中国关系密切的韩国电信巨头 SK Telecom）。然而到了 6 月 30 日，卢特尼克正式解除了对 Fable 5 的限制，Mythos 5 也在 6 月 26 日重新恢复对美国本土客户开放。 这场风波的转机伴随着 Anthropic 内部激烈的“宫廷斗争”：公司罢免了强硬的首席谈判代表兼 CEO 达里奥·阿莫代伊，改由联合创始人汤姆·布朗（Tom Brown）挂帅。布朗在与特朗普政府沟通时采取了截然不同的低姿态，在社交平台上公开发文对卢特尼克“顶礼膜拜”，写道：“感谢您在此事上的通力合作，部长先生！”并附上笑脸照片。Anthropic 随后发布的事后复盘报告称，导致被叫停的安全越狱（jailbreak）问题并非 Claude 独有；而当时直接向商务部举报该安全隐患的正是其重要投资方与云合作伙伴亚马逊的 CEO 安迪·贾西（Andy Jassy）。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Anthropic出口管制风波与解禁逻辑 accDescr: 展示触发Anthropic模型被禁的三大条件及最终解决路径 subgraph Trigger["触发禁令的三重死锁"] A["条件一：达里奥高调宣称<br>Mythos 为网络武器"] B["条件二：盟友背刺<br>亚马逊测试报告 Fable 防护栏失效"] C["条件三：态度强硬<br>达里奥拒绝配合政府紧急下架模型"] A & B & C --> D["商务部下达出口管制禁令"] end subgraph Resolution["政治妥协与解禁路径"] D --> E["Anthropic 撤换首席谈判代表<br>汤姆·布朗接管"] E --> F["对白宫展现合作姿态<br>技术补丁与政治表态"] F --> G["商务部于两周后解除 Fable 5 出口管制"] end ``` 曾任白宫“AI 沙皇”的大卫·萨克斯（David Sacks）在节目中深入复盘了整起事件的底层逻辑。他指出，白宫下达禁令信是三项独立条件在同一时间交织的极罕见结果，三者缺一不可： - **自我定性为武器**：达里奥在长达数月的时间里不断在华盛顿政界奔走游说，几乎是以炫耀的口吻宣称自己制造出了极其强大的“网络武器”（Cyber weapon）。 - **核心盟友的实质性检举**：Anthropic 深度信任的合作伙伴亚马逊对带有安全护栏的 Fable 模型进行了严格测试，结果证实护栏全面崩溃，坐实了该模型作为“网络武器”的失控隐患。 - **与监管机构的正面对抗**：在被质询时，达里奥态度顽固，以各种借口拒绝主动召回下架模型直到漏洞修复，让白宫行政团队感受到了公然蔑视。 萨克斯强调，只要这三个事实中缺少任何一个，出口禁令就绝不会发生。他不希望外界和海外盟友过度解读这一特例，将其误读为美国正在收缩技术出口。白宫的核心基调依然是坚定支持创新、支持出口、支持基础设施建设，并在全球 AI 竞争中做美国企业的坚强后盾。 ### [53:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=3216s) 为什么不封杀中国开源模型？开源生态与国家安全的博弈 主持人杰森·卡拉卡尼斯（Jason Calacanis）向萨克斯发起尖锐质询：美国政府既然在出口端管控如此严苛，在硬件与实物层面严防死守华为通信设备、中国自动驾驶技术甚至无人机入境，为何在进口端对 DeepSeek、Kimi 等中国开源模型大开绿灯？尤其是在英伟达等美国本土企业也已经推出开源模型的背景下，为什么萨克斯在担任 AI 顾问期间没有推动行政法令彻底切断中国开源模型的进口？ 萨克斯对此展开了深入的技术与商业辩护，系统阐述了开源模型的底层特质： 1. **开源的“去国籍化”本质**：一旦模型开源并公开权重，它在某种程度上就已经不再是“中国的模型”。美国开发者可以自由 fork（分叉衍生代码），将其部署在美国本土的数据中心与硬件基础设施上完全离线运行。该运行过程绝不会有任何网络数据包或核心数据外流回传给中国服务器。中国团队的开源输出，在客观上成了全人类开源社区的免费贡献。 2. **警惕“孤岛效应”与避免“Token 税”**：如果美国在本土单方面封禁全球开源模型，并不能阻止世界其他国家拥抱开源。开源模型成本低廉、高度可定制且企业自主可控，世界主流市场绝不会因为美国的禁令而放弃使用。盲目封禁的结果只会将美国置于数字化孤岛之上，强迫美国企业去承受本土闭源商业模型高昂的“Token 税”（Token Tax），严重削弱美国企业的整体生产力与国际竞争力。 3. **网络安全与物理威胁的本质界限**：开源模型虽然需要审查后门与网络漏洞等新攻击面，但它与物理实体有着本质区别。萨克斯重申他不反对针对具体的物理硬件设立进口屏障： - 坚决支持禁止中国联网汽车（Connected Cars）在美国上路； - 严厉警惕并严格审查中国机器人进入美国本土，防止潜在的“第五纵队”式硬件后门威胁； - 认同禁止进口中国制造无人机的立法。 4. **全球经贸与关键资源的博弈考量**：技术脱钩不能脱离现实贸易关系。萨克斯直言，美国在稀土等诸多战略关键原材料领域仍高度依赖对华进口。在全面实现供应链自主独立之前，单方面采取过激的进口封锁只会招致对方对等的毁灭性反制，制定宏观政策必须兼顾整体经贸关系的稳健。 萨克斯总结道，解决开源竞争的唯一正确途径是让美国的开源生态变得更强大。正如谷歌等公司发布开源权重一样，最终应该由自由市场来优胜劣汰，而不是依靠行政壁垒强行保护。 ### [57:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=3452s) All-In 峰会回归预告与最高法院裁决前瞻 辩论告一段落后，杰森插播了峰会预告。第五届 All-In 峰会定于 9 月 13 日至 15 日举办。主办方笑谈弗里德伯格（David Friedberg）私下极为热衷派对社交，本届峰会特别强化了晚间活动规格，不仅将在洛杉矶独家豪宅举行盛大的全套赌场之夜（Casino Night），还将举办峰会有史以来规模最大的扑克锦标赛。目前确认出席的政商演讲嘉宾所代表的公司总市值已突破 12 万亿美元，预计最终将翻倍。 随后节目切入第三个核心议题——最高法院夏季重磅判决潮。在当前审判季的最后几天，最高法院集中发布了 11 项重大裁决。其中最受关注的当属“特朗普诉巴巴拉案”（Trump v. Barbara），直接针对特朗普第二任期首日签署的一项行政命令：该命令试图废除第十四修正案所确立的出生公民权，终止向非法移民或持临时签证者在美国本土所生子女自动赋予美国国籍。 最高法院最终以多数票推翻了该行政命令： - 首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨（John Roberts）撰写了多数派判词，获得了包括全部三位自由派大法官在内的支持，重申“无论过去还是现在，公民权就是拥有权利的权利，我们今天恪守这一宪法承诺”。 - 布雷特·卡瓦诺（Brett Kavanaugh）大法官在协同意见书中为国会预留了一条立法修正路径，表明国会未来在符合宪法第十四修正案框架下收紧出生公民权规则仍留有讨论余地。 - 据统计，全美每年约有 25.5 万名婴儿出生于非美国公民父母，该项裁决对美国移民体系与社会结构影响极其深远。 ### [01:00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=3600s) 特朗普叫板出生公民权与生育旅游乱象：一场移民身份的法理激辩 随着美国最高法院裁决支持出生公民权（Birthright Citizenship）并推翻特朗普试图取消该权利的行政命令，演播室内的讨论迅速升温。主持人 Jason 抛出了臭名昭著的“生育旅游”（birth tourism）案例：中国籍女子李冬媛（Dongyuan Li）曾于 2019 年认罪，她经营着协助中国孕妇以虚假理由入境美国生子以获取公民身份的黑中介网络，最终因共谋移民欺诈和签证欺诈被判入狱 10 个月。面对最高法院的裁决挫败，特朗普强硬回应称：“国会今天就应该开始努力终结出生公民权，他们将获得我完全且彻底的支持。”Jason 调侃道，如果去问强硬派幕僚斯蒂芬·米勒（Stephen Miller），米勒可能连现场这三位移民合伙人都不欢迎，但他自己会毫不犹豫地再次放他们入境。对此，Sacks 和 Chamath 立即打断反击，强调他们是通过正规渠道来美的“合法移民”，二者有天壤之别。 辩论随后聚焦在极端案例与现实困境的碰撞上。Sacks 指出，一名怀胎九月的非法移民越过边境生下孩子，婴儿立刻获得美国公民身份，这种机制在法理和常识上都极难自洽，全球几乎没有任何其他主流国家实行如此宽松的政策。Jason 则反驳称，边境偷渡生子只是极端个例，更普遍的现实是全美有两三千万非法移民在历届共和党与民主党政府的默许下生活了数十年，他们充当保姆、园丁，为美国繁荣辛勤付出。如果一对非法滞留二十年的夫妇在美生子，难道要把孩子驱逐出境？Sacks 坚称，第十四修正案的唯一初衷是保护被解放黑奴子女的权利，根本未曾设想今天的大规模非法移民局面；最高法院将出生公民权判定为宪法权利，反而彻底剥夺了国会根据现实制定细化法律的空间。当 Jason 追问 Chamath 对此有何个人立场时，Chamath 则十分坦诚地耸了耸肩表示：“我还没仔细想过这个问题。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 出生公民权法理与现实分歧 accDescr: 展示最高法院判决对国会立法权的限制及各方争议核心 subgraph SCOTUS["最高法院裁决影响"] A["第十四修正案解释"] --> B["宪法层级赋予出生公民权"] B --> C["国会丧失立法裁量空间<br/>（修宪门槛极高）"] end subgraph RealWorld["现实应用冲突"] D["极端/滥用情形:<br/>跨境赴美生子、临盆偷渡"] E["长期居留群体:<br/>在美辛勤工作数十年家庭"] end C -.-> D C -.-> E ``` --- ### [01:03:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=3795s) 第十四修正案的初衷：原意主义与文本主义之争 Friedberg 随后介入讨论，梳理了第十四修正案通过时的核心历史文献。他援引了当年修正案起草人之一、参议员雅各布·霍华德（Jacob Howard）在国会辩论中的原始发言记录：该条款适用于“所有出生于合众国管辖范围内的人”，但明确排除了外国公使、大使及外交使团人员的子女。Friedberg 指出，修正案在 1868 年通过时的历史背景完全是为了纠正内战前的司法错误，确保新获得自由的奴隶及其后代拥有平等的公民权，当时根本没有任何人预见到未来会出现跨越大洋的大规模跨国移民或现代边境移民浪潮。 这种历史断层引发了最高法院内部长期存在的“文本主义”（Textualism）与“原意主义”（Intentionalism）之争。文本主义只关注法条文字的平义字面内涵，而原意主义则力图探究立宪者在当时语境下的真实立法意图。Friedberg 明确给出了自己的改良主张：出生公民权应当仅赋予给“美国合法居民（Legal Residents）”的子女，无论父母是否已拥有公民身份。他以自身早年持有绿卡的移民经历为例解释道，一个仅持有短期旅游签证度个周末的访客，或者非法入境者，根本不属于合法居民，其子女绝不应自动获得国籍；但如果是通过合法途径获得永久居留权（绿卡）的家庭，其在美出生的孩子享有公民权则是合情合理的。 - **法理争论焦点**： - **文本主义（Textualism）**：依据法条字面“受其管辖”（subject to the jurisdiction thereof）的表述，将所有在美出生者涵盖在内。 - **原意主义（Intentionalism）**：主张该条款仅针对摆脱奴役的黑人后代，未包含非居民或非法入境者。 - **居留身份层级划分**： - **合法永久居民（绿卡持有者）**：承担纳税与长久居留责任，其子女理应享有出生公民权。 - **临时访客与非法滞留者**：非合法长期居民，不应享有该宪法特权的溢出效应。 --- ### [01:06:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=4000s) 德雷德·斯科特案的历史梦魇与当代公民权制度的困局 Jason 对 Friedberg 的清晰阐述表示认可，但坚持认为美国社会对那批长期生活在本土的非法移民负有不可推卸的道德与伦理责任。他强调，过去几十年美国为了追求低廉的劳动力成本，两党特别是推崇自由贸易与北美自由贸易协定（NAFTA）的共和党人，实际上对廉价劳动力大开绿灯，是美国系统性地“招手放他们进来”。这些移民默默承受了低收入劳作并支撑了美国经济，如今在边境全面收紧之后，应当给予无犯罪记录的长期非法移民及其子女合法化的通道，以弥补过去的政策过失。 Sacks 则进一步挖掘历史，向众人剖析了第十四修正案所要纠正的司法灾难——1857 年臭名昭著的“德雷德·斯科特诉桑福德案”（Dred Scott v. Sandford）。该判决被公认为美国最高法院历史上最恶劣的裁决，时任首席大法官罗杰·托尼（Roger Taney）在判词中写下了极其刺眼的种族主义言论，宣称黑人“没有任何白人必须尊重的权利”（had no rights which the white man was bound to respect），裁定无论自由黑人还是黑奴都绝非美国公民，无权在联邦法院提起诉讼。更致命的是，该判决推翻了维持南北平衡数十年的《密苏里妥协案》（Missouri Compromise），剥夺了国会在新领地禁止奴隶制的权力，直接沦为三年后南北战争爆发的关键导火索。Sacks 强调，第十四修正案是一场血腥内战后专门用来埋葬这一耻辱裁决的产物，其崇高的平权初衷与如今外国游客“度个周末生个孩子”顺手套取国籍的荒谬现象存在巨大的时代鸿沟。在节目的最后，话题顺势转向当前的边境现实，主持人们感叹，如今特朗普能够迅速有效封锁边境，恰恰证明了过去几年非法越境潮泛滥完全是拜登政府不作为的政治选择。 ### [01:10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=4200s) 边境管控降温与西方国家的文化同化危机 Jason 开门见山地指出，过去一年关于移民执法局（ICE）激进驱逐手段的争论在全美撕裂了社会。他自己曾强烈抨击那种残忍冷酷的执法方式，但近期特朗普政府明显缓和了手段，原因在于皮尤研究中心（Pew Research）等民调数据显示，过于暴力的驱逐政策在民意上极不受欢迎。现在边境已经收紧，ICE 的激进行动也告一段落，整个局势进入了一种相对平静的“相持阶段”（holding pattern）。Jason 认为特朗普此举非常明智，虽然动作稍显迟缓，但他随即向 Chamath 抛出核心问题：随着移民话题不再处于沸腾状态，展望 2027 至 2029 年，美国作为一个国家究竟该追求怎样的合法移民蓝图？ Chamath 从根本性的文化认同切入，直言西方国家目前正在失去让自身独一无二的文化特质，而这种衰退是非常危险的。他结合自己的亲身经历现身说法：当年父母带他移居加拿大并定居下来时，无论是有意还是无意，他们都做出了一个明确的抉择——首先成为一名加拿大人，其次才是一个恰好拥有斯里兰卡血统的人；而当他自己来到美国时，更是做出了极其明确的决断，即优先成为一名美国人，其次是加拿大背景，斯里兰卡血统则排在第三位。Chamath 尖锐地指出：“如果你在移民政策上让步妥协，你就是在放弃并出卖自己的文化。”人们有责任去维护让这个国家立足的独有核心价值观。放眼大西洋对岸的英国、德国和法国，只要问一句“这些国家脱离原有文化的偏离，究竟是让它们变得更好还是更糟？”，答案显然是普遍变糟了。因此，合理的移民政策必须兼具同情心与清晰的底线——移民来这里必须是为了融入“美国理想”与美国文化，而不是把母国的那一套完全照搬移植过来，“同化（assimilation）是健康移民体系中不可或缺的基石”。 ### [01:12:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=4367s) 创造者 vs 索取者：以工作与生产力重塑移民框架 面对欧洲因接纳大量拒绝同化的群体而引发的社会危机，Jason 转向 David Friedberg 询问破局之道。Friedberg 认为这个问题其实有一个极其简单而清晰的答案，那就是重回“创造者与索取者”（makers vs. takers）的根本框架。如果一个人来美国的主要动力是为了获取福利支票、社会服务和政府救济，那么这种人应当被坚决拒之门外；相反，如果一个人的核心动力是渴望工作、渴望自我提升、成为创造价值的建设者，希望通过劳动赚取收入、积累资本、置办资产，以此改善被母国暴政所剥夺的家庭境遇，那么美国就应该向他们敞开大门。 Friedberg 强调了一个许多人抗拒承认但不可否认的经济学真相：移民并非零和博弈。大众总错误地以为放人进来会抢夺本土饭碗，但实质上，任何生产率高于其自身消耗的个体都会驱动整体经济扩张，进而创造出更多就业机会。与 Chamath 强调文化定义不同，Friedberg 主张建立一套纯粹基于经济行为的筛选机制：“你来这里是为了领救济，还是为了努力工作？”只要一个人愿意工作、创造、发挥个体能动性并在这个社会中进取，他自然而然就会认同并拥抱建国先辈所立下的美国理想，因为这正是美利坚精神的本质所在。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 移民筛选与经济贡献逻辑图 accDescr: 展示申请人动机如何决定其移民审批结果以及对整体经济与文化同化的下游影响 subgraph Motivation["入境核心动机"] direction TB A["申请人动机评估"] --> B["索取者 (Takers)<br>追求福利、救济、公共支持"] A --> C["创造者 (Makers)<br>追求工作、积累资本、家庭发展"] end subgraph Outcome["审批与下游效应"] direction TB B --> D["拒绝入境 / 签证审核驳回"] C --> E["批准合法入境并允许工作"] E --> F["产生正向经济盈余<br>(价值创造 > 资源消耗)"] F --> G["驱动整体经济扩张<br>自发融入美式勤劳价值观"] end ``` ### [01:14:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=4488s) 积分制移民体系与人才争夺的零和博弈 紧接着，Jason 提出可以借鉴加拿大、澳大利亚和新西兰等成熟民主国家的“积分制移民系统”（point-based system）。在边境审核时，申请人是否能说流利的英语、是否了解美国的政治制度与文化背景，都应该成为加分项。针对这些有能力的人群，可以先发放有条件、有期限的临时签证，考核指标非常明确：不犯罪、不蹭福利与公共保障体系，并且切实为社会创造就业机会。作为一名已经在这片土地上繁衍了七八代的本土美国人，Jason 盛赞眼前的几位伙伴：“在我的美国里，像埃隆·马斯克、David Friedberg、David Sacks 和 Chamath Palihapitiya 这样的人才，来多少我们收多少，我们应该主动在全球疯狂招募他们。”在全球激烈竞争的格局下，美国每从南非、斯里兰卡或任何国家挖来一位顶尖人才，不仅是美国的巨大收获，更是对中国、伊朗等竞争对手在人才层面的沉重打击。 随后，Jason 戏谑地调侃 David Sacks，称三年后当他出任“J.D. 万斯（JD Vance）白宫幕僚长”时，打算如何在竞选周期中向万斯进言以争取中间派选民。Sacks 当场否认自己会去当官，但随即拿出了详实的民调数据来分析政策空间： - **全面封锁边境**：在美国拥有压倒性的民间共识，绝大多数人都支持杜绝非法入境；唯有极少数民主党社会主义者（DSA）偏执狂还在叫嚣“开放边境、废除 ICE、全面特赦”。 - **针对非法移民驱逐的民意分布（皮尤数据）**： - **32%** 的美国成年人支持驱逐境内“所有”非法移民； - **51%** 的人支持驱逐“部分”非法移民，且该群体内部几乎一致支持优先遣返任何犯下暴力犯罪的人员； - 仅有 **16%**（极左 DSA 群体）主张“一个都不驱逐”。 ### [01:17:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=4635s) 埃利斯岛模式的启示：福利冻结期与经济贡献积分 Sacks 赞同 Friedberg 关于利益机制的见解，并以美国历史上的“埃利斯岛（Ellis Island）时代”作为对照。当年美国对移民极度包容开放，但抵达埃利斯岛的移民中，有整整三分之一最终选择自愿返回母国（另有 2% 因健康或犯罪问题被直接遣返）。原因在于当年根本没有任何社会福利网，混不下去的人自然会离开。反观拜登执政时期，非法越境者只需要在手机上下个 App，就能直接领取按月发放的福利，甚至被安排入住豪华酒店、享受免费巴士和全美范围的免费机票，这种荒谬的现状必须彻底终止。 对此，Jason 与 Sacks 探讨了具体的制度设计方案： - **福利绝对冻结期**：任何持签证入境者，在最初的 5 年内设立绝对排他期，严禁使用任何救济系统或社会保障基金，一分钱公共资源都不能碰。 - **设立明确的经济贡献门槛**：为创业者和高技术人才设立快速通道（Goalposts）。例如，来自乌克兰的 AI 开发者团队或伊朗的杰出创业者，如果能在入境时获得 600 万美元的风险投资，或者为本地创造了 1000 万美元的经济产值，就可以直接插队到移民审批队伍的最前列；创造 500 万美元产值的紧随其后。通过设置这样具体的经济指标，在关闭非法偷渡漏洞并平息极端情绪后，美国才能真正把全世界最顶尖的创造者、开发者与建设者统统收入囊中。 ### [01:20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=4800s) 民主党内的极左抬头与加利福尼亚州的“预算骗局” 节目在对极左思潮的激烈抨击中拉开这部分讨论。几位主持人谈到民主党正被“疯子”和极左翼逐步接管，甚至半开玩笑地表示“如果他们接管了民主党，那我只能加入共和党了”。科罗拉多州一位任职 30 年、连任 15 届的资深民主党众议员在初选中输给了一名 DSA（美国民主社会主义者联盟）候选人。这证明极左势力的崛起已经不仅限于纽约，社会主义思潮正在各大蓝营城市攻城略地。尽管 Ro Khanna 等人紧跟党内基层情绪，但在全美大选层面，靠吸食共产主义或社会主义的“政治芬太尼/脱氧麻黄碱”来获取短暂的支持率暴涨，无异于饮鸩止渴；这种激进路线会彻底赶走所有中间派和理性选民，导致民主党在全美范围内自取灭亡。 随后话题转入本期重点：加州州长加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）宣称实现了一份“平衡预算”。纽森向公众宣称，加州通过了一项 3510 亿美元、号称到 2028 年保持“零赤字”的平衡预算案。对此，主持人调侃请出坚守在加州“资本家避难所”的 David Friedberg，由他系统性拆解加州真实而危险的财政状况——即所谓的“加州现状（State of the State）”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 加利福尼亚州财政恶性循环 accDescr: 展示加州由于开支膨胀、税基流失和会计掩盖导致的恶性财政闭环 subgraph 财政恶化驱动因素 A["预算开支暴增<br/>(2019年2150亿 ➔ 3550亿)"] --> B["靠会计障眼法与发债填坑<br/>(借入200亿~400亿美元债务)"] B --> C["高税负向下挤压普通人<br/>(8%软件销售税 / 医疗保险附加税)"] end subgraph 税基流失与债务悬崖 D["顶级富豪与核心企业外迁<br/>(前1%缴纳50%所得税 / 2100+大中企业流失)"] --> E["未来长期赤字飙升<br/>(预计每年赤字400亿美元)"] E --> F["万亿级未拨备隐性债务<br/>(加州规则保障养老金优先于债券清偿)"] end C --> D F --> G["联邦被迫救助与分裂危机<br/>(红州拒绝买单引发宪政动荡)"] ``` --- ### [01:21:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=4890s) 膨胀的开支、会计障眼法与极度脆弱的税收集中度 Friedberg 将加州正在发生的危机归纳为五个核心章节：开支恶性膨胀、会计障眼法掩盖亏空、极度依赖极少数高收入人群的税收结构、正在发生的大规模人口与企业大逃亡，以及潜伏在水面下的天量未拨备负债。在纽森准备结束其州长任期、宣称一切大好并挂上漂亮蝴蝶结之时，这栋大楼实际上正在熊熊燃烧。 在短短六年内，加州的州预算从 2019 年的 2150 亿美元一路狂飙至如今的 3550 亿美元，涨幅高达惊人的 65%。商业世界中所称的“收支平衡”，是指在损益表（P&L）上营业收入能够覆盖营业支出；然而加州政客口中的平衡预算，实质上是支出早已远远超过正常收入，中间存在 200 亿至 400 亿美元的巨大亏空。州政府通过法定财权大举借债来填平这个窟窿，再将借债粉饰为平衡预算，最终将沉重的偿债负担甩给加州纳税人。 更致命的是加州高度脆弱的收入依赖模式： - **个税极度依赖极少数富豪**：加州目前最高个人所得税税率高达 14.4%，全美之最。州财政 2100 亿美元的总税收中，个人所得税占到了 1420 亿美元；而全州最富有的 1% 人口（约 15 万人）缴纳了其中一半的个税（700 亿美元），贡献了州总收入的三分之一。全州财富排名前 1000 位的人每年纳税约 220 亿美元，仅这千人就撑起了加州 11% 以上的财政收入。 - **高企的企业所得税**：加州的企业所得税率达到 8.9%（贡献 430 亿美元税收），相比之下，佛罗里达州为 5.5%，田纳西州为 6.5%，德克萨斯州更是为 0%。高昂的税负驱动企业和资本以不可逆的势头逃离加州。 --- ### [01:25:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=5100s) 税基大出逃、全民加税狂潮与撕裂联邦的隐性债务悬崖 伴随惩罚性的高税率，加州正在上演前所未有的出逃潮。自 2019 年以来，至少有 15 家财富 1500 强企业的总部迁出加州，超过 2100 家大中型企业彻底搬离，直接导致加州流失了至少 5% 的工作岗位。与此同时，更危险且鲜为人知的指标是：加州的调整后总收入（AGI）正以每年 1% 到 1.5% 的速度向外净流失。十年累计下来，全州已有约 15% 的应税收入永久离境。随着加州还在酝酿“富豪税”，包括现场嘉宾 David Sacks 以及大量高净值人士都在 2025 至 2026 年间选择离开。 为了填补富人和企业外迁造成的财政黑洞，加州政客开始将税收屠刀挥向普通中产与大众阶层： - **新增软件与数字服务销售税**：今年起对软件产品开征 8% 的销售税，无论是购买 Microsoft Office、支付 Gmail 订阅，还是付费订阅 ChatGPT，都要额外缴纳 8% 的税款，预计每年从大众口袋中搜刮约 10 亿美元。 - **医疗保险附加税**：针对企业医疗保险开征新税，最终全额转嫁给普通员工，带来每年约 20 亿美元的税收增量。 - **临时税永久化**：原本在 2012 年设立用于紧急纾困的临时性 13.3% 最高个税税阶被永久固定，并进一步抬升至 14.4%。 尽管疯狂搜刮，加州在 2028 至 2029 财年及以后的预计年度结构性赤字仍高达 400 亿美元。雪上加霜的是水面下的天量未拨备负债： - 加州目前已拥有 1.4 万亿美元的公共债务（州政府约 5000 亿美元，地方政府约 8000 亿美元）。 - 官方报告的未拨备养老金负债为 6640 亿美元，但业内实际测算已接近 1.5 万亿美元。 - 退休人员医疗福利资金缺口高达 1750 亿美元。 各项汇总，隐性负债总额已逼近 2 万亿至 2.5 万亿美元。更严峻的是，受制于著名的“加州规则（California Rule）”，这些高达万亿美元的工会养老金负债在受偿序列上甚至优先于加州发行的各类州政府债券。 Friedberg 尖锐地指出，纽森绝不是体面退场，而是将加州推向违约深渊。由于州政府在法律上无法申请破产保护，加州未来几年极有可能被迫寻求联邦政府的全面救助。这将成为引爆美利坚合众国分裂的火药桶：当联邦政府试图动用全国公帑来吸收并救助加州数万亿美元的巨额债务时，以德克萨斯州为代表的红州选民和纳税人必然会爆发激烈抗议：“凭什么用我们的税款去填补深蓝州因为疯狂浪费而欠下的万亿窟窿？”如果未来 AOC（Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez）等激进左翼登上执政舞台并强行推进加州债务联邦化，各红州必将被逼向退群乃至脱离联邦（Secession）的宪政危机边缘。 ### [01:30:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=5400s) 加州破产阴影、养老金暴雷与蓝州治理危机 Chamath Palihapitiya 赞同 David Friedberg 的分析逻辑，但认为联邦政府不会全盘吸收加州的烂摊子，最终更可能的结局是加州养老金和债务偿付义务被直接赖账、大幅减记，并通过多方谈判达成债务重组。他预测，危机爆发将迫使加州彻底重写州宪法并重划选区，甚至可能在全州掀起一场席卷一切的“红潮”（Red Wave），彻底拆解摧毁长期以来将加州推向深渊的管理体制。Chamath 提到前伊利诺伊州众议员 Jeanne Ives 发出的一条推文，对比了佛罗里达州州长罗恩·德桑蒂斯（Ron DeSantis）与伊利诺伊州州长 J.B. 普利兹克（J.B. Pritzker）执政八年的成绩单；他让团队把加州州长加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）的数据也加入对比表中，结果令人震惊：这些蓝州在过去数年里试图用疯狂借贷和支出掩盖赤裸裸的管理无能，既不会运营体系，也交不出像样的政绩，而最终被系统性惩罚的，正是那些勤恳纳税的普通民众。如果让 AI 对比佛州与伊州、加州的治理光谱，加州在绝大多数核心指标上甚至比破败的伊利诺伊州还要糟糕。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 蓝州治理恶性循环与潜在崩盘路径 accDescr: 展示蓝州高福利高税收导致赤字、继而加税并面临破产重组与养老金违约的推演路径。 subgraph BlueStateCrisis["加州与蓝州财政恶化机制"] A["无节制预算支出与机构膨胀"] --> B["庞大隐性养老金负债"] B --> C["财政面临巨额赤字"] C --> D["推动激进财富税（如 BTA 提案）"] end subgraph HardLanding["最终硬着陆结局预测"] D --> E["企业与高净值富豪加速逃离"] E --> F["加州陷入技术性破产"] F --> G["养老金违约与债务重组谈判"] G --> H["州宪法重置与选区全面重构"] end ``` David Sacks 随后发言，直言自己搬迁至得克萨斯州的决定看起来越来越有先见之明。针对加州选民联署的《亿万富翁税法案》（Billionaire Tax Act, 简称 BTA），早前硅谷很多人天真地以为这只是极低概率事件、根本过不了签名门槛，或者笃信纽森会在幕后交易中将其扼杀。然而到了法案决定是否上选票的最后关头，纽森却在 X 上发布视频，含蓄地为针对亿万富翁征税背书，这恰逢纽约州民主社会主义者（DSA）候选人胜选之后。Sacks 指出，加州历史上曾因硅谷带来的庞大税基多次坐拥巨额预算盈余，只要稍有规划即可实现自给自足，但政客的贪婪、自私与无能葬送了一切。他警告，寄希望于加州变红来拯救一切完全是不切实际的幻想；现实是加州只会变得更“极左”，以更多的社会主义政策去解决社会主义制造的灾难，最终演变为一场彻底的资产大剥夺，并在未来十年内引发彻底的破产与养老金减记。 - Jeanne Ives 在对比德桑蒂斯与普利兹克执政八年数据的推文中，直观展现了佛罗里达与深蓝州在财政纪律和就业吸引力上的巨大鸿沟。 - 若 BTA 法案通过且未被其他竞选议案阻断，势必引发两三百起个人诉讼，可能耗费长达十年（直到 2036 年前后）并在最高法院经历漫长法律拉锯，耗费数以十亿计的公共诉讼开支。 - Sacks 强调：加州曾拥有全美最强大的科技税收机器，如果连加州都无法平衡预算，纯粹是政客的腐败与管理失能所致。 --- ### [01:35:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=5700s) 人均公共开支对比、左派叙事本质与纽森政治前景暴跌 Jason Calacanis 列举了各州人均公共服务开支数据：得克萨斯州和佛罗里达州每位公民每年的政府服务开支大约仅为 5,000 美元，加州接近 9,000 美元，而纽约市更是逼近 13,000 美元；然而多掏出两倍到两倍半资金的蓝州居民，在基础设施与治安上却得不到任何对应的优质服务，问题反而比比皆是。Jason 强调，得州居民崇尚开拓者精神（Rugged Individualism）与自力更生，买了农场就自己解决打井、供水、能源与垃圾清运，绝不指望政府包办一切，因此无需承担畸高税率。他警告 Chamath 与 Friedberg，如果继续留在加州，未来综合所得税率极大概率会被推向 60% 至 65%；而纽约市眼下最高税率已达 54%，在激进政客主政下极可能继续上冲。Sacks 犀利地将当代左派思潮形容为“一群打字机前的猴子在拼凑词汇”，不断发明“道德谴责”、“虚伪的美德绑架（Virtue Signaling）”和“内疚感勒索”，其核心目的只有一个：通过玩弄语言黑客技术来合法抢劫公众财产，但从不解决任何实际问题。Sacks 还讽刺道，麦肯齐·斯科特（MacKenzie Scott）将从杰夫·贝索斯（Jeff Bezos）那里分得的巨额财富中捐出 260 亿美元给各类左翼非营利组织（NGO），但当年批评人士声称只要埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）交出这些钱就能“彻底解决全球饥饿”，现实中世界饥饿不仅没被解决，大量善款反而沦为豢养各类激进 NGO 人员买房拿高薪的工具。 谈及加文·纽森在预测市场 Polymarket 上获得 2028 年民主党总统提名的概率，其胜率已从 40% 的峰值一路暴跌至 20%。大家认为，不仅普通大众看透了他空有一头靓丽发型和油嘴滑舌的说辞，更致命的是整个民主党的基本盘正在激进左倾，全面倒向美国民主社会主义者（DSA）路线——亚历山德里亚·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯（AOC）和乔恩·奥索夫（Jon Ossoff）等更左翼的政客正在迅速上位，纽森反而被党内极左翼嫌弃过于温和。这正是为何纽森在 BTA 议题上陷入尴尬的“既要又要”：他一边在视频中对加征财富税大抛媚眼以迎合极左，一边又试图声称反对该具体法案，这种骑墙表态彻底暴露了他的投机与无力，把原本指望他担任保护伞的硅谷富豪们晾在了一边。 | 地区 | 人均年度公共支出 | 治理模式与税收压力特征 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **得克萨斯州 / 佛罗里达州** | 约 $5,000 / 人 | 崇尚自力更生与小政府，低税率，避免依赖公共兜底 | | **加利福尼亚州** | 接近 $9,000 / 人 | 机构冗余但公共治理崩溃，税率被预测将冲向 60%-65% | | **纽约市** | 接近 $13,000 / 人 | 巨额官僚开支与 NGO 寄生，税率已达 54% 且仍有加税冲动 | - 麦肯齐·斯科特累计捐赠了超过 260 亿美元，但各项受捐社会议题并未取得任何可见进展，反而凸显出庞大官僚与 NGO 体系对资本的无效吞噬。 - Polymarket 2028 民主党总统候选人预测走势显示，纽森因夹在温和中间派与极左激进派之间而两头不讨好，政治支持率遭遇重创。 --- ### [01:40:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=6000s) 独立日深情寄语与节目搞笑收尾 因时差原因，身在异地的 Sacks 表示自己当地时间已是晚上 8:06，必须赶去参加接下来的重要会议。在临别前，他真情流露地向全美表达了独立日祝贺，动情地直言：“如果生活在其他任何地方，我无法想象自己的人生会像今天这般美好。能够成为一名美国人，我深感幸运与感激。这确实是世界上最伟大的国家，我们必须全力为之奋斗。” Jason 随即开启老友间无厘头的斗嘴，打趣称自己这代人已经在美洲大陆扎根了七代，鉴于 Sacks 表现不错就大发慈悲“准许他继续留在这片土地”，并调侃要找条宪法漏洞或利用《敌对外国人法案》（Alien Enemies Act）想办法吊销 Jason 自己的国籍把大家全驱逐出境。四位老友在互相插科打诨中祝贺美国迎来又一个独立日，并豪言期待未来 250 年的辉煌繁荣，同时狂喷激进的“民主社会主义极左混蛋”。在录音切断前的标志性片尾花絮中，伴随着欢快的背景音乐与“Let your winners ride”经典切片，老友们高呼“Queen of Quinoa”、“All-In”等经典烂梗，热闹地为本期节目画上了句号。 - Sacks 发自肺腑赞颂美国是“世界上最不可思议的国家”，强调自由与繁荣绝非理所当然，需要代代人挺身守护。 - 节目在对美国建国 250 周年周期的期许与 Besties 标志性的插科打诨中欢乐落幕。 ## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=0s) 说我们的客户对前沿大模型实验室感到不满，简直就像说我在伯克利教职工大会上受尽欢迎一样轻描淡写——那是一种根深蒂固的不适与信任瓦解。我私下里最喜欢跟达里奥辩论，我不是在针对萨姆或达里奥个人，但现在的局势确实完全走样了。全美企业普遍的想法是：我在这里优哉游哉地浪费时间调用 Token，自己捞不到任何实质价值，核心知识产权全被他们吸走了。当国防部找上门说‘我需要这个军事应用’时，到底是谁来控制模型权重？是军方，还是这帮大模型公司？我们难道真要把这个国家的战场控制权，外包给硅谷的那帮主流共识精英吗？这简直荒谬透顶！ — Alex Karp > [15:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=900s) 天下没有免费的披萨，也没有免费的啤酒。 — Jason Calacanis > [33:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=2032s) 告诉全世界 AI 正在剥夺和摧毁工作，这完全是一个骗局（absolute scam）。 — David Friedberg > [35:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=2100s) 你完全是在胡扯，因为这种事根本没有发生！告诉我哪家企业把客服团队全关了？这事现在和我们同在一个房间里吗？证据到底在哪？ — David Friedberg > [35:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=2100s) 消费者更喜欢直接跟完美的 AI 对话。在旧金山等 Waymo 投放超过数百辆车的城市，Uber 和 Waymo 已经停止招募司机，司机数量不是持平就是在下降。这不是对未来的预测，你去问问 Waymo、Uber 和 Lyft 的 CEO，他们都会明确告诉你！ — Jason Calacanis > [35:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=2100s) 你这是在诡辩！上次我们在台上专访 Uber 的 CEO Dara Khosrowshahi 时，他亲口表示由于外卖配送等业务带来的生产力提升，Uber 平台上的工作机会和司机实际行驶里程反而在增加！ — David Friedberg & Chamath Palihapitiya > [46:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=2818s) 这是它有史以来最笨拙的一刻，未来只会越来越强 — Jason Calacanis > [50:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=3000s) 感谢您在此事上的通力合作，部长先生！ — Tom Brown > [57:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=3452s) 无论过去还是现在，公民权就是拥有权利的权利，我们今天恪守这一宪法承诺 — John Roberts > [01:00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=3600s) 国会今天就应该开始努力终结出生公民权，他们将获得我完全且彻底的支持。 — Donald Trump > [01:10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=4200s) 如果你在移民政策上让步妥协，你就是在放弃并出卖自己的文化。 — Chamath Palihapitiya > [01:40:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q&t=6000s) 如果生活在其他任何地方，我无法想象自己的人生会像今天这般美好。能够成为一名美国人，我深感幸运与感激。这确实是世界上最伟大的国家，我们必须全力为之奋斗。 — David Sacks ## Mentioned Palantir, NVIDIA, Alex Karp, Nemotron, CNBC, Anthropic, Dario Amodei, Sam Altman, Figma, Claude Design, Cursor, Claude Code, Claude Science, Claude Security, Claude Legal, Claude Financial, David Sacks, Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Friedberg, 8090, BCG, Qu Xiaoyin, Claude Opus 4.8, OpenRouter, Ohalo, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, GLM, Abacus, Apple, Evernote, CoreWeave, Colossus, AMD, Elon Musk, Jensen Huang, Ramp, Revelio Labs, Klarna, Brett Adcock, Figure, Tesla, Optimus, Jeff Bezos, Andy Jassy, Amazon, FedEx, Howard Lutnick, Fable 5, Mythos, SK Telecom, Tom Brown, DeepSeek, Kimi, John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Dongyuan Li, Stephen Miller, Jacob Howard, Roger Taney, Pew Research, ICE, DSA, Gavin Newsom, AOC, Jeanne Ives, Ron DeSantis, J.B. Pritzker, Polymarket, MacKenzie Scott ## Video description (0:00) Bestie intros: Happy Fourth of July! (0:21) Palantir-Nvidia open source deal, Alex Karp's CNBC "Crashout" (33:52) Update on the AI jobs debate (50:24) Anthropic's Fable 5 available after export restrictions lifted (59:06) SCOTUS upholds birthright citizenship, striking Trump's EO (1:21:30) Newsom's "balanced budget" and how California's dire fiscal situation could break apart the Union Apply for Summit 2026: https://allin.com/events 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/@theallinpod 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://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/palantir-secure-ai-us-agencies-nemotron-open-models https://x.com/PalantirTech/status/2072326189079757277 https://www.theinformation.com/articles/anthropic-blindsides-business-partners?rc=f8fu8f https://www.google.com/finance/quote/FIG:NYSE https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2072673187666813226 https://x.com/chamath/status/2072665199786561713 https://x.com/quxiaoyin/status/2072428278976074115 https://x.com/chamath/status/2072390507628540213 https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/chinese-national-pleads-guilty-running-birth-tourism-scheme-helped-aliens-give-birth-us https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/democratic-socialist-melat-kiros-defeats-longtime-house-incumbent-in-colorado-primary https://x.com/GavinNewsom/status/2070496029280276571 https://www.ocregister.com/2026/02/27/these-charts-show-how-californias-budget-has-skyrocketed https://x.com/JeanneIves/status/2072165726526308719 https://polymarket.com/event/democratic-presidential-nominee-2028 #allin #tech #news [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdxSCsmS-Q)

[0:00] Alex Karp: 说我们的客户对前沿大模型实验室感到不满，简直就像说我在伯克利教职工大会上受尽欢迎一样轻描淡写——那是一种根深蒂固的不适与信任瓦解。我私下里最喜欢跟达里奥辩论，我不是在针对萨姆或达里奥个人，但现在的局势确实完全走样了。全美企业普遍的想法是：我在这里优哉游哉地浪费时间调用 Token，自己捞不到任何实质价值，核心知识产权全被他们吸走了。当国防部找上门说‘我需要这个军事应用’时，到底是谁来控制模型权重？是军方，还是这帮大模型公司？我们难道真要把这个国家的战场控制权，外包给硅谷的那帮主流共识精英吗？这简直荒谬透顶！ [15:00] Jason Calacanis: 天下没有免费的披萨，也没有免费的啤酒。 [33:52] David Friedberg: 告诉全世界 AI 正在剥夺和摧毁工作，这完全是一个骗局（absolute scam）。 [35:00] David Friedberg: 你完全是在胡扯，因为这种事根本没有发生！告诉我哪家企业把客服团队全关了？这事现在和我们同在一个房间里吗？证据到底在哪？ [35:00] Jason Calacanis: 消费者更喜欢直接跟完美的 AI 对话。在旧金山等 Waymo 投放超过数百辆车的城市，Uber 和 Waymo 已经停止招募司机，司机数量不是持平就是在下降。这不是对未来的预测，你去问问 Waymo、Uber 和 Lyft 的 CEO，他们都会明确告诉你！ [35:00] David Friedberg & Chamath Palihapitiya: 你这是在诡辩！上次我们在台上专访 Uber 的 CEO Dara Khosrowshahi 时，他亲口表示由于外卖配送等业务带来的生产力提升，Uber 平台上的工作机会和司机实际行驶里程反而在增加！ [46:58] Jason Calacanis: 这是它有史以来最笨拙的一刻，未来只会越来越强 [50:00] Tom Brown: 感谢您在此事上的通力合作，部长先生！ [57:32] John Roberts: 无论过去还是现在，公民权就是拥有权利的权利，我们今天恪守这一宪法承诺 [60:00] Donald Trump: 国会今天就应该开始努力终结出生公民权，他们将获得我完全且彻底的支持。 [70:00] Chamath Palihapitiya: 如果你在移民政策上让步妥协，你就是在放弃并出卖自己的文化。 [100:00] David Sacks: 如果生活在其他任何地方，我无法想象自己的人生会像今天这般美好。能够成为一名美国人，我深感幸运与感激。这确实是世界上最伟大的国家，我们必须全力为之奋斗。

[0:00] Palantir: Data retention is your treasure. Transfer it at your own peril. [53:30] David Sacks: once a model is open source, it stops being Chinese in a way. [58:12] John Roberts: the right to have rights [61:05] Jacob Howard: not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors. [65:00] Roger Taney: no rights which the white man was bound to respect. [88:13] David Sacks: The remedy for more and more socialism is going to be to intensify the socialism. [91:40] people trying to string together words to justify taking your money

[0:00] All right, everybody, welcome back to the number one podcast in the world. It's your favorite podcast. It's your podcast, your favorite podcast. It's the All In Podcast, episode 279. With me, Friedberg, Sachs, Chamath, you know the squad. You know the squad. We're here. It's the summer, and we're ready to rock and roll. We got a power docket. We got a rocket docket. Palantir and NVIDIA have announced a sovereign AI partnership. Where have we heard that term before? Palantir is going to use NVIDIA's NemoTron, like the Pixar film, open models to build a custom frontier quality model to serve the US government. Palantir is calling this new platform sovereign AI operating system. The US government agencies will own the hardware. The data and the model waits. Palantir also shared a viral tweet manifesto laying out the concept. Data retention is your treasure. Transfer it at your own peril. Transferring that data hands over access to your pre-existing winning plays and yields the means of production for new ones. CEO Alex Karp went on CNBC to announce the partnership in a classic Karp Robin Williams style monologue Here a clip from his 20 minute interview where he basically went after the frontier models like Anthropic Play the clip Our clients are just to say they're unhappy with the frontier labs is to say I'm welcome at the Berkeley faculty. It's like there's just a level of discomfort and loss of trust. Sam and Dario, there's nothing more fun than debating Dario in private. So I'm not throwing shade at them, but something has gone completely wrong. And the basic view among enterprises in this country is I'm going to chillax and waste my time with tokens. I'm going to get no value and they're going to get my IP. When the Department of War goes to you and says, I need this application. Do they get to control the weights to do it or do you get to control the weights? Are we really going to outsource the battlefield of this country to the consensus view in Silicon Valley? That is effing insane. All right. And so some folks refer to this as a televised nervous breakdown. We here at All In call that Alex Karp on a Tuesday. And we talked about this Chamath Sachs Friedberg We talked about this a whole bunch back in february i coined the term intelligence sovereignty here here your victory fat do i want to give all of the secrets in our organization every piece of intellectual property to sam altman who's got to make a billion dollars a year to keep up with his spend right he's going to build every application i've been talking about about AI sovereignty here for a bit, just in terms of how much more cost effective it is, and how you're not training other people's AIs with your knowledge and your insights. This is why it's super important that open source, open source agents and local hardware be able to run these models, and that consumers and companies learn how to roll their own language models. The intelligence sovereignty is different than privacy. Privacy is, oh, you can't see my photos, you can't peek into my notes app and what I wrote there in my journal. Intelligence sovereignty is you can't tell me what to think. You can't use your AI to analyze my photos, to analyze my emails, to analyze my messages, and tell me how to interpret the world. That's actually going to be the next key piece here. All right. And, Sachs, you are in your long post era. Another long post this week from you on this very topic. And obviously as AI czar there for the first half of the Trump administration you have been very involved and very close to this I would love to hear inside I love to hear your take on this and your long posts over 300 words You can follow X.com slash David Sachs, but also like the palace intrigue here and what this means in terms of. The relationship with the government, which we're going to get into in our second story. well look jacal i gotta give you some credit there the first part of your take was spot on after that it was kind of diminishing returns i'm not sure why we had to listen to the next 30 seconds but anyway uh it started off really strong but let's go back to the supposed crash out by carp on cnbc it was nothing of the sort it was all these legacy media types making that claim and that's the first clue that he's actually saying something insightful and maybe kind of And I think the thing that he said that I hadn't really thought about in quite those terms is he started talking about AI safety in the enterprise and what that really looks like. And what he said is that what technical customers want is control over their compute, their models, their data stack, and their alpha, meaning their proprietary knowledge. They want to know they own the means of production, he said, and it's not being transferred to someone else. [5:00] What he's referring to there is that these enterprises are at risk of transferring their knowledge, their know-how, their trade secrets, their customer data to these model providers who might eventually decide to compete with them. Like you said, J-Cal. And you can see that enterprises are waking up to this threat and they're not happy about it. And I think CARP is exactly right about that. Now, I think this is a really interesting take on AI safety because what safety means for an enterprise is, again, that they get to control their own data, their model weights, their compute. So a frontier lab can't hoover up their proprietary knowledge, their alpha, and turn it into their next product. And if you don't think that can happen, just look at what happened to Figma. So according to the information, Anthropic, quote unquote, blindsided its then business partner with the launch of Claude Design. So this was a new vertical app that Anthropic launched to compete in the design category. And Figma's founder said that Anthropic had not been completely honest with them. Anthropic chief product officer had actually even served on Figma board and didn resign until three days before the launch of Claude Design So obviously Figma again felt blindsided by this And you can see the resulting impact on their stock price. Figma's stock has fallen something like 50% this year while Anthropik's valuation has surged. This is not an isolated example. Anthropik has also launched Claude Science, Claude Security, Claude Legal, Claude Financial, and of course, Claude Code. and every single one of these vertical apps expanded into categories that was previously served by companies building on top of Anthropix-owned models. And really, if you want to go back to when Anthropix revenue explosion began, it was with the launch of Claude Code. And how did they launch that product? Because they saw that Cursor was doing extremely well. Cursor was one of their biggest customers. They created the coding assistant first. They created that category. Ananthropic said, oh, like, why don't we vertically integrate? So in other words, they're watching where the value is being created on top of their models, then they're moving in directly. And this is a formula that I think is very Microsoft-like. You could say it's very Google They want to dominate the model layer You could call that the operating system and then use that position that monopolistic position to capture the most lucrative vertical So if you want to think about like the Microsoft example, they had the Windows monopoly, and then systematically they went and dominated every lucrative category of business software. It started with spreadsheets and word processing, and then eventually it went to the browser, so forth and so on. If you want to look at Google, they basically had a monopoly or dominant position in search. And if you go back to the early days of Google, the search results kicked you off site. And in fact, they really prided themselves on how quickly they could send you off site. But gradually over time, they use that traffic to tell themselves where to build properties. And today, fewer than half of searches kick you off site, you stay on Google properties. And I think something similar is happening with Anthropic here, the pattern is clear. They are going to use their dominant position in the model to then grab more and more territory in any interesting and lucrative vertical. So again, back to Alex Karp's point, if you're an enterprise customer or a developer, why in the world would you ever want to share any proprietary data with them? You are mortgaging your future, you're sealing your fate, you are going to lead to disaster for your company Just one last point and I turn it over to J Cal is that Dario at the same time that they pursue this business strategy has been arguing that open source models are dangerous and need to be restricted Well, dangerous to whom? Not to enterprises that want to retain control over their data. It's dangerous to his business model because his business model requires that customers don't have a lot of choice at the model layer. And what Karp is pointing out here is that if you want to have true AI safety, as an enterprise, you have to retain the ability to choose at the model layer who gets to see and use your alpha. Yeah, this is well said. I think you picked that carcass to the bone a bit, but you're actually doing specific examples of this at 8090. You've been testing some of the open source models. I saw you share that on Twitter X. So maybe you could give us a little feedback on what you've learned as the CEO of 8090 and your first-hand experience now with using open source for the first time in the last couple of weeks for this specific use case in enterprises. When you start a company, I mean, you guys all know this, you're not starting it for the moment that exists today. You're almost sort of trying to forecast if such and such a set of things happen, then [10:00] scene that that gets created, because it takes time to build something and it takes time to get enough reps to know what you're doing and you go to market. This for me was the moment that I thought would arrive, which is the point where everybody wakes up and realizes, wait, hold on a second. Two things are true. The first is that my business is complicated. I want AI to be able to accelerate it, but I want to be able to protect myself in doing so. And then the second is I want the flexibility where there's an independent third party control plane that i use to get all these benefits so that i don't leak and seed my advantages away and i think alex is an incredible smart brilliant guy and he completely nailed it and i think he called out on its face the huge risk of this so let me just give you this narrative in three tweets the first one is i read this really interesting study from bcg and what they looked at was the return on capital employed or roce of various businesses and this is what's incredible the cost of capital has now with long rates moved back to what its long average is which is around 8 to 11 What that means is like that is the actual cost that you would borrow money at effectively The problem is that half of large US companies now cannot deliver returns that exceed that. That is a really big problem. And then second, there's a further problem, which is that persistently low returns. So in the one, two, three, four, 5%, percent is about one in seven companies all around the world okay so why is this important to note it means that being in business is complicated it's hard not everything works all the time there's a bunch of underperforming businesses there's a bunch of underperforming segments so in that lens when you you know think about what sac said which is you have this company that comes to you and says i have a magic box and all you have to do is tell me everything you're doing and this magic box will will make everything better. But then all of a sudden, from the shadows, the magic box says, you know what, I've decided to compete with you. That is a huge risk. And now that you've seen enough examples of it, I think you have to figure out a different way to do it. So then you go to the next tweet that I saw, which I thought was interesting. And this is a woman who an ex meta PM And what she essentially says is like hey hold on a second there is this assumption that you can use an open source model because it all Chinese And what she says was, well, even if it's 100x cheaper, and their response is no, because we care about safety and security. And her perspective is, don't you understand that you can actually host open source models with your own GPUs in US data centers that doesn't share any data back to anybody? And instead what you're accidentally or purposefully doing is giving away all your data to a couple of frontier labs rather than owning it privately yourself. And 100x it turns out is a really big number to pay to do all of that by accident. And that's what Alex Karp is saying. He's like, why would anybody do this when there are alternatives? And so the third post that I'll talk about is something that we did. so we took our software factory which is an agnostic third-party control plane and we just wanted to see and we ran it on a very typical enterprise task which is you have an old piece of code you want to migrate it and you want to maintain it in a new framework so that it's easier and more flexible pretty straightforward task and so we ran it and we ran an experiment where we did Then we did Claude by itself Then we did us plus Claude And then we ran it on the best frontier open source model And then us plus that model. And the data is crazy. So when you use our harness with Claude, it was simultaneously 1.4x cheaper and 1.5x faster than just using Ampropic Opus 4.8 alone. But if you wrap the open source model with our software factory, it was 16.4x cheaper. Now it was three times slower. But you know, you're talking about a couple of extra hours to save 16.4x. So that one the slowness Chamath is that slowness because of the hardware being served up by Claude or is it this open router? No, this was all using open router on a very traditional hardware stack. So look, I think the reality is, could that be optimized even further? Absolutely. But my point is, if you take Sachs's points and then if you take Alex Karp's point and just this actual data, there is a very legitimate question, which is if you are a reasonable company, why are you not finding an independent way to access this intelligence in a way that doesn't leak your edge away? To do so at this point now is kind of [15:00] being derelict and irresponsible. Back then, you could be experimenting because you didn't know any better. But now when you know all of these data points, to continue to make the same decision, I think is really insanely dumb. All right, Dave Friedberg, you are also a CEO of the surging Ohalo. And you have a lot of proprietary data. Let me ask you point blank, do you trust your data to the frontier model companies? Or are you doing what there seems to be consensus here, protecting your data, protecting the crown jewels, so to speak, and using open source? Are you experimenting with it? And just yes or no, do you trust the frontier models with Ohalo's data? So I'll tell you, there's been an effort by Anthropik to go around and sign up life sciences companies to contributing to a new life sciences focused model. That effort has been they're approaching these large companies with large proprietary data sets and saying, hey, if you share your data, we will give you early access, some sort of proprietary value, sign this NDA, and you can participate with us. And I think nearly everyone I've spoken with has woken up to the fact that they are basically trying to commoditize everyone business Because fundamentally if all of the tens of billions of dollars you as a life sciences company have invested in experiments and product development, and you've generated all of this proprietary data along the way, that data is a true asset of your organization. It's an asset that you've spent billions of dollars developing. And by handing it over to a model company to then combine with other people's data, you are effectively commoditizing the asset that you have, the one kind of core differentiation that you have. And so everyone is largely saying no. The way I see this evolving is very much in line with what Alex Karp suggested on CNBC. If you go back a couple of years, I think we all assumed there was going to be this large hub, large spoke model for AI model development and deployment, meaning there would be these very large clusters. These large clusters would be ultimately capital advantaged. So those who had the most capital, which is why everyone's raised tens and hundreds of billions of dollars, would be able to train models. And then there would be these large spokes, these large clusters for deploying those models with inference. So everyone's using the neoclouds and the hyperscalers and whatnot to run models And then maybe they got their own proprietary data layer that sits in front of that But I think what everyone realizing is they better off developing their own weights and their own models using either an open source basis, or there might be some intermediary business model that evolves, meaning there will end up being several large hubs that do all of the core foundational model development, then smaller hubs, meaning like clusters for training, that enterprises will use to train and develop their own proprietary advantaged models using their own data. And then there will be these much more distributed spokes, because I think everyone's also realizing the value of on-prem by putting a set of servers and building a cluster in your own data center, or even in your own enterprise, you know, IT closet, you can run a lot of the workflows that you're using AI for for your enterprise locally. And so I think the model is shifting where we're going from large hubs, large spokes, to large hubs, medium hubs, and then a distributed spoke model where there will still be, you know, neoclouds and hyperscalers that are being used for inference, but people will also have their own inference instances that they going to run for their own enterprise setting And everyone I think is walking this path and they going to walk this path over the next couple of months because they realizing quite quickly that in order to compete in a world of commoditizing knowledge and commoditizing capabilities you have to leverage the core differentiating assets that you have which means you have to build your own models and you will likely end up having to run your own inference with your own proprietary models Yeah, and to just give a little bit of texture to how that's going to look, if you follow the Microsoft example, which we've talked about here before, Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect, where their partners, they were replaced with Excel, they were replaced, obviously, with Microsoft Word. You don't even know those other two, WordPerfect, WordStar, Lotus123, FisiCalc. That's exactly what they have to do. And they have no choice but to do that now because they have a trillion-dollar market cap. They must win the application layer. And Sam Altman went to Y Combinator, and he said, we'll give you $2 million worth of free tokens. And I came out, and I said, listen, there's nothing personal against Sam. Sam's a very aggressive dealmaker, and he wants to get access to those startups because he knows having run Y Combinator that if he can get their innovations, those founders latest thoughts about what's around the corner, he can incorporate them into the platform. There is no free pizza, there's no free beer. [20:00] Sam Altman comes to you and says, here's some free tokens. Your alarm should go up. Zuckerberg did the same thing. He said, hey, I'm going to give people a bunch of access, going to give them money. Come to the Facebook platform. Nobody who went to bed with Microsoft in the 80s, Facebook in the 2000s, or Sam Altman now in the 2020s did not wake up with their throats lit. This is a message to founders. If you partner with any of these people, they will slit your throat and take your business wholesale. There is nothing to discuss here. Don't trust them. use your own models. I don't think I think I think it's less Sam and open AI, to be honest, I think that the diversity of open AI in terms of its revenue streams, and specifically its consumer business, may actually be its savior in a relative value basis right now. Open AI equity, I think is more reasonably priced than anthropic equity. And the reason is not because of the quality of the models or the teams because they're both excellent teams. But the reason is that OpenAI can fall back on a really healthy consumer business. Sure. The difficulty that Anthropic is going to face is that I think what Sack said is true, that they have lost this fundamental trust about being able to stay within their sandbox and if you consistently demonstrate this tendency to learn and then to try to disrupt your host organism eventually you get sort of pigeonholed and you get cornered and people find ways to work around it and so look i sent that text that i had about the or that post that i had about uh our testing of of our harness on these chinese models to somebody well known in the industry. And he says, Look, if you also add some post training with all of the telemetry that you're going to get from the harness itself, he's like, I suspect you'll find that it gets as good as mythos. And, and I thought, Well, if that's true, then why don't I just take GLM control it entirely soup to nuts on my own hardware inside of the United States with only us citizens that can touch it it just seems like the brain dead obvious thing to do and it's much much cheaper yeah and a hundred percent correct i will say if you're going to do this you'll eventually wind up rolling your own llm i mentioned a company abacus go abacus.co that we seeded in our accelerator what they doing now for hippocon client people is they actually giving you this go on box They literally saying we going to make your own model for you So once you start this you start with, you know, Claude and use their wrapper and everything, or OpenAI's. Then you move on to the next step. The next step is I'm going to use an open source model, use my own, try to find a harness, et cetera. Where you will eventually wind up is you're going to fork these models. You're going to build your own. That is the end state on-prem, on your own hardware. Don't trust anybody because there's too much at stake. You cannot risk your entire business. You might as well be part of the vanguard and start investing here. You're going to slow down to speed up is what's going to happen, whether you're using 8090, Abacus, or any of these other solutions or rolling your own. You must have AI sovereignty. You must have intelligence sovereignty or you're just giving your business over to your competitors. The only company, the only company at scale that's ever respected the developer community in this way is Apple. Apple took a very strategic approach to wanting to build an app store business to wanting to support developers and they explicitly told people if you make something super obvious that you can build in a week or two it eventually might wind up in our basic collection of apps the stock app in your iPhone the notepad app in your iPhone those apps are incredibly basic but if you looked at you know Robin Hood or Google Finance and then you looked at something like say evernote back in the day which was an advanced note taker it took 10 years for notepad to add the features that evernote had seven eight nine ten years ago they specifically slowed their apps down to make them simple for users and not f with their ecosystem because they want to take the 30 tax that's your choice here there is no 30 tax here when it comes to anthropic there is no 30 tax equivalent with open ai the thing with apple is that apple was renting distribution this is not renting distribution this is where you're renting intelligence and judgment and so the problem that a company has is you can't rent the same and this is why your point is actually right i think it's for a different reason you can't rent intelligence from the same place that rents it to your competitor correct you just can't you can't it's It's just stupid. It will overflow. It will go over the wall into your competitor's lap. It becomes the lowest common denominator problem where you and your competitors now look exactly the same. Why would you do that? And again, if you go back to that thing that BCG identified, so many companies are already teetering on a very difficult position where they cannot generate returns on their invested equity. [25:00] Why would you then go and pay all this money so that you end up with the same answer as your competitor? You can't do it. It's just not a choice. And Saks, part of what's going on here is the deflationary nature of technology. Every single one of these tools is getting cheaper. Tokens are getting cheaper, Saks. And if you look at NVIDIA's role in all of this, they have something called Nemotron. You can try it if you use perplexity. You can just pick the drop-down menu. It has deep thinking. you will not be able to tell the difference between Jensen Wong's open source LLM sacks and Claude for 95% of your searches I guarantee you now why why why has Nvidia and Jensen downplayed their open source model until this moment why would he do that why would he never bring it up in the all interview never bring it up because his top customers were very concerned from what I understand about the fact that they had made so much project progress on their open source model. But suddenly, after OpenAI announced their jalapeno chips, after Anthropix started making chips after AMD did successful projects with both of these companies after Elon said he going to do his own fab NVIDIA is taking the gloves off David They are going to own the whole stack They are going to be talking about open source a whole bunch. Maybe you could talk a little bit about NVIDIA and their role in this as the open source at scale full stack provider. You get the hardware from them and you're going to get a model that's competitive with open AIs for free, and all you have to do is use one of their hosting companies, Core. We have whoever's buying NVIDIA, Colossus, etc. What are your thoughts on NVIDIA suddenly being willing to talk about their open source projects today? Well, look, I think part of it is they need a time to make the offering compelling. And, you know, they're up against some pretty great AI labs. And I think some of it is just, hey, it takes time to train up these models. Now, one question is, why is it that NVIDIA and Palantir are partnering, like what makes them natural partners. And I want to just explain that. If you want to think about the AI stack for a minute, at the most basic level, there's three layers to the stack. It's basically the chips, it's the models, and then it's the applications. Well right now we have in the middle layer at the model layer of the stack you got two dominant companies You got Anthropic and OpenAI We know that Anthropic around 60 billion of ARR OpenAI is at 47 billion of ARR As far as we know no one else is really generating meaningful revenue at the model layer. So we already have, let's say, an emerging duopoly situation. We have Anthropic pushing for a regulatory capture agenda that would probably enshrine that duopoly situation at a regulatory level because they're pushing for a safety agenda where Dario explicitly says that these other models are not safe. You shouldn't have access to them. So you've kind of got that situation. You've got the market producing duopoly. You've got the government now potentially leaning not to bust up the duopoly, but maybe to enforce it. So that's sort of the emerging situation at the model layer. And so if you're an application at the top of the stack, like Palantir, or you're a chip company at the bottom of the stack, that's the last thing you want. You want a competitive model layer. Why? Because if you're an application, you don't want to be beholden to one model provider, right? You want to have a choice. And if you're an enterprise, you want to have a choice because you don't have to give up all of your proprietary knowledge. And if you're a chip company, you don't want a monopsony buyer situation where there only one or two companies who can buy your chips And by the way they producing their own You want to have as diverse and healthy an ecosystem as possible where there lots of potential buyers for your chips And if enterprises are rolling their own using open models, that's kind of an ideal situation because now there's like a long tail of buyers. So I think really the whole ecosystem in a way, the chip companies, developers, applications, enterprises, everybody has an incentive for a competitive layer of the stack at the model layer. And really, the only companies who don't are anthropic and open AI, because obviously, they want to dominate, they want to be a duopoly. And my view is, look, if you earn a monopoly or duopoly in our system, we don't ban monopolies in the United States, we ban anti competitive tactics. But if you lawfully achieve a monopoly through amazing performance, we don't nationalize you or make you illegal, and I think that's fine. However, the government in my view should do nothing to make monopoly or duopoly more likely. They should make it harder for these companies to engage in monopoly tactics, and they should do everything they can to keep the model layer competitive because competition is what brings out the best, and it's good for the ecosystem, and it ensures our civil rights [30:00] liberties and consumer choice. And it's going to be amazing for pricing, Zach. If you think about what this competition is about to do, and you've been very vocal about this in your time in Washington, D.C., we want to have a level playing field. We want to see massive competition. I'll just give you your flowers and your lay. You did a great job of now setting the table for this in 2026 and 2027 going forward by letting people compete. The cost of tokens, Freeberg, is going to go down 90% a year for the next three years. you're going to be able to buy a thousand times as many tokens that are more intelligent because you're going to have free options. The price will be free or close to free for many of these, and that could be incredibly disruptive. Yes, Dave? Yeah, and I think people are going to, again, deploy their own hardware against it. I think there's going to be a buying frenzy in the enterprise, not just with the neoclouds and the hyperscalers. I think the enterprise is going to be a buyer. And when that happens, You do the simple math and you don't want to have a dependency on server availability and cloud downtime. And you don't want to put these models on some third party cloud. And you want to do stuff that's very cheap. Like a lot of people are running. I mean, you guys do this. You running day to day workflows for your enterprise And you realize hey I could run these workflows on an open source model on a machine in my office and we don need to be sending this stuff back to some fancy scalable cloud service provider the industry spent so many years convincing everybody to flip to the cloud. And the realization may be that all this this idea of shared infrastructure may not be the best idea in a world of intelligence. And this is what I mean by like a distributed spoke model, because I do think it's not going to be all or none, I think you're going to end up being like 70 2010 and how you're going to allocate your resources for model inference and running models you're going to probably be 70 in some big cloud maybe you'll do 20 local 10 you'll try other clouds you know you'll kind of mix stuff up but i don't think you're going to end up doing things the way you've been doing them historically you'll very quickly realize that it's okay to waste tokens it's okay to let your employees make stupid apps that last for a couple of weeks, but burn through billions of tokens. If it's running on your own hardware, then all you're paying for is the electricity in your office or in your IT room. This is what I've been talking about here for like a year now. I think everyone's hoping it's locking out. Yeah, like I'm totally fine, you know, for my kids to eat sugar if I don't have to deal with them. You know like go ahead Have you guys noticed that like in the last three days we now seen other people trying to get their own lock Microsoft just announced a $2.5 billion investment to stand up in FDE, or Amazon is spending a billion dollars to create an FDE. Forward deployed engineers, for the people in the order, forward deployed engineers. Antropic has one, OpenAI has one. Yeah, and when they come knocking, Jamal, they're knocking like, hey, can I send my engineers to study your business and put it into my model? I mean, people are going to be slamming the door on these. It's like getting a Jehovah's Witness at your door. Like, no, I don't want to be part of your cult. I want to own this. And that's what I've been saying. Just let me make one quick point, and I'll hand it to you for a break. This is what I've been saying when I was going on my OpenClaw, which now is like Hermes and some other products. Everybody in your organization is going to have a Mac Studio or a Dell with a massive amount of RAM, and you're going to spend $10,000, $20,000 per employee on local compute so that they can token max to a retard maxing level. Who cares what they do on their local computer? Who cares? Let them rip and then you're going to give them a laptop that connects to it and it syncs so you can control it. It's literally going to be a server per individual in your company. That the way to model this in your brain Everybody has their own language model that they crafting 100 of the time as they work and it all local So you don have data leaks Go ahead Freeberg I give you the final word I mean I think one of the things that this reveals quite clearly is that there is no buttered slippery slide to job loss I think everyone is realizing that, you know, I was wondering where you were going with that buttering it up. So is Chavon. but I think you know the idea that everyone had in their head two years ago the narrative that was formed and everyone clutched onto and by the way you will not see the media reverse on this narrative I've realized the importance here when media if you're a reporter or you're a journalist and you come up with some story that says something that's happening or is going to happen or has happened or is about the future, you destroy your own credibility if the narrative shifts. You cannot ever let go of the narrative. And I think this is one of the things that we can kind of acknowledge is going on with this job loss narrative problem, is that even as all the data comes out, as all of the reconfiguring of how enterprises are using AI, as it's revealing to all of them that they're actually not just going to cut costs, but they're going to grow revenue, and it's going to be a kind of clunky way of getting [35:00] and it's not going to happen overnight. It's not the slippery slope to job loss, to nihilism. Everyone's going to kind of wake up and be like, wait, this reality that we all thought we were living in is not really the reality that we are living in. We're living in a reality where AI is clunky. It takes some putting together. It's a little more complicated than we thought. It's definitely going to deliver value, but it's not about just turning off all the jobs and letting the genius AI solve all my enterprise problems and scale me into infinity without humans. And I think that that's a big kind of narrative shift And you will not see the media accept that their narrative is wrong, because as soon as they have to acknowledge that they were wrong in what they were saying about job loss and all the other senators and people that are proclaiming job loss, job loss, job loss. By the way, the reason they're making that proclamation is so that they can step in and control AI and they can drive their systems of socialism, which is what they're all looking to deploy. But if they had to come in and say, look, the data doesn't map to the narrative, their credibility is destroyed. So they'll double down on it and they'll double down on it. And I'm telling everyone that's listening, look at the data. There is no job loss with AI. It is an absolute scam to tell the world that AI is taking away jobs and destroying jobs and the world is shifting It is clunky It is valuable It is going to take some time and it is going to create far more jobs than it is destroying We a bunch of monkeys We been given this new tool We going to solve more problems with the new tool. There will be job displacement and the problem is people do not understand the nuance between these two terms. Certain jobs will be retired and they're going to be retired at a faster rate than you can imagine, but other jobs will happen and you pointed this out, Chamath. Hey, it's the most, I don't know if you did it here or on your personal channel on YouTube, but you know, it's the most empowering tool ever. If you get plot code, you're getting replaced. I'm just going to challenge your narrative. Yeah, displaced. But you're saying some of them are going to go away faster than you can see. What are those jobs that are going to go away faster than you can see? Because I'm just, I'm still not seeing the categories. Totally. Customer support jobs. Those are going to go away very quickly. Where? Where? You're just making shit up because it's not actually happening. I see it in enterprises all the time. You can talk to Jason. Where do you see it? Show me the customer support enterprise shutdown that's happening. Just show it to me. Is it in the room with us right now? Like, where is it? I will literally, you know, I'll do that research and I'll give it to you. I'll give you some research. Hold on. Can I provide some research? We had this debate before. He asked me a question Just let me finish my answer and then you can take it You asked me the question Customer service jobs are going to go away because consumers prefer to talk to the AI and it perfect at that Entry-level jobs around data entry, around business process outsourcing, those are going to go away. So will driving cabs and those kind of jobs. Those ones are obvious low-hanging fruit, just like we had the typing pool and messengers and other products go away when we had word processors on every desk. Those jobs will be displaced 100% and those jobs will be in the millions. Where are your 20 of cab drivers going away, dude? Like when Uber came out, everyone said all the driving jobs were going to go away. It's all over. Well, no, no. It's just not happening. Waymo is stuck at 3,000. Tesla's stuck at like 30 cars. But that's all going to change in the very near future. Everything you're saying is perspective. This is my point. You are still being perspective in the future with everything you're saying. And every point that we turn, every time we turn a page, it's like, wait, do you not believe that self-driving is real? Is that your premise? Is that self-driving is not going to get rid of cab drivers? Is that your premise? I think it's real, but I like, like, yeah, I think it's real for sure. Do you think it will get rid of cab drivers? You're arguing as if like I'm wrong here, but I think you agree with me that they're going away. I get in the car every day and my car drives me and I get on my phone and I do work Okay But do you think cabs and cities are not going to be self Do you think zipline not going to deliver your food You doing the Mont thing again J Cal It not Mont I see this from my investments I have a company, Autolane, that is doing this right now. But just go to customer support again, because you've been saying, yeah. I literally, you've had this debate verbatim, and what Freberg... Well, displacement, not job loss, is my only point. Yeah, yeah, yeah. What Freberg is pointing out is that whenever anyone pushes back on the fact that you don't have any data to support this in the present, you say you're talking about the future okay fine it's a prediction you know there's no data to support it in the present that's fine you're saying it's going to happen in the future no no i'll give you the data point oh you will i will yes if you talk to uber and waymo in the cities where waymo is present and has gotten past a couple hundred cars they've stopped recruiting drivers drivers are either static or going down in those markets so that is absolute evidence that this is happening and the rollout is going to be fast and furious so it is not a future prediction You can talk to the CEO of Waymo, you can talk to the CEO of Lyft and Uber, and they will tell you this explicitly. That's cold marketing. Remember that? We interviewed Dara and he said jobs were increasing at Uber? Yeah. They're delivering more. Because productivity is going up with delivery. Productivity goes up. So these people drive more. I'm not. You're being disingenuous. I'm not. Dara, the last time we interviewed Dara, on stage, he said, [40:00] In markets where Waymo is, there might be other markets where things are growing because they don't allow self-driving or they haven't gotten there yet. In markets where Waymo has hit critical mass, the number of human drivers is going down. That's just a fact. And they're literally stopped recruiting. In some narrow, arbitrarily defined subset of their jobs, you're pointing to flatness. Meanwhile, Dara told us that hiring a cost to the company has gone up in the face of these trends. That's at the company, not the drivers. No, you're wrong. Okay, anyway, we'll agree to disagree here. Let me give you some actual data. Can I provide us this study? So Ramp and Revelio Labs just released a new study in the past week. Yeah, that was great. And it was an actual study of over 21,000 firms in the US, and they looked at their payroll data combined with their spending on AI. And what they saw is that firms that spent the most on AI actually grew the fastest. And they tended to grow their headcount roughly 10% in the two years following the adoption of AI. And entry-level headcount rose even faster. It grew at 12%. So all this stuff about how entry headcount is going to get wiped out not true The more firms adopted AI the more hiring they did At least that was a correlation Obviously they can prove causation but that was the correlation. And then companies that were not high-intensity adopters of AI, they either didn't adopt or they were low-intensity adopters, they just saw flatness in their head count. So no one is really showing a trend here of job loss. What they're showing is that the more you adopt ai those companies also tend to grow headcount so i you know there's just no data to support this idea that in the present ai is causing job loss job displacement will happen jobs will increase because of ai sovereignty will increase and people will make more money corporations will be more will have more earnings but there will be jobs being retired and i think if you look at translators if you look at telephone operators if you look at bill collectors if you look at Waymo drivers, these very simple tasks are being automated. How do I know that? Because I invest in startups that are raising hundreds of millions of dollars to replace these jobs with AI. We had the pilot we had people building the perfect pilot the perfect driver the perfect customer support rep That is the point of AI Every single sales pitch of these AI companies is to retire these jobs that are not great jobs There is no way in God's green earth that humans will be at Amazon sorting packages. It's not going to happen. All those factory jobs are being replaced. Elon is explicitly building Optimus for this purpose. And when I say it's future, I have always contended it's future. sacks. You cannot use your silly debate to say that I'm using some crazy thing. It is happening as we speak. We're soaking in it. This is the transition period. What I'll tell you is that in every environment in which 8090 operates, every customer, I don't think we've seen layoffs. Not a single one. Yeah. In this ramp card study, they said, quote, gains emerge gradually and are broad across roles, including engineering, sales, administration, and customer service. So they're not seeing like one category of jobs getting wiped out. By the way, it could happen in the future. I mean, none of us can say for sure what's going to happen in the future. But if you're looking for data in the present, we're not seeing it yet. I think there's going to be a strong human alpha. You know, like when vending machines came along, it not like bartenders went away I like going to a bar talking to the bartender and they make a great drink And those bartenders make better money today than they did 20 years ago I don and maybe the vending machine replacement model isn't the right one in that case. But I think that there's a lot of value in human interaction that's going to get a premium in the future. Because as more stuff gets automated, I want to have an actual driver when I go to Las Vegas. I don't want to go in a Waymo. I want to have a great driver in a nice car that takes me to the dinners, drives me around New York City, same thing. I don't want to go on a Waymo per se. I want to have, you know, people that can do things that could otherwise be automated and I'll pay a huge premium. I could sit in a frigging massage chair. Why do I go pay someone $200 for an hour massage? You know, I think there's, there's an aspect to the alpha of humans. We could cut that one, but, uh, but I do think there's a premium to humans and I don't think that, um, and I actually think the premium to humans. No, the counter narrative. J. Cal, this is really important. I think that the counter narrative to automation generally is that we're going to realize the importance of human interaction and humans in the loop, and we're going to pay a premium for it. Well, do you remember like a year ago? I don't believe in AGI and the singularity happening next year. I'm just not there. Do you remember like a year ago when Klarna said, [45:00] They're going to replace their whole customer service department with AI. And they did a lot of hype. It was peak aura farming. And lo and behold, they flipped the decision back after a year. They said that from a brand perspective, a company perspective, it's just so critical that you are clear to your customer that there will always be a human if you want. Human in the loop will be the premium. And we will all realize in the next year and a half the importance of human in the loop, even in the context of AI and automation working. human in the loop is going to be more valuable and then you're going to pay a premium for human in the loop there's so many ceos who want to tap into the media's hype cycle this is the thing is that whenever the media gets a hold of one of these narratives there's so many ceos who are not like carp right who just are not original and they don't really have anything important to say so the only way for them to get publicity is to glom onto that press cycle and try to use it and then they'll chime in with you know how they're going to do crazy things they eliminate their whole customer support department. And then lo and behold, it turns out just to be totally fake. I think the ramp data is directionally accurate. In our experience, I would say the same thing. I think people that use AI tend to grow faster. They tend to hire more They tend to make money Yeah 100 By the way I actually agree with Jake I in 100 agreement on that From a career standpoint I would not want to be a level one customer support rep because I do think that if all you're doing is answering forgotten password requests, that's not a great place to be. However, those jobs were basically outsourced to the Philippines and places like that a long time ago. I mean, most enterprises are not doing kind of that level zero, level one customer support in the US. they do have customer support centers, but they're doing like level two, level three. They're doing the escalations, the higher value stuff. That's going to be a lot harder to replace with AI. Totally. I do kind of worry about, well, what happens in some of these other countries that are doing the super entry level stuff? Because I think that is right for your place. So they'll have massive job loss. Well, I don't know if it'll be massive, but that's where the risk is. I mean, frankly, it's not in the US. This is, maybe we're getting to some consensus here. Job displacement versus job loss. Here is Brett Adcock sharing what they're doing at Figure. They had an eight-hour challenge to have this robot they're building sort packages, and they did it for 200 hours. That's today. This is the least good it will ever be This is the worst it going to ever be These things are getting really good I spent time with Elon I looked at Optimus I can tell you Optimus is better than what Figur is doing What Optimus is going to do when Bezos and Andy Jassy unleash Optimus inside of the Amazon factories is it's going to get rid of every, let me state this very clearly, every single package sorting, every single package delivery will not be done by humans in 10 years. And it's starting today, just like the idea that you would put together some of this consumer electronic stuff in factories with humans has gone away over time. And other countries, I think you're making a very good point here, Sacks, are going to experience it first. In America, knowledge workers, the entrepreneurial spirit, I think we're going to see a Cambrian explosion in startups, which means we're going to be the ones who benefit from it. But if you're looking at those other countries, they'll see it acutely first. We're just going to see it here with drivers, and that's 5, 10 million people like we saw it with cashiers. The idea of going to a cashier at a fast food restaurant, which I know you guys don't go to all that often, or a Starbucks, the idea that you would interact with a cashier has been going away slowly because it's just consumers don't even want it. We'll agree to disagree here to a certain extent. Maybe we made some progress. I went to McDonald's recently and I ordered from one of those monitors What did you order You filet guy I a filet guy What did you get I a Big Mac I like a Big Mac You like a Big Mac What about you Saks What your order Did you get a McFlurry? Did you get an apple pie? I had a thing called a homegrown burger, which was some new – I think it was kind of like more like an In-N-Out type burger situation. A Shake Shack? They were testing. Smash Patty? Yeah, it was good. Anyway, my point is just the automation. Obviously, they didn't have a cashier there already, but there's zero robots involved. Similarly, there's already a lot of automation going on in those Amazon warehouses. I don't know if you've ever been to like a FedEx packaging or routing depot. It's all conveyor belts and, you know. Yeah, robots pushing it and directing it. Yeah, but it's not humanoid robots. There's already tons and tons of automation at these places. But this last mile part is the one I think that is going to shock people. when you have an optimist walking the Tesla self-driving car, and then they walk it to your porch, ring your doorbell, and knock on your door and put it on your front porch, that's where this is going to get super interesting. I think it's going to lead to a boom, because think about just something like building a house. You know how long it takes to build a house? It takes years. In California, three years. Yeah, years, like multiple years. In China, one day. There you go. But imagine if you have like a construction crew and. [50:00] I don't know. It's like 20 humans and 50 robots or something. The humans have to tell the robots what to do. I don't think it's going to take a long, long time for the robots to do that super high school work, but they can be given tasks and then they can do. So maybe it only takes a year to build a house instead of two or three. And that's the solution to our housing crisis. A hundred percent. All right. Listen, in a related story by Commandant Howard Lutnick's decree, subject Dario Amadei will be permitted to bring his powerful new model Fable 5 to market for the glory of the realm and at the pleasure of his majesty Lord Trump. Remember two weeks ago the US government put export restrictions on Fable and Mythos and the Iliad and the Odyssey and whatever else they're doing over there at Anthropic and Anthropic expanding Mythos to 50 unauthorized entities according to sources that included SK Telecom which allegedly perhaps maybe He has a lot of ties to China. On June 30th, Howie in the Commerce Department, that's my guy, Howard Lutnik, my favorite in the administration, no disrespect to you, Sachs. He lifted controls on Fable 5. Mythos 5 was restored to US customers this past week June 26th many suspected this would happen because Anthropic replaced Dario as their lead negotiator Here the palace intrigue I was referencing earlier Co-founder Tom Brown, whoever that is, took the spot and appears to be getting along better with the Trump organization. For example, he proactively genuflected, showed the tweet to Lutnik's tweet, announcing the export restrictions had been lifted. Tom Brown, thanks for your partnership on this, Secretary. Explanation point. Look at that smile. Tom Brown coming in to save the day. In a post-mortem blog post, Anthropic said the jailbreak that triggered the shutdown was not unique to Claude. Remember Andy Jassy reported to the Commerce Department what was going on with this. Okay, Sachs, former AI czar, what's going on? Give us the palace intrigue, please. Well, look, the export control letter was taken down after two weeks. I think that this was a highly unusual circumstance, and it was brought about by three things, three conditions. And you really needed all three in order for this to happen. Number one, you had Dario running around for months saying that he had created a cyber weapon. He almost boasted about it. It was Mythos. Okay, so that was number one. Number two is you have a trusted partner of Anthropic which is Amazon which did its testing of Fable which was Mythos with guardrails and they reported that the guardrails failed So therefore Fable was according to Dario a cyber weapon. So that was important fact number two. And then fact number three is that when confronted with this information, Dario basically refused to roll back Fable until the jailbreak could be fixed, or at least that's what he communicated to the administration, and that's what the administration heard. So I think if you change any one of those three facts, this would have ended up not causing the government to basically send that letter to Anthropic. I think if Dario hadn't primed officials to see Mythos as a cyber weapon, it wouldn't have happened if their trusted partner Amazon hadn't reported the jailbreak, wouldn't have happened. And if Dario hadn't refused to take action when he did, then this wouldn't have happened. I think this was sort of a unique circumstance. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a lot of people are reading a lot into this letter. I know that foreign companies or foreign actors or allies and partners of the US are wondering, does this mean that our ability to access US technologies can be limited I don think it does I think that the administration reacted with the tools at its disposal And I think that what the president cares about is what he's always said, which is he wants to be pro-innovation. He wants to be pro-export. He wants to be pro-infrastructure. He wants to support American companies in the AI race. And I don't think people should over-extrapolate based on what just happened over the past few weeks i think let me ask you highly particular to this fact pattern a lot of discussion of exports let's talk about imports for a reason it seems to me that importing chinese models when we in fact have open source models here from nvidia and other players why have you not or in your during your time did you not advise or talk about here blocking access to import we will not allow the importation of huawei products into the united States or self-driving technology from China. Why are we allowing open source models? Why don't we put it out an edict? And why didn't you suggest that when you were the czar of AI? Why didn't we stop Kimi and DeepSeek from coming into this country in order to drive our open source technology and to keep the leakage from those models, Sachs? Well, a few things. And is that a concern of yours? Well, number one is that once a model is open source, [55:00] It stops being Chinese in a way, right? Because you can now take that model, you can fork it, you can create your own version, you run it in an American data center on your own hardware. There's no packets going back to China. There's no data leakage going back to China. In some sense, they've made a contribution to the open source community, and then people can take it from there. Now, should you still exercise caution? Absolutely, because you have to make sure that the model is safe. It doesn't contain backdoors. I mean, this is a relatively new surface area for cybersecurity. So look, you should obviously be cautious. But the bottom line is that when an American company takes an open source model and converts it and runs it itself, it is now theirs. But it builds consensus around that model and makes that model stronger by more people participating in it, which was your argument for allowing people to get on the hardware stack. Well, but then I think that leads me to argument number two, which is if you were to do something like ban open source in the United States, you'll put the United States on an island. The rest of the world is not gonna follow suit. The rest of the world wants to use open models because of the advantages they offer They cheaper they more customizable they offer more control and again they stop being Chinese models once you can take them and adapt them and run them on your own hardware So the rest of the world's not going to stop using these models just because we do. And what we will do then is subject American enterprises to a token tax. You're going to end up paying for closed models in the US that charge more. No, no, but there's NVIDIA. We have open source models now nvidia has theirs for example there are other so if there are open source models here that are equally competitive would you then support and import control so that more people in america put their effort into american open source models well i've been one of the things i've been saying and google's open source models obviously one of the things i've been saying for over a year is that we need more strong offerings in open source from the united states so i hope we win the open category of models just like i do the close i mean i hope america wins the ai race in both open and closed models. I don't really want anyone being forced to use models they don't want. But look, if American models, open models, are better than Chinese open models, they will win. And people will want to adopt them. So if what you're saying is true, that our open models are better or getting better or gonna surpass the Chinese ones leave that to the market to decide And just one last point on this is I not against limiting the import of certain Chinese products in the US For example I don think we allow Chinese connected cars. We don't. I think we should think twice about whether we allow Chinese robots into the US. We block drones. Yeah, we wouldn't want to have like a fifth column of backdoor Chinese robots or something in the US, potentially. I'm just brainstorming here, okay? So I'm not against limiting certain things, but we should understand that when we do that, we are inviting retaliation by them as well. And we are in a trade relationship with them. We still need things from them. We still need rare earths, things like that. One day we won't. Hopefully, I do think we should try to be as independent and autonomous as possible. But while we do, we have to think very carefully about the larger trade relationship. Yeah, Trump banned the import of Chinese drones. It's a signature part of the legislation. All right, so a little housekeeping here. All In Summit is coming back September 13th, 14th and 15th. Fifth year of the summit, keep raising the bar. Man, if you knew the speakers that I knew, that Freeberg's lined up, your brain would explode. This year, the nights are as good as the days because let face it Freeberg likes to party He been known to have a cocktail or two We doing the biggest poker tournament we ever done at the summit this year Gaming will happen at the welcome party And we going to have a full casino night at an exclusive mansion in LA. Ooh la la. Applications open now. Allin.com. Don't miss our biggest event of the year. I think we have 12 trillion in market cap books so far. Probably going to double. Okay, next topic. Topic number three. It's a hot scotus summer. The justices released 11 decisions in the final few days of the term. Let's discuss the top three right now. Birthright citizenship case was Trump versus Barbara. On the first day of his second term, Trump, as you know, signed an EO ending automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants or those on temporary visas. This is codified, I guess, in the 14th Amendment. Court struck it down 6-3, maybe 5-4. There's some nuance here. 255,000 children are born every year to non-citizen and parents. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority joined by all three liberal members. The court is still a bit polarized. Citizenship then and now was the right to have rights. We keep that promise today according to Chief Justice's majority. Kavanaugh carved out a lane for Congress to tighten up on birthright citizenship. That's still consistent with the 14th Amendment. As you know, the administration has been pointing [60:00] out and you watch Fox News, you've heard this a million times. If you watch CNN and not all in, you're going to maybe have heard of this once or twice. Birth tourism, a Chinese national, Dong Wan Lee, pled guilty in 2019 to a scheme to help pregnant Chinese women enter the U.S. under false pretenses so their babies would be granted U.S. citizenship. She pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit immigration fraud and one count of visa fraud. So we handled that through the legal system. She served 10 months in prison. Trump's response to the loss, quote, Congress should start today to work on ending birthright citizenship. They will have my complete and total support for Trump. Feels like a loss for Trump objectively, but he's going to keep fighting this one. Close decision. If you ask Stephen Miller, he doesn't like immigrants like you three dudes, but I would let all three of you in again. That's not his position. Okay, well you can explain it. I know he doesn't like immigrants. We're legal immigrants. We're legal immigrants. Yes. Well, but... You understand the difference, right? Well, birthright would also be legal according to the Constitution. Yeah but that the whole point is it doesn really make sense that let say an illegal immigrant runs across the border is like nine months pregnant plops out a baby and all of a sudden they an American citizen How does that make sense What about somebody who been here for 20 years Saks worked really hard they illegal and they have a baby. Should the baby be kicked out and that baby not be a citizen? Let's say it's somebody's nanny, somebody's gardener. We have 20 million, 30 million illegal immigrants we've led into this country. We waved them in across many different Republican and Democratic terms over the last 30 years. What do you say to that person who has a baby? Should they be deported? Should they be given citizenship? Well, look, the question here is what the Constitution says. And my view is that the original purpose and understanding of the 14th Amendment was to make sure that the children of freed slaves would have citizenship rights. That was the purpose of it. It's obvious. And I don't think it speaks to the situations you're talking about. And Congress should just make the law about those situations. But now Congress cannot make the law because the Supreme Court has ruled that citizenship is determined by birthright. So in that case, anyone who's born here- Well, my question was, somebody who's been here 20 years as an illegal immigrant who's waived in under Reagan's- Yeah, I think Congress should decide that. I'm saying Congress should decide that. I'm asking you your personal opinion. Should they get to this? I mean look you talking about an edge case It complicated But the point is that we all know why the 14th Amendment was ratified It was to protect freed slaves obviously And now we in territory that very different but the Supreme Court has decided that if you're born here for any reason whatsoever, even if you're an illegal, even if you weren't supposed to be in the country, now your children are American citizens. By the way, I don't think any country in the world has this policy. It's kind of a crazy policy. So I agree with Stephen Miller about this. I think the majority case is people who have been here illegally for decades. And I think the edge case, the one you proposed is the edge case, like a pregnant woman running across the border. Let Congress decide that. I don't think the Constitution ever spoke to this. What's your personal opinion on this, Chamath? Should the person who's been here for 10, 20 years pay their taxes, but they're illegal and they have a child, should that child be a citizen or not? What's Chamath's personal opinion here? I haven't thought about this. Great. Okay. I mean, that's the key to the, I think, what we're talking about here. No, no, no, no, no, no. Because, Jake, there's a big difference between making something constitutional and then doing it via a law of Congress. And what Supreme Court has said here is that Congress does not get to make the decision. The majority of the American people don get to make the decision The Constitution requires a certain point of view And there no way to change that without a constitutional amendment which will never happen So we kind of now stuck with this position Well if you read the language and someone posted this this was the debate that when the 14th Amendment was being debated, Senator Jacob Howard, I'll give credit to Geiger Capital for pointing this out, there's a transcript of the debate that took place, and it says, every person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction is by virtue of natural law, national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. Because if you go to the history in 1868, there was this Dred Scott decision, which denied citizenship to the children of slaves. And the intention at the time was to ensure citizenship for newly freed slaves and their descendants. That was the original intention of the 14th Amendment at the time. So this goes back to the great debate that happens at the Supreme Court all the time, which is the textual or the intentional reading of the Constitution or its amendments. The textual reading is you look, [65:00] at the words, the plain literal meaning of those words, and then the intentional reading is what was intended at the time by the framers of the Constitution or the amendment that may be the subject of the debate. And so I think that's ultimately what this comes down to. If you think about the intention at the time, it was really built around free slaves. There wasn't a consideration at that time of having this massive movement of immigration that was taking place or that has taken place since, that wasn't even in the kind of realm of consciousness or consideration when this amendment was being passed. So the intentionalism kind of argument would be, hey, wait a second, you know, this wasn't really what they intended, but the textual representation is what it is. And that's what the ruling kind of led to in this particular case. My personal opinion, if you're asking it, I do think birthright citizenship should be endowed to the children of legal residents of the United States, whether they're a citizen or not. So yeah, I think that's critical. So if you're a visitor, if you get on an airplane and fly here for a weekend on a vacation and you have a visa or you have you know temporary visitor status to come to the United States to visit You are not a resident of the United States so your children should not become citizens of the United States unless you're a resident. And remember, we don't just have like citizens and non-citizens. We also have resident status in this country. And a resident status is a green card. I mean, for years, I was on a green card. Three of us were immigrants. We all went through this process. Once you get resident status, you're now a permanent resident of the United States. You haven't been given citizenship rights yet. But if you have a child, I think it's reasonable for your child to have citizenship rights if you're a legal resident rather than a legal visitor or illegal visitor to the United States. That would be my personal assessment. I, you know, it would be great for that to be the law, but obviously this is now kind of, you know, gone. How do you explain that really well? I didn't even know all of this. I'm on your side. I agree. Yeah, I mean, I agree with what you're saying. In addition, people shouldn't be able to do the tourism thing. I do think we should have an exception here for people who have been non-criminals, who are here illegally, because we as America, Republicans especially, during the time when they were pro-free trade, NAFTA, and really waived in a large percentage of the immigrants who are here obviously Biden did that as well I think we have a moral obligation to those people since we waive them in and we waive them in to work at our businesses because we wanted to pay under minimum wage to them Those people suffered here in our country to take those jobs, to make us richer, to make our country richer. We have a moral and ethical obligation to them and to their children. We should give them a path to citizenship unless they're criminals and their children should be Americans since they came here to live the american dream whether it was illegal or not we waved them in that was our mistake and now that we've closed the border we should make amends to those 20 million people that's my personal opinion i don't think we have more time to think about it and sacks what's your look well my my point is we're all just making arguments about what the law should be and these are the kinds of arguments that congress should be making and deliberating over and these are the edge cases these are the nuances that should be handled in a citizenship law. And what the Supreme Court has done here is remove that space for Congress to legislate. And I think Congress needs that space because there are these edge cases, and instead it's interpreted the 14th Amendment in a way that I don't think is consistent with why it was ratified in the first place And Friedberg is totally right about Dred Scott which was one of the most awful probably the most awful Supreme Court ruling of all time It came out in 1857, and it ruled that black people, whether enslaved or free, were not US citizens, and therefore they had no right to sue in federal courts. And the Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote the decision. I mean, it was extremely racist. He wrote that black people had, quote, no rights, which the white man was bound to respect. And that decision, furthermore, ruled that Congress could not ban slavery in the new Western territories, which meant that it struck down the Missouri Compromise, which was the law that kept the peace between the free and slave states for decades. And that is one of the direct things that then triggered the Civil War three years later. So it was this historically bad decision that I guess then the 14th Amendment tried to correct by saying that no, you know, freed slaves and their children would be. Totally different context than someone visiting from China for the weekend and having a baby. Yeah. Which we obviously, that one is an easy one to adjudicate. Chamath, I'm curious, feels like as a society we have now, because of the closure of the border, give Trump a lot of credit for that. It was easily done, which means it could have been done at any time by Biden. [70:00] and that created a big rift in our society that we're still working through the other rift that was created over the past year we've had many debates here about ice and what some people including myself believe was a brutal way to deport people and a cruel way to deport people some people might disagree with my opinion but it seems like trump stood down on that and calmed it down i think because it was so unpopular just according to the metrics that we saw from pew and other studies. What do you think the path forward is now? The ICE aggressiveness has stopped. The border has been shut. We seem to be in a sort of holding pattern here, which I think was very wise by Trump to do that. Put us to calm the situation down. I would have liked to see him calm it down a little earlier. What do you think the go forward should be? If we go look at 27, 28, 29, do you think? Obviously, we all want legal immigration, but what do you think we should be aspiring to do as a country now that the issue has seemingly is not boiling over. What are your, what are your thoughts, Shema? Have you given it any thought? I think that Western countries are losing their cultural representation that makes them unique. And I think that that's very bad. When my parents went to Canada and then stayed I think part of what they were doing whether they knew it or not was making an explicit decision to be Canadian first which who happened to be of Sri Lankan origin When I came to the United States, I was making an explicit decision to become an American. And then my Canadian and then my Sri Lankan ancestry was second and third, respectively. I think if you seed your immigration, you're seeding your culture. And I think that people have a responsibility to keep the values of what made that country unique in the first place. And you don't need to look too far because you can look across the pond and you can look at the UK and you can look at Germany and you can look at France. and you have to ask yourself is the cultural deviation from where they were has it been better or worse for those countries and i think in general it has been worse so i think people should want to come here to be a part of the american ideal the american culture and so i think you have to have a rational immigration policy that has compassion but ultimately favors this idea that you can come here to build your own version of your previous country here So assimilation is part and parcel of a functioning immigration system I strongly agree. Freyberg, how should we go forward as Americans? We know Europe has had an issue with or the populace is there. I think are in agreement that they may have gone too far in terms of unmitigated massive amounts of immigration, specifically amongst groups that maybe are explicitly not wanting to assimilate. What's your thoughts on what America should do going forward? Do you believe we should be... Yeah, it's a great question, and I think there's an easy answer. Going back to my makers versus takers point, if the primary motivation for an individual to come to this country is to be given benefits, to be given payments, to be given social services, to be given support, I think that that person should be denied immigration. If the primary motivation for the individual to come to the United States is to work to progress themselves, to become a maker, to create things, to work in such a way that they can generate income, save capital, buy things, advance their family's position, because they are denied those rights due to the tyranny of the place that they coming from then they should be granted immigration status to come to this country and contribute Because at the end of the day what people may not like to hear which is the truth, is that every single one of those people is actually net positive in growing our economy. And everyone thinks it's a zero-sum game with respect to jobs in the United States, and we shouldn't let people into this country that create jobs. But the fundamental truth is that anyone that is productive, meaning they create more value than they take in, grows the economy and more jobs get created. And overall, we all benefit from having those individuals here in this country. Well, I would say I'm all about I'm all about discerning immigration, not on the lines of some cultural like definition, but really around that simple framing of are you going to get social support services or are you going to work? And if you're going to train or a game, very simple, by the way, elegantly. If you are going to work, you are going to culturally assimilate because that is what the United States is based on. Yeah. Which is productivity, work hard, create things and have individual agency, have the ability to progress yourself in this world, in this society. And if you take advantage of that opportunity, you're going to love the American ideals that this country was founded upon. And there are ways to do that, Freberg. You can look at people's desire to learn the language and understand the political system and culture here. [75:00] If you said at the border, speaking fluent English, understanding our systems here, you know, and doing some learning before you come here, that would give you more points in a point-based system. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, most of the great functioning democracies in the world have point-based systems. And part of that point-based system could be you're provisional here and you get a visa for a certain amount of time provided you don't commit crimes, you don't tap the welfare system and entitlement system, and you do create jobs. We'll take an unlimited number of Elon Musk, David Freeberg, David Sachs, and Chamath Palihapitiya's in my America as a seventh, eighth generation American. And speaking for the people who've been here the longest, we'll take an unlimited number of the besties I just mentioned, and we should recruit them actively. We should be trying to increase the population of the United States with those people. Every single person, Sachs, we take that's a high performer like yourself from another country like South Africa, Sri Lanka, or pick the country. Every time we recruit one of those people, that gives us a gain. It also in a super hyper competitive world is a loss for China, for Iran, for wherever we can recruit the best and brightest who want to assimilate Sax I let you have the final input here When you are J Vance chief of staff in three years what will your advice to J be and how will you frame this during the election cycle? How will you win my vote as a moderate chief of staff, David Sacks? No, that's not going to happen. It's 100% going to happen. I talked to you. Well, I can give you the actual polling data. So first of all, I think it's broadly popular in America to seal the border and not allow illegal immigration. You're even on board with that, obviously. Now, the only people who really aren't are these DSA types who want open borders. They want to abolish ICE. They want mass amnesty. They are lunatics. Now, if you look at deportations, about a third of U.S. adults say all immigrants in the U.S. who are here illegally should be deported. And then half say some should be. So 32% are in favor of deporting all illegals and 51% are in favor of deporting some. And almost everybody in that group says that anyone who's committed a violent crime should be deported. And then 16 which is the DSA group says none should be deported So deportations are popular provided that the illegals have committed violent crimes and have done other things that people think should be unacceptable But you're right. Only 32 percent believe that every single one should be deported. That's from Pew. Now, I guess I agree with Freeberg's point about the incentives. I mean, if you're coming here to get on welfare programs, forget about it. I mean, we should only allow people in if they're here to work and be successful and are not a net. Like, would you say again, not a drain? I agree with that. And even in the days of Ellis Island, you can have it where the U.S. was very accepting of immigrants. One third of immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island actually returned home. Two percent were not allowed entry due to health or criminal problems, but a third actually went back. And that was because there was no social welfare And if you didn make it in the United States you would leave And now anyone can walk across the border they download an app and they get a month in welfare And during the Biden administration they were getting luxury hotel rooms and buses and flights all over the country It was insane So I mean we got to stop that If you do get in there should be some sort of moratorium on any kind of social program for maybe while you have a visa Did I just come up with that I mean it seems like the simplest thing you could ever do is just say you cannot tax the welfare system You cannot tax Social Security benefits, which I don't think you can right now. You just can't tax anything. You can't take anything from the system for the five years you're here, period, full stop, the end. And if that's OK with you, then come. And if you produce jobs and you create X amount of economic activity, Let's say you create $10 million worth of economic activity. When you hit $10 million in economic activity, you are pushing the front of the line and we review your case on a one-off basis. If you hit $5 million, you go next. That would be actually like let's put some goalposts there. Let's set some targets. Hey, you come to the country. You're an Iranian, Persian, amazing entrepreneur. You're a developer. You're an AI developer from Ukraine. You want to come here with your team? Great. amount of money can you raise on your way in the door? You've got $6 million in venture funding, great. You go to the front of the line. Let's go. Let's take these great entrepreneurs and creators and builders. Let's sweep the table with them now that we've calmed down this rhetoric around immigration and shut the border, which was a key piece of doing that. All right, let's keep moving here. I don't think the DSA has calmed it down. [80:00] Still want to go back. They're lunatics. These f***ing commies. Honestly. They're going to the Democrat Party. I mean. Let's talk about California, shall we, J.C.L.? I mean, yes, yes. Hold on a second. I mean, if they take over the Democratic Party, then I guess I'm a Republican. Oh, Colorado. A 15-term congresswoman, 30 years, lost to a DSA. So it's not just New York. It's not just because of Zora and Mamdani. The DSA is very popular now. Socialism is going to win in America. In any blue city. This is a quick way to – I mean to Ro Khanna and Rahm Emanuel and to – well, I mean Ro Khanna is a lost cause. But to Rahm Emanuel, to Shapiro, to anybody with half a brain in the Democratic Party. I've been telling you for a long time that you may disagree with what Ro Khanna is doing and saying, but it's popular in the Democratic Party. I think he's got his finger on the pulse. Well he wants to win I get it But I think you have to the quick win the quick hit the quick bump of the fentanyl or methamphetamine of communism and socialism to get you a couple ratings point is not worth it long term You will not win You going to lose every moderate every swing voter Every adult in the room is not voting for a socialist communist lunacy we see they going to implode the democratic party all right we leave off the other um scotus uh hot scotus summer for another time let's talk about gavin with the good hair newsom he says he just balanced the california budget newsom announced 351 billion dollars in balance zero deficit budget through 2028 over to you, Freedberg, from your bunker, the last California stand in the Freedberg capitalist bunker. I'm gonna call this the state of California. The state of California. The lower case state. That's right, the state of California. The state of the state. And there are five, the state of the state. And there are five chapters to this. The ballooning costs, the accounting tricks, the revenue dependency problem, and now the big exodus and spiraling that's happening, and the looming unaccounted liabilities. These are the problems that California is facing as Gavin puts his bow on his final budget, calls it balance and walks away while the house burns. California's state budget ballooned from 215 billion a year in 2019 six years ago to 355 billion today so a 65 jump in the state budget And there were a number of these kind of accounting tricks that took place to try and make it look like it a balanced budget this year, but there's revenue in their spending. When they call it a balanced budget, that's not the way we all talk about it in the business world where you have like a P&L, you have revenue and expenses. They have revenue and expenses and the expenses exceed the revenue. and that little difference they do a bunch of borrowing against and then they call it a balanced budget so all that they've done they were able to raise enough debt to cover their whole exactly so there's somewhere between uh 20 and 40 billion of debt that they have a legal ability to just pencil away and that is now a liability that the state has that the taxpayers are all going to have to pay at some point that allows them to quote balance the budget this year and i'm not going I'm not gonna get into all the details of what went into this budget, all the money that's being spent, it's crazy. But I think that's what's worth taking note of is the revenue dependency the state has. As you all know, the top tax rate in California is 14.4% today. Personal income tax is $142 billion of the state's revenue. Okay that is billion of revenue the state generates 142 of it comes from personal income tax The top 1 150 people pay billion pay half of that tax of that income So $70 billion of the state's $210 billion income comes from just the top 1% of payers, 150,000 people who are already paying the highest tax rate in the country. The top 1,000 people in the state of California pay roughly $22 billion a year. So more than 11% of the state's income. The corporate tax is one of the highest in the country at 8.9%, $43 billion. So it's cheaper to move out of state. If you look at some of the other states, Florida, 5.5%, Tennessee's six and a half, and Texas is zero. So now if you kind of look at what's happening, there's a massive exodus underway. The corporate exodus, because of the high tax rates, since 2019, at least 15 Fortune 1,500 companies have moved out of California, moved their headquarters out, not to mention all the local franchises and everything that moved out. 2,100 companies that are mid or large size have moved out of California since 2019. At least 5% of California jobs have been lost as these companies have moved out of the state. And this is the more important and crazy statistic. No one pays attention to this, but we are seeing an average annual exit [85:00] of one to one and a half percent of personal income, meaning the AGI, the adjusted gross income. So people that earn money, about one to one and a half percent of that income is leaving the state every year right now. That might not sound like a lot, but after 10 years, you've seen 15 percent of the state's income leave. And obviously with the new billionaire tax that's being proposed, we're going to see an acceleration as the numbers come out for 2025. There's, as we all know, personal friends that have left the state in 25 and many more that'll leave in 26, including our friend David Sachs. So there is a spiraling of a loss of revenue while there is a ballooning in costs. And this is fundamental to the spiraling problem that's occurring. So now in order to try and make more money, the state has to go further down. They can't just go to the corporates and the high net worth earners. They're now going to the average Californian. So they're increasing sales tax rates this year by creating a new sales tax on software. So if you buy Microsoft Word or you pay for your Gmail subscription or even your chat GPT account, you have to pay an 8% sales tax on that this year. They're estimating that that sales tax is a brand new one. It'll generate about a billion dollars a year in incremental revenue for the state. They're also creating a new tax on healthcare insurance that corporates are going to have to pay that ultimately going to pass down to the individual that going to create another two billion dollars a year in taxes on health insurance The final thing that they did which we all know about is they made the temporary top income tax bracket permanent. So, you know, it was only meant to be a temporary to bridge a major budget deficit problem back in 2012, 13.3 percent, and that became permanent, and now it's increased to 14.4 percent. So this is the spiraling that takes place. The costs are ballooning, the revenue is leaving, and now there's a scrambling underway in the state of California to try and make up this difference, and they're still falling short. In the out years, 2028-29, the projection is $40 billion a year in budget deficits every year. Now, looming over the state of California is the fact that there's this insane unaccounted debt problem. California already has $1.4 trillion in public debt. The state has $500 billion and the local governments have another, call it $800 billion. The state has a reported $664 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. That number, by many estimates, is closer to $1.5 trillion. And then there's a retiree health care obligation deficit of $175 billion. You add this all up there somewhere around to trillion of incremental liabilities that the state has to come up with And remember all of those pension liabilities that trillion dollar plus of pension liabilities, sits senior to the bonds of the state of California, because of something that's known as the California rule. So the state has this looming kind of cliff ahead of it. And there's already this spiraling problem where they're increasing costs because of the demands of the unions and the cost of living and so on. And there's an exodus of corporations and high net worth individuals that pay the taxes. So I would argue that Governor Newsom did not exactly put a bow tie on the budget and create a balanced budget and leave California in a great state as he is wrapping up his final term and his final budget here in the state. But in fact, I think that this state, which, as I've said in the past, threatens to bring down the union, is on the brink of defaults that are going to be so significant that if the federal government was called in to bail them out because the state cannot declare bankruptcy legally, that all of the red states and all of the other taxpayers in the United States will say, why the hell should I pay federal taxes to bail out California? And I think that's what the story will be over the next decade with the state So you predict AOC and Mondami president vice president AOC Mondami He can be VP He wasn born here I do predict Yeah So I predict AOC will be president I mean obviously there a lot of dispersion in what could happen here But I would say AOC would be my front runner based on the movement for the extraordinary cost of living in the United States right now, largely because of government spending. The fact that people are seeing this wealth disparity, those two things are going to continue to drive the socialist movement over the next 24 months. And if AOC comes in and they bail out California and they federalize California's liabilities, you're going to see parts of this union, the red states as they're called, the Texas of the world, that are going to say, why should we be part of this union anymore? We don't want to pay for all of these liabilities that these blue states have accrued and that we are now being asked to bail out. And that is where I think you face a crisis of the union in the years ahead. Okay. Saks, Texas is going to secede. And I think California is the first, yeah, yeah. In this scenario, I mean, it's pretty far-fetched, but it's not far-fetched that you would need a federal bailout to get California out of this in the next couple of years, and the government needs a bailout itself with the massive, we're going to add two or three trillion dollars a year for the next couple of years. So go ahead, Sharmuthia. There's something that's going to happen. [90:00] happen i think that freeburg is right up until the point of the federal absorption i think what will happen is that you will wipe out the california pensions and you'll wipe out the pension obligations and you'll do some sort of negotiated settlement and i think that's where you're going to have a wholesale replacement of the california constitution you'll have a complete redistricting i think you will have a complete red wave in the state and you will disassemble and dismantle everything that caused California to be so poorly run that got them to this place. So I agree with David. All of the issues that he painted are, it's unbelievable. By the way, there's an incredible tweet. I think her name is Joanna Ives. Maybe, Nick, you can find it. But she compared the last eight years of DeSantis versus J.B. Pritzker. And I asked my team, hey, can you create a table that actually adds Newsom to the list so that you can do the three-person comparison? because it's quite staggering how broken these blue states have become and how they continue to try to spend their way out of what is being shown is just general incompetence they not good at managing they not good at running things they not good at delivering results and unfortunately until they feel the brunt of what mismanagement actually means which is that all the people that have paid into this system sadly and unfortunately and avoidably will be the ones that get punished we will unfortunately not learn in california find this tweet and read it and you would just be shocked at how unbelievably good desantis has been in running florida and how unbelievably tragically bad jb pritzker is and then just ask your favorite ai compare california on the spectrum of florida versus illinois and what you'll find is california is even worse than illinois in most of those comparisons Saks, you want to give us the last word here? Yeah, I mean, I guess my decision to go to Texas is looking better and better. I mean, I said when this BTA thing, the so-called Billionaire Tax Act, was proposed, and everyone was saying that it's a very low probability this happens. I was like, I don't really see why it would be low probability. I think it's going to get on the ballot. All you have to do is collect a certain number of signatures. It not that hard And then once it on the ballot I don see why it wouldn pass and everyone like no no no Gavin Newsom has assured us that he kill it He make some backroom deal get rid of it And on the day the final day where BTA was going to be dropped from the ballot or not, Newsom came out with a video on X where he basically endorsed more taxes on billionaires. And this was right after the DSA candidates won in New York. So he sees the writing on the wall he's not gonna come out by the way the problem with the billionaire tax is that if it does get passed and it isn't obviated by the three other ballot initiatives that actually negate it you're gonna have two or three hundred individual lawsuits that will take a decade to meander through the courts and ultimately i think a lot of people have standing here and i just wonder what will they have proven at that point because it'll be a decade later, it'll be 2036, and the California government will have had to spend billions of dollars on legal fees to fight all these billionaires, all to end up losing up the Supreme Court anyways. By then, they'll probably have like a federal wealth tax or something like that. The tragedy is that California at various points in recent history has had a surplus because of the massive tax base from Silicon Valley They could have managed this Their incompetence, their selfishness, and their corruption is what has caused this. They could have – if any state could have balanced its budget, it is California because of our massive tax receipts. There needs to be a hard landing. I really hope it doesn't result in the wipeout of these pensions. I think the pensioners should be extremely upset with California Democratic politics. Look, this idea that somehow things get bad enough where you get a red wave in super blue California and everything gets magically fixed, not going to happen. What's going to happen is a blue state is going to get bluer. That's right. Socialism. The remedy for more and more socialism is going to be to intensify the socialism and there's going to be a giant final confiscation. Then we're going to deal with the California bankruptcy in the next 10 years. And it is unfortunately, no, and it will unfortunately result in a complete restructuring of those debt and obligations. And this is where I think you're going to wipe out a lot of these things that people are guaranteeing. I don't think you're going to see these pensions on it. If you just look at the budget per person, places like Texas and Florida, especially [95:00] About $5,000 per citizen on services, you know, if you divide the budget by the population, and then you look at New York City, it's close to $13,000, and you look at California, close to $9,000, and you simply do not get two or two and a half times or 2.x times the value living in those states in terms of services. The problems are all worse. And it's competence, yes, it's worse. The problems are worse. And really, the more you look to that state government to solve your problems, the more problems you will have in Texas. If you've got a ranch, it's up to you. It also just seems these blue states attract these derelict, incompetent people. I mean, grifters, lunatics, it's unbelievable. Incompetence, they're so incompetent. My God, it just has to do with competence. And it also is the populace being self-reliant. If you live in Texas, when you get your ranch, they say, hey, here's your ranch, and then it's up to you to figure out, hey, who's going to pick up my garbage? And oh, do I want a well? Do I want to use the city water? What's my energy situation going to be? And people make these kind of thoughtful decisions with us, they don't look to the state for every single handout or handholding. There a ruggedness and a rugged individualism and self that makes the state not have to tax everybody to 54 60 65 percent i guarantee you friedberg and chamoff you will be paying 60 to 65 percent tax if you stay in california and i tell you new york it's at 54 right now i guarantee you it breaks 60 by the or it will be proposed to break 50 we'll see if they stop it by the end of Mondami's reign in my hometown. Look, let me tell you what leftism is, okay? It's basically just people trying to string together words to justify taking your money, okay? And they're just experimenting. It's like monkeys typing on a keyboard with words to try and hack everyone's brains to basically figure out how to steal all of their money. And some of those words are virtue signaling. Some of them are guilt tripping and moral accusations. Whatever it is, there's always some new words. But it's never to solve a problem. In fact, all the problems just get worse. It's just to figure out how to separate you from your money. And I had this thought when I saw that like Mackenzie Bezos you know just giving away like billion billion of Jeff Bezos money to all these left causes Hey she earned it too And well but putting that aside she gave me all this money i like oh okay so now like world hunger is fixed right because remember how they told us that it was because of elon's must greed that he refused to hand over he didn't fork over a big chunk of his money and with that money we could have fed the whole world and solved world hunger so why isn't the problem solved now that she just donated 26 billion. That's what they said Elon needed to do to solve world hunger. They always treat your money as if it belongs to them or belongs to the government. And it's your greed and selfishness that's creating all these problems. None of these problems have been fixed. What's the proof that any of that money did anything? All it did was go to line the pockets of all these leftist NGOs and buy them more houses or pay them higher salaries. She would have been better off investing in ohalo no problems get solved companies if literally i hate to break this news what does the poly market say on gavin's chances of uh oh he's down to becoming he's plummeting he's plummeting yeah gavin's down to 20 he peaked at 40. that's quite high though i i mean i think people are realizing it a great haircut and uh you know a really smooth talker but just like he stole other things in his life he going to steal your money Period Full stop I not going to get into detail I think he lower in these polls because the Democratic Party is moving left is moving to the TSA Look at AOC. And people think he's too moderate. Absolutely he is. AOC is going up and this John Ossoff guy's come out of nowhere. They're all to the left of Gavin Newsom. Kamala Amidang. So Newsom's problem, and this is why he put out that video on the day that he was supposed to kill the BTA. puts out a video endorsing billionaire taxes is because he needs to position himself to being more DSA adjacent. Well, to be fair to Newsom, he also on the same day said he's against the Billionaire Tax Act and he's voting against it. This was his hedging video, which is to kind of zoom out his policy on, hey, this BTA doesn't make sense, but I do agree we need more taxation, I think was kind of the intention. Also, he failed to kill BTA. Everyone thought all these California billionaires in these chat groups thought Newsom would be their savior. That's right. That was a big mistake. What's it like? Sax, what's it like in that group chat? Tell us about that group chat. What's it like in here? What's the meme like in there? In the billionaire group chat. Go ahead. It's 8.06 p.m. here. I have a meeting I have to go to. I want to say I love you and I miss all of you. [100:00] a huge happy birthday to the most incredible country in the world i could not have imagined my life being any better in any place i feel so blessed and so lucky to be an american i feel so thankful i feel so grateful it really is the best country in the world we have to fight for it yeah we have to fight for it yeah and on behalf of those of us happy birthday america happy and for those of us who have been here for seven generations we think you're doing a good job we're gonna let you stay here we're gonna let you stay on behalf of how can we take away your citizenship that's what i want is the law where we can revoke jacal citizenship which the four of us should be deported i think you would lose oh no we'll find some constitutional loophole enemy aliens act by jason All right. Feel free. On that note happy birthday America and 250 more great ones Best country in the world Give a f you thing democratic socialist commie scumbags All right we see you next time Bye Love you folks Bye We'll let your winners ride. Rain Man David Sack. And it said we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you, Wes. I'm the queen of Kinoa. I'm going to win. Let your winners ride. Besties are gone That's my dog taking an audition driveway Oh man My avidasher will meet me at We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just it's like this like sexual tension but they just need to release somehow Wet your feet Wet your feet We need to get merch I'm going all in I'm going all in