David Friedberg

You were just really trying to find the cheapest vendor.

That's right.

They have an entire pipeline of stuff that they do.

The details of which I don't exactly know because I've not asked exactly what they run through.

But yeah, they go through an incredibly rigorous.

Well, if you take a compiled version, sure.

But if you just take the open source and you do it yourself, no.

I think at this point, you can expect that every single major company that is in security, that is in a cloud vendor, and also every single major model maker is trying to prove and invalidate how the other models are inferior or bad in some way.

And so that's where the competitive cycle, I think, is really valuable because you do have the best and the brightest computer scientists.

Like, you know, yesterday, a certain person, he's Italian, that's how I know him, this leading security guy at one of these model makers, just talking to him, he's in charge of the security stuff.

they're hammering everything to try to figure out whether there's a vulnerability, because it slows these other folks down.

So that made me feel quite positive that we haven't seen anything yet on any of these models, which is to say that generally, everybody has actually been a pretty good actor so far.

But let's get Shamath in on this discussion.

Shamath.

I think that this is really, really dumb, what's happening.

If you have 50 sets of rules, what you will have are some conservative versions of AI.

You'll have some progressive leaning versions of laws.

These 50 series of laws will essentially just render this industry impotent and incapable of maximizing itself and actually doing what's necessary to drive productivity and GDP on behalf of the country.

There is no conceivable way, as Friedberg said, that anybody in Sacramento or Little Rock or, you know, name your state capital

will have the intellectual wherewithal to get to an answer as good as the federal government will and as Sachs will, just to be totally honest with everybody.