David Sacks

A recent, one of the job boards put out some stats that the number of software jobs is going up, the number of listings of other jobs going down.

So I guess you're probably in the camp of creative destruction and churn at this point, Sax?

Well, I mean, I think you should be giving me more credit than that because my most contrarian take back in January on our prediction show is that AI would lead to job gains, not job loss.

And over the past week, you've now seen the narrative shift

I'd say almost completely towards that position.

So you have the CEO of Goldman Sachs writing this in the New York Times.

You know, I don't think he'd be doing that if he felt like he was completely stepping out on a limb.

Maybe even more importantly, you had Sam and even Dario now walking back their claims of massive job loss.

And they explained why Dario said it's kind of like the 25% of work hours thing he said.

that AI might automate away 90% of someone's tasks, but the other 10% will expand to do a whole bunch of new tasks and new things, which is very similar to the types of arguments that people like me have been saying, and actually that Jensen's been saying, that just because you automate away some tasks doesn't mean that you automate away the purpose of a job, and now the worker is freed up to do new things, to do the higher complexity tasks that

David Solomon, the Goldman CEO, is talking about.

So the fact that Dario is now walking this back and coming around to my position, I think that that's kind of amazing.

And where do I go to get my apology?

Well, we're going to have an official apology form that you can fill out.

It's got checkboxes.

I was wrong.

Some mornings I woke up thinking, why am I going out defending these guys, these idiots?

I mean, they're scaring the public with all these dire predictions about an apocalyptic future.

There was no data to support that.

I mean, we can all debate what's going to happen in the future, and we probably should be humble about what is going to happen in the future because we don't completely know.