Keith Rabois

But then here's what's crazy.

And this is where I think you become a real superpower.

It's what happens after.

Once you cross the line, you notice that he doesn't try to humiliate or dominate Iran.

He tells Iran that he wants them to stabilize themselves.

He told them that he wants to see them trading oil with China.

He wants to see them improving the lives of their people because he realizes that a stable Iran is a stable Middle East.

So I think it's really amazing.

And then the fact that he was able to bring Israel and Iran, who's been on the verge of some kind of conflict for decades and broker

a ceasefire.

It's a really important moment, I think, in American history.

I really do think that if you look at my little framework, it is the closest thing for us to being able to say that we are truly a clear-cut, singular, hegemon, global superpower again.

And that's really exciting.

Yeah.

No, I have not.

I saw it.

I mean, I heard it.

The fear that I had was that if there was a protracted conflict, what you effectively would see...

is a bunch of supply go offline.

And if that supply went offline, and as long as the demand stayed even roughly the same, you would see prices go up.

My thought was that the price of oil could double.

I think Goldman had it slightly under a doubling.

So that was definitely the fear what folks had going into that weekend.

But coming out of it, this is where I think you have to be very respectful of the fact that the market is really the sum of many, many, many millions of informed opinions.

And I think what they saw was that Iran was not really in a position to do anything but capitulate and give up.

And I think that what they also saw...

whether you agree with the Israeli policy or not, was that they had systematically gone from where they are and marched eastward, essentially.

They effectively decapitated Hamas.

They effectively decapitated Hezbollah.

They effectively decapitated the Houthis.

I think finally putting a nail in the coffin of this Iran nuclear ambition program was not just important for them, but it's critical for Saudi and the UAE.

MBS had an incredibly powerful quote, which was, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, we will have no choice but to get our own.

By taking all of that risk off the table, what you're now talking about is an enormous supply that could essentially service world productivity needs unhindered.

Because it's not just Iranian supply, you're talking about Emirati supply, and you're talking about Qatari supply, and you're talking about Saudi supply.

So I think what the market realized was, okay, now the Middle East is the closest it's ever been

to fully monetizing the oil that they have and to invest aggressively into their own people.

The second thing is that Steve Witkoff

spoke about the fact that you should expect the Abraham Accords to expand.

So if you think about that one-two punch, not necessarily from a geopolitical lens, but from an economic lens, the first punch is neutering the Iranians' ability to be chaos monkeys in the region.

But the second punch is the one that then now creates normalization across the region with Israel,

It double and triples down the ability to monetize oil and start to invest those returns in future projects that have a much better ROI.

All of that leads to cheaper energy.

It's a phenomenal question, Jason, but I think that's what the market sniffed out.

And I think that's what the market is now saying, like, that this is a chapter that

that we can close and move on.

I think the three of you guys are a little exaggerated, to be quite honest.

I mean, all the rhetoric sounds very clever, but I don't think it's accurate.

I think the way that I see it is,

more nuanced than this.

I think what's happened is that Zoran Mamdani is very smart and is running a playbook to win like all politicians do based on a formula that has been winning in large cities for the past decade.

And so I don't know if he really believes in this rhetoric or not, but it's worth noting that most of his platform is copied and pasted from London and Chicago.

So the things that he's talked about, universal basic free meals, affordable housing, freezing the cost of transportation, public grocery stores, all three of you are reacting like these things were pulled out of thin air.

They're not.

These were the public platforms of the mayors who have won

in London, in Vienna, in Havana, Cuba, and in Chicago.

So I think the reason why this works is that these are small pockets in the end of a large political spectrum.

Even though New York feels big, it isn't that big in the context of the United States.

And what you see is that when you try to take those policies in a city, take London, and then level it up at the national level,

There's a quick schism that happens.

So if you look at Labour and Labour trying to scale up the policies of a Sadiq Khan in London throughout the country, Labour is now at the absolute, the Labour Party, the absolute lowest approval ratings in the UK of any party ever in this moment in time after an election.

So I think what you're probably seeing

is quite a sophisticated AB test.

And I think that the political wingmen and the money people that want to be in control know how to run candidates on platforms that can win.

And this is a clear winning strategy in left-leaning major metropolitan centers.

So what I would say, just to refine what you guys are saying, is that this platform is not new.

I've seen it for the last decade.

I think you're going to see it for the next few decades.

It doesn't work.

And so you're going to see the same results in New York City that you've already seen in London, which has become unlivable, sadly, one of my favorite cities in the world.

If you don't believe it, go visit there.

Chicago, which I haven't been to in 15 years and will never go to, is a disaster.

So my point is it just doesn't work.

So you can win.

It actually isn't very effective, and it doesn't scale to the national level.

No firefighters with water in the pipes?

I'll tell you something, which is my view.

My view is much more basic.

It's much less sophisticated than I think what you're saying.

My extremely simpleton view of things is that humans swing in a pendulum-like fashion between poles.

And over multi-decade arcs,

You go between the thing that works to the thing that should work now because it's not the thing before.

So I suspect what happens is that New York takes a 40- or 50-year journey.

And at some point, it will look like New York of the 80s.

And at that point, you'll have an Ed Koch-like figure.

You'll have a David Dinkins-like figure.

You'll have a Michael Bloomberg-like figure.

You'll have the broken windows theory of policing reemerge as the cause celebre.

and the cycle will repeat itself.

So I tend to think that these things are just between two poles.

We've spent a lot of time in this more independent self-reliance pole.

A lot of people will want to experiment with this other thing.

It just doesn't prove to work.

And in the absence of something cataclysmically bad, I don't think it's going to change.

That's London today.

The London subway costs $35 to go from the suburbs of London into the center of London.

$35, okay?

Listen, being an elitist, guys, is very hard.

That is ridiculous, right?

You can't walk with your cell phone in central London anymore because there are more cell phone thefts than anything.

There's knife attacks everywhere.

Why is that?

Well, you've had an agenda that was meant to be the socialist left-leaning, let's resolve all these problems for everybody.

And it turns out to not work at a very basic factual level.

And every time it's been repeated over the last 15 years, it still hasn't worked.

So if you think that this guy is going to be the exception that proves the rule in New York, I wish him the best of luck.

But I would be short New York real estate.

I think it's going to crash and burn.

And then we'll pick up the pieces and we'll reset.

Honestly, I, um, I went quite healthy.

What are you talking about?

I have some avocado.

Okay.

Very nice.

I have mango and I have some eggs.

Um,

David, do you want to see my pillows with my initials on them?

They do that for me.

Isn't that incredible?

Do you think Yamanaka factors are the thing still?

Or do you think that there's going to be a lot of other genetic manipulations that

advance age reversal before Yamanaka factors do?

Let me ask it more directly.

Other than the novelty of all of this, do you think there will be something in the market, some injectable or something that average people like us can take in the next five or 10 years to solve a problem that we have or to live longer with higher health?

Blake Byers came to my house for poker.

He's sponsoring a study at UCSF, which I thought was incredible.

You know the gene that allows Donald Trump to sleep four hours?

They've isolated that gene.

Clinton had that gene too.

And Blake is sponsoring a trial to basically edit a handful of subjects who want that gene to see if

They can sleep four hours and be rested.

So I don't know if you guys know this, and he explained this to me, and it makes so much sense, but I didn't realize it.

We sleep 20 years of our life, we're sleeping.

And so if you can cut it in half, you get an extra 10 years of living.

If you think about it like that way, that is an incredible reason to do the gene editing to get the Trump gene.

But the thing that nobody knows is what the- We could ski all day and play poker all night.

The thing that they don't know is, you know, Trump and Clinton were born with that gene from day one.

And what they don't know is what could go wrong if you injected it and manipulated yourself at the age of 30 or 40 or 50.

But wouldn't it be incredible if you could all of a sudden only sleep four or five hours and be completely rested?

I kept it because it's like a sheath.

It's like a sheath for the anaconda.

Very good.

We gotta get you a double straw.

Hey, David, can you send somebody to the airport or to my plane with some bottles or no?

Actually, Freeburg, I brought two bottles to the Bay Area, so I can take them from my house.

I'll bring them.

Did you get the did you did you follow up with the guys from Robin Hood to get the gold card?

You didn't get a gold card yet?

Well, he was the only one.

Vlad texted me and said, hey, Freebrook's the only he's the only best thing about it.

So I said, David, get one.

Oh, look, I have mine here.

I have mine.

And shout out to Brian Armstrong.

I'm getting my

coinbase bitcoin card oh they have a coin i thought you're saying you're launching the all you get four percent you get four percent cash back in bitcoin i mean oh wow i'm gonna i'm gonna buy another global 7500 like 70 million dollars i mean that was the saddest day of your life when you got rid of the 7500

I mean, that plane is expensive.

It's a great plane.

It's a little overkill, to be quite honest.

It was overkill.

It was a little overkill.

Oh, my Lord.

By the way, you guys, do you know how good Starlink is on these airplanes now?

Incredible.

I've had a couple weekends in Vegas that have been called Midnight Hammer.

I flew to Toronto and then Toronto back to L.A.,

I didn't miss a beat.

I had Starlink.

I was doing Zooms.

I was making phone calls.

I have never been more productive.

And then I was just watching YouTube.

And it's like I was on the ground in my living room.

It's crazy.

I think the only thing that you should be searching for when you're flying is, is it Argus Platinum?

Yes.

And does it have Starlink?

It's incredible.

Oh, that's it.

Yeah, I mean, look, if I was a betting man, which I am.

You are.

I think the free money trade here is to be levered long.

I think you can make a lot of money right now.

Why is that?

The first chart I want to show you is the velocity of money.

So what is this?

This is the M2 money supply.

It's a measure of how much money is circulating in the economy.

What this shows is the impact of rates, where we were able to start to slow down and contract the money supply.

But then as you saw, as the economy stabilized and people started to project what's possible in 18 to 24 months, you started to see money coming back into the system.

That's what has given a bid to the equity markets.

That's great because a percentage of this capital

gets allocated into things that can generate a superior return to money markets.

And that's where the bid to the equity market came from.

So you would say, well, where does it go from here?

The next chart, Nick, if you just give the second one is, look at how much money, and again, you can just look at the last five years, look at how much money is sitting in money market funds.

And what this starts to show you is you have trillions and trillions of dollars of dry powder on the sidelines that will need to find a home.

I think that Jerome Powell is in an increasingly untenuous situation.

because he will be looked at as politicizing the office of the Federal Reserve.

There is enough data that can justify cutting rates.

If you cut rates, and we've talked about this before, two things will happen.

Number one is people will take some amount of money out of the money market funds because they will want to go and seek superior returns somewhere else.

it will increase the velocity of money at the same time.

You put those two things together, that is a bid to the equity markets.

And so if we're at an all-time high today with rates at 4.5% and Powell is back against the wall to cut,

The only road from here is probably up.

And so you could see this thing get re-rated quite aggressively.

And then the question is, do you do it where you manage your risk and you're short some stuff?

Or do you just say, you know what, I'm just going to take it all up and take most of my shorts off and let the thing go?

I think that if Powell starts an aggressive cutting program, either because he has to or because he's trying to keep his job,

I mean, man, you could see the S&P at 7,000.

very quickly.

I mean, there are some members.

No, but like just as we were taping, there's just a whole deluge of economic data that came out.

The GDP print for Q1 came in at minus 0.5%.

I mean, so how could anybody interpret for Q1?

So how could anybody at the Fed or in the media covering the Fed interpret

not understand that, by the way, we were talking about this, just like I said, that we're probably going to print like a three handle on GDP in Q2.

We also talked about the fact that we were probably going to have a negative GDP print in Q1.

So we've been knowing it for months, we've basically been calling it right.

So why is there an inability to just look at the data and just say the obvious, truthful thing?

So whatever you think of Trump, it doesn't really matter.

Rates should not be where they are today.

They should be 50 to 100 basis points lower, period.

It's categorical.

It's obvious.

There's no logical explanation for it.

There is a subjective explanation, and that's political.

Is there a polymarket on who replaces Powell?

Nick, is there anything in there about who replaces Powell?

He's going to announce it.

It's obviously going to be Besant.

Who is the most likely new Fed chair or something like that?

I think it's Besant.

Oh, there it is.

Chris Waller.

Really?

Warsh has been in the game for a long time.

He really knows how the markets work.

He... I mean, this... Yeah.

I think Besant's crushing a treasury.

I would love to keep him in the job.

Yeah, I think that's the decision, right?

I think the thing is elevating Waller has, that's an interesting set of implications.

Warsh is very consummate and capable of doing the job.

The question is, does Trump believe he's MAGA or does Trump believe he's more established Republican?

Do you want Musk or Trump?

I think that I'm part of a cascade that happens if something else happens.

What club are we going to this weekend?

Oh, daddy's home.

Okay.

I think it's reasonable to pay Disney for pre-training.

And I think that they do.

We are going to bring the club to us.

I told you about this.

We did a licensing deal with OpenAI, we meaning beast.

They paid us, and they're using it for pre-training.

It's quite reasonable.

Is it the right price?

We have no idea.

But we did it so that we could be a part of the conversation and shape how these deals get done for content creators.

But Sax is right.

If you think about what is the...

ultimate output.

The output, if you look at how a transformer behaves, it's almost, it's impossible to say that it's copying the input.

It's just not how it works.

And so, I don't know what else to do.

I love you.

I think it's called Club NATO.

Sax, can you get the hall pass?

You want to come to Vegas this weekend?

Maybe.

Let's talk about it off camera.

Pop on a Southwest flight.

Meet us in Vegas.

Can I up-level this slightly?

I think that this has been probably the most important

week, and I would almost say most important few months in US politics in 30 or 40 years.

And the reason is that it starts to converge a bunch of things together that I think are really worth putting on the table.

So from my perspective, I think what President Trump has done is almost single-handedly bring

back the United States as the global superpower.

And I would put that in all caps.

So what does it mean to be a superpower?

I've said this several times, but just to be slightly redundant.

In order to be a superpower, I think you need to have three things, but they work in a hierarchy.

The first is that you need to have technical supremacy.

And then from that technological supremacy, you need to establish and project economic supremacy and military supremacy.

So if you look at the first one, you saw a tactical demonstration of technological supremacy with the B-2 bombers, but taking a more general step back,

If you look at the largest companies in the world, who are the ones that are actually driving the world forward?

These are all American companies.

I think these last few months, you've seen America firing on all cylinders technologically.

Economically, at the same time, you now have the stock market back at all-time highs.

You have interest rates incredibly starting to compress, even in the absence of the Federal Reserve willing to act on data.

So you're projecting economic supremacy.

And then these last few weeks, frankly, have been a pretty clear-cut case of military supremacy.

And so I think what's pretty simple now is the US is essentially telling the world our words

carry weight again, we're going to shape the global order.

Countries will now have to calibrate their actions around what the US is willing to tolerate and what it isn't willing to tolerate.

And in the case of Iran, the president made those lines, I think, really crystal clear.

He warned them 100 times where the line was.

And he was clear, you cannot build nuclear weapons.

And when the line was crossed, and look, I think the

The CNNs of the world want to debate that the line wasn't crossed.

All I can tell you is I don't know because I don't have access to the intel.

I believe what he and Tulsi Gabbard and JD Vance and Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth are saying is that they crossed the line and then he showed that he will use decisive military force when that happens.

Well, I share, actually, you're both right in some ways. If you look at who's Trump's pick, these successful people, they're not typically being assigned to industries they came from. So it's not like he's taking drugging. He's actually taking the opposite, like you think of RFK, for example. So actually, I think you can take successful people who have proven themselves through merit.

Well, I share, actually, you're both right in some ways. If you look at who's Trump's pick, these successful people, they're not typically being assigned to industries they came from. So it's not like he's taking drugging. He's actually taking the opposite, like you think of RFK, for example. So actually, I think you can take successful people who have proven themselves through merit.

I think that's one of the other benefits of the real world is the only way you get ahead is you're in a Darwinistic experiment with other people that are comparable. And to be successful, you have to outthink, outwork, et cetera. And that shows up ultimately in promotions and net worths and various other metrics.

I think that's one of the other benefits of the real world is the only way you get ahead is you're in a Darwinistic experiment with other people that are comparable. And to be successful, you have to outthink, outwork, et cetera. And that shows up ultimately in promotions and net worths and various other metrics.

So Trump has taken a lot of successful people, and I think we want a society where we aspire for our kids to be successful. We want to emulate successful people. That only yields more success. Having Elon involved in the government will yield more success than if you penalize successful people. You stigmatize it, you get less of it.

So Trump has taken a lot of successful people, and I think we want a society where we aspire for our kids to be successful. We want to emulate successful people. That only yields more success. Having Elon involved in the government will yield more success than if you penalize successful people. You stigmatize it, you get less of it.

So I think if you transplant successful people into industries that they're not from and that they have no interest in going to after the government, you might get the best of both worlds. Because I can see some of the critiques of, you know, you're regulating your friends' companies and you're going to make money later. That said, most of Trump's people are not going to do that.

So I think if you transplant successful people into industries that they're not from and that they have no interest in going to after the government, you might get the best of both worlds. Because I can see some of the critiques of, you know, you're regulating your friends' companies and you're going to make money later. That said, most of Trump's people are not going to do that.

You can also pass laws like, you know, you can't lobby, you can't work for X years after. Yeah. There's also this great data point. I think it's in the last 60 years. Trump is the only president whose net worth went down after office. Every other president took a relatively modest net worth or mediocre net worth and turned it into a stratosphere.

You can also pass laws like, you know, you can't lobby, you can't work for X years after. Yeah. There's also this great data point. I think it's in the last 60 years. Trump is the only president whose net worth went down after office. Every other president took a relatively modest net worth or mediocre net worth and turned it into a stratosphere.

So you think about the president as the signature example. It's great that Trump is setting the opposite illustration.

So you think about the president as the signature example. It's great that Trump is setting the opposite illustration.

Yeah, I mean, I think it's critical in venture to not really fall for that trap. I always mention that I don't like people with expertise, typically, as founders. I think in what I call due diligence or call experts, I only ask one question, which is, what is metaphysically impossible about this working? Like, is there a law of physics that I don't understand that makes this actually impossible?

Yeah, I mean, I think it's critical in venture to not really fall for that trap. I always mention that I don't like people with expertise, typically, as founders. I think in what I call due diligence or call experts, I only ask one question, which is, what is metaphysically impossible about this working? Like, is there a law of physics that I don't understand that makes this actually impossible?

And if they can't isolate a very specific principle that makes it or fact that makes it actually impossible, then I just ignore everything they're saying, you know, write a check.

And if they can't isolate a very specific principle that makes it or fact that makes it actually impossible, then I just ignore everything they're saying, you know, write a check.

Well, they're experts in a prior world, right? They've learned why not. And this is actually like to combine a couple of topics here. The reason why Trump is so effective. So the most interesting question to me over the last year was, how is this guy who everybody in the media and everybody in the legal groups of various things is trying to attack and hate and all these people publish these books.

Well, they're experts in a prior world, right? They've learned why not. And this is actually like to combine a couple of topics here. The reason why Trump is so effective. So the most interesting question to me over the last year was, how is this guy who everybody in the media and everybody in the legal groups of various things is trying to attack and hate and all these people publish these books.

Yeah, I don't really love dictators. They're not good for society. They're not good for America. But, you know, it's not always America's job to fix all of that.

Yeah, I don't really love dictators. They're not good for society. They're not good for America. But, you know, it's not always America's job to fix all of that.

Why is he on the precipice of being elected president of the United States twice? You must have a superpower or two. Most people do not get elected president of the United States twice. And most of the people who are attacked by everybody who has power in the establishment definitely do not get elected president twice.

Why is he on the precipice of being elected president of the United States twice? You must have a superpower or two. Most people do not get elected president of the United States twice. And most of the people who are attacked by everybody who has power in the establishment definitely do not get elected president twice.

So what it came down to, and I interviewed a lot of people who are critics of him, but knew him well, like ex-cabinet people that don't like him. Comes down to, he just asks a lot of why. Like, why do we do this? Why do we have to do it this way? Why have we done it this way?

So what it came down to, and I interviewed a lot of people who are critics of him, but knew him well, like ex-cabinet people that don't like him. Comes down to, he just asks a lot of why. Like, why do we do this? Why do we have to do it this way? Why have we done it this way?

And it turns out in politics and in DC, most of the answers are pretty mediocre or weak or poor or haven't been rethought for 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 years. And so he just constantly dives in and says, why, why, why, why? And that's actually what predicts success for founders is in a domain they don't know anything about. They're just like, why?

And it turns out in politics and in DC, most of the answers are pretty mediocre or weak or poor or haven't been rethought for 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 years. And so he just constantly dives in and says, why, why, why, why? And that's actually what predicts success for founders is in a domain they don't know anything about. They're just like, why?

Why do we take these hotel things for granted in the Airbnb case? Why should they be so expensive? Why should scarcity prevail in New York for four months of the year, et cetera, et cetera?

Why do we take these hotel things for granted in the Airbnb case? Why should they be so expensive? Why should scarcity prevail in New York for four months of the year, et cetera, et cetera?

Yes, actually. So I believe in the founder mode, the Brian Chesky founder mode. I held a conference in New York recently that Brian was nice enough to speak at called hiring the art of hiring for founder mode.

Yes, actually. So I believe in the founder mode, the Brian Chesky founder mode. I held a conference in New York recently that Brian was nice enough to speak at called hiring the art of hiring for founder mode.

So specifically for people who subscribe founders that subscribe to that view, how do you hire people and how is that different than what you would hire in a standard, you know, monstrosity of a company like Google or something?

So specifically for people who subscribe founders that subscribe to that view, how do you hire people and how is that different than what you would hire in a standard, you know, monstrosity of a company like Google or something?

Yeah, LinkedIn was pretty key. Like Reed left PayPal, started LinkedIn.

Yeah, LinkedIn was pretty key. Like Reed left PayPal, started LinkedIn.

So yes, that's true. And then after that, I went back with back selection from PayPal days to slide, which is on the outsheep of history. We don't have to talk about that. But then I did jump into Square as the 20th employee and helped build a pretty good company.

So yes, that's true. And then after that, I went back with back selection from PayPal days to slide, which is on the outsheep of history. We don't have to talk about that. But then I did jump into Square as the 20th employee and helped build a pretty good company.

Yeah, so I think... First of all, I think there's a long time before this becomes a commercial product or application of any sort. So, you know, it's great that they're taking money, but think about it as like almost like Stanford takes money or the US government funds basic research in some ways. This is at least a decade out kind of thing.

Yeah, so I think... First of all, I think there's a long time before this becomes a commercial product or application of any sort. So, you know, it's great that they're taking money, but think about it as like almost like Stanford takes money or the US government funds basic research in some ways. This is at least a decade out kind of thing.

There's another, I mean, this area way beyond my expertise, but I've been talking to a lot of smart people because I do do financial services innovation. And obviously encryption is pretty critical, whether it's Bitcoin or other places. And there's a couple of concerns. One is it's not even clear that you can verify that this is true, by the way.

There's another, I mean, this area way beyond my expertise, but I've been talking to a lot of smart people because I do do financial services innovation. And obviously encryption is pretty critical, whether it's Bitcoin or other places. And there's a couple of concerns. One is it's not even clear that you can verify that this is true, by the way.

Like standard computing, to explain sort of the magnitude of difference, standard computing would take 10 to the 25th years to verify that Google analysis is accurate. So there's a chance that it's not even true.

Like standard computing, to explain sort of the magnitude of difference, standard computing would take 10 to the 25th years to verify that Google analysis is accurate. So there's a chance that it's not even true.

And then to be practical, like, so assuming you solve all this and it's accurate and blah, blah, blah, you make it fast and all that. Second, then, there is the post-quantum computing encryption, which, you know, a lot of people, a lot of things, a lot of important things have switched over to. So you have historical communications, right?

And then to be practical, like, so assuming you solve all this and it's accurate and blah, blah, blah, you make it fast and all that. Second, then, there is the post-quantum computing encryption, which, you know, a lot of people, a lot of things, a lot of important things have switched over to. So you have historical communications, right?

that were encrypted under an old paradigm that would be vulnerable. And every year that goes by, the embarrassment level or the threatening level of old historical communications will probably have some decay function or some half-life. So if it takes another 10 years, communications that were drafted 20 years ago, yeah, there'll be some embarrassing things and blah, blah, blah, blah.

that were encrypted under an old paradigm that would be vulnerable. And every year that goes by, the embarrassment level or the threatening level of old historical communications will probably have some decay function or some half-life. So if it takes another 10 years, communications that were drafted 20 years ago, yeah, there'll be some embarrassing things and blah, blah, blah, blah.

But the more time it takes, the more safe private communications and exchanges will be. So I think that's positive. Third, is there's a question of order of magnitude here. You mentioned you need like three orders of magnitude sort of improvement. Is each step function, you know, incrementally easier and faster or is each step function, you know, 10 years?

But the more time it takes, the more safe private communications and exchanges will be. So I think that's positive. Third, is there's a question of order of magnitude here. You mentioned you need like three orders of magnitude sort of improvement. Is each step function, you know, incrementally easier and faster or is each step function, you know, 10 years?

And I don't know that anybody knows the answer to that.

And I don't know that anybody knows the answer to that.

Not yet. We have looked at KB, talking about technology forward VCs. Over the years, I've sat through partner presentations, and we've never really pulled the trigger. There's other reasons, including even if you have quantum computing, you have to rewrite software on top of it. It's a completely different world.

Not yet. We have looked at KB, talking about technology forward VCs. Over the years, I've sat through partner presentations, and we've never really pulled the trigger. There's other reasons, including even if you have quantum computing, you have to rewrite software on top of it. It's a completely different world.

I became a VC, you know, became lazy, you know, decided to be a VC in 2013, spent six years at Coastal Ventures, five at Founders Fund last year, almost the last year now.

I became a VC, you know, became lazy, you know, decided to be a VC in 2013, spent six years at Coastal Ventures, five at Founders Fund last year, almost the last year now.

So you're starting from scratch. So you have an application layer, which might be actually an interesting business opportunity.

So you're starting from scratch. So you have an application layer, which might be actually an interesting business opportunity.

Yeah. Who's going to write the basic? Who's going to write like the Microsoft basic?

Yeah. Who's going to write the basic? Who's going to write like the Microsoft basic?

There's an advantage of Monday partner meetings is I get to watch the science fiction stuff every week, even if I don't really understand it. But like a decade of watching science fiction, you pick up some tricks.

There's an advantage of Monday partner meetings is I get to watch the science fiction stuff every week, even if I don't really understand it. But like a decade of watching science fiction, you pick up some tricks.

Actually, so I don't play chess at all. Okay. The reason why is if I do something, I want to be really proficient at it. I don't have the time.

Actually, so I don't play chess at all. Okay. The reason why is if I do something, I want to be really proficient at it. I don't have the time.

That's true. So I had the benefit of having Vinod on the board of Square, which I think is typically how executives wind up turning into VCs, is you forge a relationship with board members. So like, for example, Rolof Bote, who runs Sequoia, had Mike Moritz on his board. Rolof was our CFO at PayPal, and Mike recruited him.

That's true. So I had the benefit of having Vinod on the board of Square, which I think is typically how executives wind up turning into VCs, is you forge a relationship with board members. So like, for example, Rolof Bote, who runs Sequoia, had Mike Moritz on his board. Rolof was our CFO at PayPal, and Mike recruited him.

So the most important thing about Apple is to remember it's vertically integrated. And vertically integrated companies, when you construct them properly, have a competitive advantage that really cannot be assaulted for a decade, 20, 30, 40, 50 years. And so chips, classic illustration, go all the way down to the metal.

So the most important thing about Apple is to remember it's vertically integrated. And vertically integrated companies, when you construct them properly, have a competitive advantage that really cannot be assaulted for a decade, 20, 30, 40, 50 years. And so chips, classic illustration, go all the way down to the metal.

and build a chip that's perfect for your desired interface, your desired use cases, your desired UI, and nobody's going to be able to compete with you. And if you have the resources, because you need balance sheet resources to go in the chip direction, it just gives you another five-inch hang your sort of competitive advantage. And so I love vertically integrated companies.

and build a chip that's perfect for your desired interface, your desired use cases, your desired UI, and nobody's going to be able to compete with you. And if you have the resources, because you need balance sheet resources to go in the chip direction, it just gives you another five-inch hang your sort of competitive advantage. And so I love vertically integrated companies.

I posted a pinned tweet, I think it's still my pinned tweet, about vertically integrate is the solution to the best possible companies. But it's very difficult. You need different teams with different skill sets, and you need probably more money, truthfully, more capital. But Apple is just going to keep going down the vertical integration, software, hardware, all day long.

I posted a pinned tweet, I think it's still my pinned tweet, about vertically integrate is the solution to the best possible companies. But it's very difficult. You need different teams with different skill sets, and you need probably more money, truthfully, more capital. But Apple is just going to keep going down the vertical integration, software, hardware, all day long.

So that's a very common, same thing, Ravi at Sequoia today was the COO and CFO of Instacart. Again, same thing, Mike recruited him into Sequoia. So I think that's typically how people become VCs. I always knew I wanted to be a VC since 2003. I was a very active angel investor, as you know, even when I was concentrating on all these other jobs, I was writing a lot of checks.

So that's a very common, same thing, Ravi at Sequoia today was the COO and CFO of Instacart. Again, same thing, Mike recruited him into Sequoia. So I think that's typically how people become VCs. I always knew I wanted to be a VC since 2003. I was a very active angel investor, as you know, even when I was concentrating on all these other jobs, I was writing a lot of checks.

And there's nobody else who does hardware and software together in the planet, which is kind of shocking in some ways. Is there a world-class company, a company that's world-class in both software and hardware other than Apple?

And there's nobody else who does hardware and software together in the planet, which is kind of shocking in some ways. Is there a world-class company, a company that's world-class in both software and hardware other than Apple?

Yeah, maybe. NVIDIA? Google? Well, not really. Could they do a world-class UI? Maybe. Maybe there's a foundation, but you have to have a different vision, maybe a different team. Not clear. Tesla's close, I guess. I'd say the software's good.

Yeah, maybe. NVIDIA? Google? Well, not really. Could they do a world-class UI? Maybe. Maybe there's a foundation, but you have to have a different vision, maybe a different team. Not clear. Tesla's close, I guess. I'd say the software's good.

Apple has a lot of competitive advantages that they've been actually leveraging for about 15 years now. And even back then, Steve, there's some old great Steve videos. I'll see if I can find you a clip where he talks about this very intentionally from the 1990s. He came back to Apple.

Apple has a lot of competitive advantages that they've been actually leveraging for about 15 years now. And even back then, Steve, there's some old great Steve videos. I'll see if I can find you a clip where he talks about this very intentionally from the 1990s. He came back to Apple.

He said, we're doing vertical integration, basically using those words of software and hardware, and there's going to be nobody else that can compete with us. I think it's in an interview he did, and it's published in the company of giants, I believe. And he's perfect on point. He just followed that strategy for the next 25 years.

He said, we're doing vertical integration, basically using those words of software and hardware, and there's going to be nobody else that can compete with us. I think it's in an interview he did, and it's published in the company of giants, I believe. And he's perfect on point. He just followed that strategy for the next 25 years.

Now, you're seeing some of the manifestations, though, of a competitive strategy that gives you incredible advantages is you get very sloppy in other places, especially over time. Because you have such great competitive modes that you don't have to compete at the cutting edge of this. The Photos app is completely unusable. I'm the biggest Apple fanboy in the world.

Now, you're seeing some of the manifestations, though, of a competitive strategy that gives you incredible advantages is you get very sloppy in other places, especially over time. Because you have such great competitive modes that you don't have to compete at the cutting edge of this. The Photos app is completely unusable. I'm the biggest Apple fanboy in the world.

I remember interviewing once with a job for Tim Cook. And I walked in and he's like, why are you interested? And I said, well, you know, I own every SKU of every product you've ever produced, except I don't have every color of each iPod. And he was like blown away. And but now like my photos app is completely unusable. So I totally understand, you know, the frustration.

I remember interviewing once with a job for Tim Cook. And I walked in and he's like, why are you interested? And I said, well, you know, I own every SKU of every product you've ever produced, except I don't have every color of each iPod. And he was like blown away. And but now like my photos app is completely unusable. So I totally understand, you know, the frustration.

And they are showing like the decay function, you know, culturally and otherwise, that eventually somebody will figure out an angle to rip them out.

And they are showing like the decay function, you know, culturally and otherwise, that eventually somebody will figure out an angle to rip them out.

And so anybody who's writing a lot of active angel checks probably has in the back of their mind, one day I might want to be a professional investor. We could talk about the merits or demerits of that, but the goal was pretty clear in my mind. And then at some point, I think you have to make a decision. What do you want to be in life? Venture has long time horizons.

And so anybody who's writing a lot of active angel checks probably has in the back of their mind, one day I might want to be a professional investor. We could talk about the merits or demerits of that, but the goal was pretty clear in my mind. And then at some point, I think you have to make a decision. What do you want to be in life? Venture has long time horizons.

Yeah. Let me pause, double click on that for a second. So I think taste is great if you have it, but there's only so many people on the planet that are going to have cutting edge taste and be right. If you don't have taste, what most tech companies do is they use data.

Yeah. Let me pause, double click on that for a second. So I think taste is great if you have it, but there's only so many people on the planet that are going to have cutting edge taste and be right. If you don't have taste, what most tech companies do is they use data.

data is something that's approachable and leverageable because Apple has like the antibodies to using data to measure success with the user experience to measure whatever success. If you subtract taste even by a bit, you don't have the scaffolding that every other company would use. And so you see the worst of both worlds.

data is something that's approachable and leverageable because Apple has like the antibodies to using data to measure success with the user experience to measure whatever success. If you subtract taste even by a bit, you don't have the scaffolding that every other company would use. And so you see the worst of both worlds.

The scaffolding you had at Facebook Meta, obviously, or that Google uses, would catch some of the stuff, without a doubt, no doubt about it. You'd know that users are less thrilled, and they'd use things less, and you'd fix it. And maybe even you take that to an extreme, you never develop taste. I could argue that about Google or Meta. They don't really have taste.

The scaffolding you had at Facebook Meta, obviously, or that Google uses, would catch some of the stuff, without a doubt, no doubt about it. You'd know that users are less thrilled, and they'd use things less, and you'd fix it. And maybe even you take that to an extreme, you never develop taste. I could argue that about Google or Meta. They don't really have taste.

But you could argue the paradigms. But fundamentally, if you don't have that backstop, if the taste subtracts even 10%, not all the way down, you're just not going to catch this stuff. And I think there's only... How many people in the world really have cutting edge technology user experience taste? I don't know too many. I would fund them right away.

But you could argue the paradigms. But fundamentally, if you don't have that backstop, if the taste subtracts even 10%, not all the way down, you're just not going to catch this stuff. And I think there's only... How many people in the world really have cutting edge technology user experience taste? I don't know too many. I would fund them right away.

It's an incredible... Brian Chesky might have it.

It's an incredible... Brian Chesky might have it.

It's more predictable scale. It's certainly more scalable, right? Like you take Steve out, you don't need a dictator, but you do need a taste and taste is artistic. The same thing with venture, like, you know, like scaling venture funds is really, really challenging because early stage investing is more like taste than data driven. And later stage, you can use data and scale it and scaffolding.

It's more predictable scale. It's certainly more scalable, right? Like you take Steve out, you don't need a dictator, but you do need a taste and taste is artistic. The same thing with venture, like, you know, like scaling venture funds is really, really challenging because early stage investing is more like taste than data driven. And later stage, you can use data and scale it and scaffolding.

So I think there's just fields. It's a little bit also, you see like these sports teams, like this happened at Stanford when Jim Harbaugh left and, It took years for the decay function for the next coaching regime to show they were completely incompetent. The next year, they were pretty good. The next year, they lost one more game than they should have.

So I think there's just fields. It's a little bit also, you see like these sports teams, like this happened at Stanford when Jim Harbaugh left and, It took years for the decay function for the next coaching regime to show they were completely incompetent. The next year, they were pretty good. The next year, they lost one more game than they should have.

It is a job for life, like 15, 20 years is pretty much what you have to commit to. So you don't really want to start venture when you get too old because 20 years, you'll be like Donald Trump age. Yeah. So I can run for president in 25 years or something.

It is a job for life, like 15, 20 years is pretty much what you have to commit to. So you don't really want to start venture when you get too old because 20 years, you'll be like Donald Trump age. Yeah. So I can run for president in 25 years or something.

The next year, they lost two more games than they should have, blah, blah, blah. And then eventually, they became horrible. And there's a decay function with an organization when you take out the person who is the original thinker or the leader or the dictator or whatever. And so I think some of this is showing up now.

The next year, they lost two more games than they should have, blah, blah, blah. And then eventually, they became horrible. And there's a decay function with an organization when you take out the person who is the original thinker or the leader or the dictator or whatever. And so I think some of this is showing up now.

And then playing on a field that's not favorable to them, which is there are advantages Apple has in AI. But there's some significant organizational structural disadvantages. And that's the field that people are going to be competing on for the next five years from a consumer perspective. And they're playing on a field where they don't have all the advantages in their favor.

And then playing on a field that's not favorable to them, which is there are advantages Apple has in AI. But there's some significant organizational structural disadvantages. And that's the field that people are going to be competing on for the next five years from a consumer perspective. And they're playing on a field where they don't have all the advantages in their favor.

You don't even have to have a conversation, in my view. TikTok is a threat. to the national security of the United States.

You don't even have to have a conversation, in my view. TikTok is a threat. to the national security of the United States.

Why? So I think there's different dimensions. One of the problems is there's so many things wrong with TikTok that actually sometimes people get confused because there's not just one. It'd be easier sometimes if there's just one. So they are definitely using the app to track data about Americans. And there's evidence that regardless of what alleged protections exist,

Why? So I think there's different dimensions. One of the problems is there's so many things wrong with TikTok that actually sometimes people get confused because there's not just one. It'd be easier sometimes if there's just one. So they are definitely using the app to track data about Americans. And there's evidence that regardless of what alleged protections exist,

There are people in China monitoring what certain people in the United States are doing. And the CEO lied under oath to congressional committees about this. And the evidence is now in the public domain. Hopefully, this Justice Department will prosecute him for lying under oath. I think setting a really good example that you cannot just perjure yourself before Congress.

There are people in China monitoring what certain people in the United States are doing. And the CEO lied under oath to congressional committees about this. And the evidence is now in the public domain. Hopefully, this Justice Department will prosecute him for lying under oath. I think setting a really good example that you cannot just perjure yourself before Congress.

So there are people in China who on the record have said they had access and had access to American user data, which he swore under oath to the Congress that they were storing the data in Texas somewhere. and that there's no possibility that Chinese nationals in China could access the data. There is now several instantiations of this in the public record, let alone what's privately available.

So there are people in China who on the record have said they had access and had access to American user data, which he swore under oath to the Congress that they were storing the data in Texas somewhere. and that there's no possibility that Chinese nationals in China could access the data. There is now several instantiations of this in the public record, let alone what's privately available.

Then secondly, let me keep going here because it's worse. So there's a law. The fundamental problem is in China, there's a law that says if you're a Chinese company, upon request of the CCP, you must provide all user data. So any Chinese company is subject to that law, period. There's no court intervention. You don't need a subpoena, blah, blah, blah.

Then secondly, let me keep going here because it's worse. So there's a law. The fundamental problem is in China, there's a law that says if you're a Chinese company, upon request of the CCP, you must provide all user data. So any Chinese company is subject to that law, period. There's no court intervention. You don't need a subpoena, blah, blah, blah.

And so any Chinese, any executive at that company is subject to significant penalties. on the record for not providing any user data at the request of the CCP. So as long as that law exists, there's a real structural threat to the United States.

And so any Chinese, any executive at that company is subject to significant penalties. on the record for not providing any user data at the request of the CCP. So as long as that law exists, there's a real structural threat to the United States.

So COSA was great. I spent six years there. The truthful reason why I left, it's kind of funny given COVID and how history changes. I hated commuting to Sand Hill Road every day. We were one office period in office every single day. And I felt like the future of investing was more in San Francisco. than in Palo Alto at the time. And I just despise sitting in a car 45 minutes each direction.

So COSA was great. I spent six years there. The truthful reason why I left, it's kind of funny given COVID and how history changes. I hated commuting to Sand Hill Road every day. We were one office period in office every single day. And I felt like the future of investing was more in San Francisco. than in Palo Alto at the time. And I just despise sitting in a car 45 minutes each direction.

Now, then there's the, is the app being used, manipulated on a content basis to influence policy in the United States to disadvantage this or that or create hostilities? I don't really know the answer. I think there's been studies that suggest that and pretty rigorous methodologies, but that's a second level. And then third is there's the, why the hell are we allowing

Now, then there's the, is the app being used, manipulated on a content basis to influence policy in the United States to disadvantage this or that or create hostilities? I don't really know the answer. I think there's been studies that suggest that and pretty rigorous methodologies, but that's a second level. And then third is there's the, why the hell are we allowing

Chinese companies to compete with us when no American content-based organization is allowed into the Chinese market, whether it's Meta, Google, X. There's a strong argument there that Reddit, if you don't allow our content or non-Chinese content into your market, why should we be enabling Chinese companies to be successful in quotes in the US market? And that's more of a fair trade, free trade

Chinese companies to compete with us when no American content-based organization is allowed into the Chinese market, whether it's Meta, Google, X. There's a strong argument there that Reddit, if you don't allow our content or non-Chinese content into your market, why should we be enabling Chinese companies to be successful in quotes in the US market? And that's more of a fair trade, free trade

Yes. So my evidence for this that I believe is an interpolation of what's in the public domain is if you looked at that vote to ban TikTok, it was extremely bipartisan, despite controversy. And what happened was that vote was taken a week after there was an intelligence briefing to both the House and Senate intelligence committees. That's confidential.

Yes. So my evidence for this that I believe is an interpolation of what's in the public domain is if you looked at that vote to ban TikTok, it was extremely bipartisan, despite controversy. And what happened was that vote was taken a week after there was an intelligence briefing to both the House and Senate intelligence committees. That's confidential.

And the votes, you know, all of a sudden flowed through. I think there's things that are not in the public domain about TikTok that spooked a lot of elected officials and led to this bipartisan consensus. How many bipartisan votes do we see on an allegedly controversial issue that, you know, basically the vote was like, you know, like not even close in either house. 360 to 58. Yeah.

And the votes, you know, all of a sudden flowed through. I think there's things that are not in the public domain about TikTok that spooked a lot of elected officials and led to this bipartisan consensus. How many bipartisan votes do we see on an allegedly controversial issue that, you know, basically the vote was like, you know, like not even close in either house. 360 to 58. Yeah.

When do you see a vote like that on something meaningful? Never.

When do you see a vote like that on something meaningful? Never.

On an app that's used by, you know, huge traction of the American public.

On an app that's used by, you know, huge traction of the American public.

Arguably. Arguably. In theory, there's some risk. I can see that.

Arguably. Arguably. In theory, there's some risk. I can see that.

Turns out, you know, COVID changed everything, how people do their work. Like we're recording this by Zoom. Before COVID, we'd probably all be in the same studio recording a podcast like this. And so, but Vinod and the team was very inflexible about it. And Founders Fund was located in the city. Obviously, I knew Peter since college, as Jason alluded to.

Turns out, you know, COVID changed everything, how people do their work. Like we're recording this by Zoom. Before COVID, we'd probably all be in the same studio recording a podcast like this. And so, but Vinod and the team was very inflexible about it. And Founders Fund was located in the city. Obviously, I knew Peter since college, as Jason alluded to.

Right. At some price point, right? What I would do if I were president, I'd say, you tell me the fair market price for TikTok and I'll go find, you know, I'll make sure that there's buyers. Right. Because CCP won't name any price. There is no price. It's the greatest tool they could ever have. That would be like giving up your nukes.

Right. At some price point, right? What I would do if I were president, I'd say, you tell me the fair market price for TikTok and I'll go find, you know, I'll make sure that there's buyers. Right. Because CCP won't name any price. There is no price. It's the greatest tool they could ever have. That would be like giving up your nukes.

I don't think they should have to sell at a less than fair market price. I think that's legit. I believe in capitalism. But any free market should allow for some price discovery. And if they can't name any price period, that suggests that you're doing something that's nefarious. There's a reason, by the way, Chamath, you probably know this.

I don't think they should have to sell at a less than fair market price. I think that's legit. I believe in capitalism. But any free market should allow for some price discovery. And if they can't name any price period, that suggests that you're doing something that's nefarious. There's a reason, by the way, Chamath, you probably know this.

Eight to 10, 12 ounces max, medium, you know, solid. I don't really care on the cut. Yeah, pretty much. Wagyu, I'll be a little non-American, go Wagyu, you know, like Australia or Japanese. Yeah, sure.

Eight to 10, 12 ounces max, medium, you know, solid. I don't really care on the cut. Yeah, pretty much. Wagyu, I'll be a little non-American, go Wagyu, you know, like Australia or Japanese. Yeah, sure.

I'm a mad girl, you know, red meat Republican.

I'm a mad girl, you know, red meat Republican.

And I decided that, you know, it was better for me. I remember talking to Sam Altman, And I said, am I crazy for changing funds mostly on a commute basis? And Sam said, you're human. And every single study of human happiness is it's inversely correlated to your commute time. It's like, there's nothing wrong with being human. In any event, there are a lot of similarities between FF and KB.

And I decided that, you know, it was better for me. I remember talking to Sam Altman, And I said, am I crazy for changing funds mostly on a commute basis? And Sam said, you're human. And every single study of human happiness is it's inversely correlated to your commute time. It's like, there's nothing wrong with being human. In any event, there are a lot of similarities between FF and KB.

Well, I'd say that you should cut that data by AI and non-AI, and you might see a tell to different cities. My anecdotal experience is there's AI companies where the market's pretty hot, maybe cooling a little bit, but hot, and AI companies with the right team are getting funded frequently, quickly, etc.

Well, I'd say that you should cut that data by AI and non-AI, and you might see a tell to different cities. My anecdotal experience is there's AI companies where the market's pretty hot, maybe cooling a little bit, but hot, and AI companies with the right team are getting funded frequently, quickly, etc.

And then there's non-AI companies, and I think you'll see a very different sort of chart there. I do think net-net, you're probably at a steady state that looks reasonable across 40 years, etc., But it would be interesting. And you have to make some methodological decisions about what's an AI company, what's not.

And then there's non-AI companies, and I think you'll see a very different sort of chart there. I do think net-net, you're probably at a steady state that looks reasonable across 40 years, etc., But it would be interesting. And you have to make some methodological decisions about what's an AI company, what's not.

But if you could do that, it'd be interesting to see if the lines look similar or not. But it's pretty hot. People starting companies, founders are optimistic. Crypto companies also are back in vogue, obviously, due to the change in administration. I think a lot of people have been hesitant to start new crypto companies. Of course, yeah.

But if you could do that, it'd be interesting to see if the lines look similar or not. But it's pretty hot. People starting companies, founders are optimistic. Crypto companies also are back in vogue, obviously, due to the change in administration. I think a lot of people have been hesitant to start new crypto companies. Of course, yeah.

And there's a belief and confidence in the new administration, the SEC, et cetera. So we'll see if the innovation accelerates with all the new capital and all the new founders back in crypto. In enterprise software... It had been pretty cool, non-AI-based enterprise software. But, you know, like as you mentioned with the IPO this week, trading very aggressively.

And there's a belief and confidence in the new administration, the SEC, et cetera. So we'll see if the innovation accelerates with all the new capital and all the new founders back in crypto. In enterprise software... It had been pretty cool, non-AI-based enterprise software. But, you know, like as you mentioned with the IPO this week, trading very aggressively.

I think, you know, maybe there's some inspiration there for, you know, more traditional, boring tech companies. Stripe. Stripe. Stripe should go public, but, you know, they don't listen to me, so...

I think, you know, maybe there's some inspiration there for, you know, more traditional, boring tech companies. Stripe. Stripe. Stripe should go public, but, you know, they don't listen to me, so...

I personally believe and subscribe to the view that companies should go public as early as possible on the Bill Gurley sort of school of thought.

I personally believe and subscribe to the view that companies should go public as early as possible on the Bill Gurley sort of school of thought.

$50 million minimum, but predictability matters definitely, so not just $50 million, but $50 million with line of sight to $100 million and knowing $100 million to $200 million. I wrote a whole chapter in Eli Gill's high growth handbook on why companies should go public as early as possible. So I've been on this crusade forever. I like accountability, transparency, discipline.

$50 million minimum, but predictability matters definitely, so not just $50 million, but $50 million with line of sight to $100 million and knowing $100 million to $200 million. I wrote a whole chapter in Eli Gill's high growth handbook on why companies should go public as early as possible. So I've been on this crusade forever. I like accountability, transparency, discipline.

I think they're good things. And there's a critique that like, oh, you're not going to be innovative anymore. If you look at some of the companies we've been talking about, what are some of the most innovative companies in the world? They're public companies.

I think they're good things. And there's a critique that like, oh, you're not going to be innovative anymore. If you look at some of the companies we've been talking about, what are some of the most innovative companies in the world? They're public companies.

It just takes the right leader to say, I'm going to be innovative and I don't care what the bureaucrats and lawyers, I'm just not going to get distracted with that. And so I like public companies. And so I think you'll see a lot of the companies I am involved in go public at a fairly rapid clip by historical standards. Different founders, though, have different sort of views on this.

It just takes the right leader to say, I'm going to be innovative and I don't care what the bureaucrats and lawyers, I'm just not going to get distracted with that. And so I like public companies. And so I think you'll see a lot of the companies I am involved in go public at a fairly rapid clip by historical standards. Different founders, though, have different sort of views on this.

Both are great funds that have put up incredible returns, have funded iconic founders and companies, but they're very different. KB is involved as early as possible, and FF is a momentum investor and is maybe the best on the planet at being a momentum investor. So almost every successful investment of founders fund over eight funds, was invested at $500 million or more entry valuation.

Both are great funds that have put up incredible returns, have funded iconic founders and companies, but they're very different. KB is involved as early as possible, and FF is a momentum investor and is maybe the best on the planet at being a momentum investor. So almost every successful investment of founders fund over eight funds, was invested at $500 million or more entry valuation.

It's very reasonable. Stripe, SpaceX, for example, founded 2003. Who knows when it's going to be a public company? So you can have a very successful company like SpaceX or Stripe. But my preference is to go public early. And then you have the capital, resources, equity, or capital to be strategic, per your point about potentially missing window.

It's very reasonable. Stripe, SpaceX, for example, founded 2003. Who knows when it's going to be a public company? So you can have a very successful company like SpaceX or Stripe. But my preference is to go public early. And then you have the capital, resources, equity, or capital to be strategic, per your point about potentially missing window.

And they were able to transact in that particular case and get ahead of the curve, or at least not miss the curve. But sometimes when you're a private company, there are strategic assets that you can't get your hands on. And think about Facebook buying Instagram. We talked about the taste issue. Instagram had taste at the time, like Kevin had taste.

And they were able to transact in that particular case and get ahead of the curve, or at least not miss the curve. But sometimes when you're a private company, there are strategic assets that you can't get your hands on. And think about Facebook buying Instagram. We talked about the taste issue. Instagram had taste at the time, like Kevin had taste.

And think about where meta would be had they not been able to acquire Instagram.

And think about where meta would be had they not been able to acquire Instagram.

Yeah, or WhatsApp.

Yeah, or WhatsApp.

You know, honestly, yeah. Without sharing like, you know, one-on-one conversation sort of stuff. I think the question, the burden, they inverted the burden, which is why should we go public? A lot of, a lot of people ask the question the opposite way, which is, you know, why wouldn't I go public? I think their first principle thinkers like put, put my point about Trump.

You know, honestly, yeah. Without sharing like, you know, one-on-one conversation sort of stuff. I think the question, the burden, they inverted the burden, which is why should we go public? A lot of, a lot of people ask the question the opposite way, which is, you know, why wouldn't I go public? I think their first principle thinkers like put, put my point about Trump.

And I think true of Elon, they asked like, why? And they're like, well, what advantages would we get? And I actually think the M&A one is very real. I think they've been able to construct alternatives to most of the advantages, but not every company is going to be able to do that. It took a lot of effort, energy.

And I think true of Elon, they asked like, why? And they're like, well, what advantages would we get? And I actually think the M&A one is very real. I think they've been able to construct alternatives to most of the advantages, but not every company is going to be able to do that. It took a lot of effort, energy.

And then the question is, would you substitute that energy into something else that might be higher value creation if you weren't creating the alternatives to a public structure?

And then the question is, would you substitute that energy into something else that might be higher value creation if you weren't creating the alternatives to a public structure?

So I 100% agree, 100% agree with this.

So I 100% agree, 100% agree with this.

And almost every single investment at KV in eight funds was like the seed or series A investment with very few exceptions ever. And so Anduril and Ramp are the only exceptions at Founders Fund. Wow. And at KV, the only exception would be Stripe, which I led in 2013 or so, which was an order of magnitude higher valuation than any KV initial investment ever.

And almost every single investment at KV in eight funds was like the seed or series A investment with very few exceptions ever. And so Anduril and Ramp are the only exceptions at Founders Fund. Wow. And at KV, the only exception would be Stripe, which I led in 2013 or so, which was an order of magnitude higher valuation than any KV initial investment ever.

Well, I also agree. So I used to be an antitrust litigator, which I know Jason knows. And I think I hate like, you know, the current leadership, the antitrust division. I called her a fraud. And I think she is intellectually a fraud.

Well, I also agree. So I used to be an antitrust litigator, which I know Jason knows. And I think I hate like, you know, the current leadership, the antitrust division. I called her a fraud. And I think she is intellectually a fraud.

Well, she published a paper that was false. Like her whole claim to fame is this paper about Amazon. And the data in the Amazon, the data she used in the paper at Yale was false. She's too smart to have done it accidentally. Benedict Evans wrote a good critique of it if you want to read all about the data. Second thing is you look at Amazon, which is this alleged quintessential example.

Well, she published a paper that was false. Like her whole claim to fame is this paper about Amazon. And the data in the Amazon, the data she used in the paper at Yale was false. She's too smart to have done it accidentally. Benedict Evans wrote a good critique of it if you want to read all about the data. Second thing is you look at Amazon, which is this alleged quintessential example.

Have you heard of Shopify? Shopify is one of the biggest success stories of the last decade, right down the middle competitive with Amazon. And there was nothing Amazon could do. They lost the core market to a competitor that was started and went public at a very low valuation. And Shopify is dominating D2C commerce. Nobody builds a D2C commerce brand except on Shopify.

Have you heard of Shopify? Shopify is one of the biggest success stories of the last decade, right down the middle competitive with Amazon. And there was nothing Amazon could do. They lost the core market to a competitor that was started and went public at a very low valuation. And Shopify is dominating D2C commerce. Nobody builds a D2C commerce brand except on Shopify.

So everything about her is like a fraud. That said, I don't believe that what she's done has affected, you know, exits very much at all. Because like the truth is in high-end venture, like institutional venture capital, other than the WhatsApp and like maybe like a plot acquisition or something like one every two years.

So everything about her is like a fraud. That said, I don't believe that what she's done has affected, you know, exits very much at all. Because like the truth is in high-end venture, like institutional venture capital, other than the WhatsApp and like maybe like a plot acquisition or something like one every two years.

You don't drive returns in venture to an institutional venture capital fund through an M&A. WhatsApp may be the only one that really drove a fund returning exit to a serious fund. It just doesn't happen that way. I need IPOs to return our funds. Our funds are like billions of dollars. You don't get returns on lots of acquisitions at $50 million to $100 million. Yeah, but a $300 million fund can-

You don't drive returns in venture to an institutional venture capital fund through an M&A. WhatsApp may be the only one that really drove a fund returning exit to a serious fund. It just doesn't happen that way. I need IPOs to return our funds. Our funds are like billions of dollars. You don't get returns on lots of acquisitions at $50 million to $100 million. Yeah, but a $300 million fund can-

Yeah, but most funds have ballooned for lots of reasons.

Yeah, but most funds have ballooned for lots of reasons.

And that's actually led to some of the perversity that David talked about. If the funds get large, their tendency to do these things also increases. So yes, a seed fund can drive returns on M&A acquisitions that might be deterred in a bad, hostile administration. But a venture fund of $500 million to $2 billion drive returns through M&A? No. No.

And that's actually led to some of the perversity that David talked about. If the funds get large, their tendency to do these things also increases. So yes, a seed fund can drive returns on M&A acquisitions that might be deterred in a bad, hostile administration. But a venture fund of $500 million to $2 billion drive returns through M&A? No. No.

I've been lobbying officials for a long time on this crusade. They come in and they expect that, oh, you know, M&A, blah, blah, blah, blah. And I'm like, no, no, no, I could care less. Only my most mediocre companies are acquired.

I've been lobbying officials for a long time on this crusade. They come in and they expect that, oh, you know, M&A, blah, blah, blah, blah. And I'm like, no, no, no, I could care less. Only my most mediocre companies are acquired.

Well, Sheen's going to have some real problems in the new administration.

Well, Sheen's going to have some real problems in the new administration.

So KV is much more an input-driven organization. Founders Fund is much more output-driven. And there's great technology companies that are input-driven. Think Amazon, Apple. And there's great technology companies that are output-driven. So you can choose, but certain people are going to be better in some environments and other people are going to thrive in other environments.

So KV is much more an input-driven organization. Founders Fund is much more output-driven. And there's great technology companies that are input-driven. Think Amazon, Apple. And there's great technology companies that are output-driven. So you can choose, but certain people are going to be better in some environments and other people are going to thrive in other environments.

Well, I think, first of all, the Treasury Secretary understands this. I think Scott actually, from everybody I've talked to, I don't know him, but I've interviewed about 10 or 12 people that are very successful on Wall Street, and every single one of them universally has a claim for him. And they've all made points to me that these kind of subtleties, he really does grok.

Well, I think, first of all, the Treasury Secretary understands this. I think Scott actually, from everybody I've talked to, I don't know him, but I've interviewed about 10 or 12 people that are very successful on Wall Street, and every single one of them universally has a claim for him. And they've all made points to me that these kind of subtleties, he really does grok.

And so when he says you can raise tariffs without inflation, he understands how all this substitution works and is running an equation in his brain. He's a very successful trader, and that's a really good skill. Also, Chamath's earlier points about Darwinistic evolution of brilliant people being successful, understanding how the economy actually works, he's perfect.

And so when he says you can raise tariffs without inflation, he understands how all this substitution works and is running an equation in his brain. He's a very successful trader, and that's a really good skill. Also, Chamath's earlier points about Darwinistic evolution of brilliant people being successful, understanding how the economy actually works, he's perfect.

So I think you're going to see real tariffs, especially against China, And the Trump administration is completely committed to reducing inflation, the cost of eggs and groceries. And I think those things can be reconciled. I know amateur economists with random degrees from Wharton don't think so. But as Trump pointed out in the debate and J.D.

So I think you're going to see real tariffs, especially against China, And the Trump administration is completely committed to reducing inflation, the cost of eggs and groceries. And I think those things can be reconciled. I know amateur economists with random degrees from Wharton don't think so. But as Trump pointed out in the debate and J.D.

Vance pointed out with some research, his first administration imposed all these tariffs and there was no inflation. And then J.D. Vance pointed out that the Fed Reserve has a study that says, you know, housing prices, which are a primary driver of affordability for a normal American, are inflated because of illegal immigration. So I think this administration... And not making more units, I mean.

Vance pointed out with some research, his first administration imposed all these tariffs and there was no inflation. And then J.D. Vance pointed out that the Fed Reserve has a study that says, you know, housing prices, which are a primary driver of affordability for a normal American, are inflated because of illegal immigration. So I think this administration... And not making more units, I mean.

Well, I think this administration... There is substitution, right? If the price of one gig goes up, consumers typically have, you know, like people on this podcast, typically have a limited budget. And at the end of the day, if one price goes up, you have to substitute somewhere else. So the net deflation might be negative even. So in any event, this administration is not naive.

Well, I think this administration... There is substitution, right? If the price of one gig goes up, consumers typically have, you know, like people on this podcast, typically have a limited budget. And at the end of the day, if one price goes up, you have to substitute somewhere else. So the net deflation might be negative even. So in any event, this administration is not naive.

And the people that Trump has put in place to drive this in Treasury, the National Economic Council absolutely understand this. And they're committed to driving down actual prices. The hardest area is going to be health care. That is really, really difficult. And it is difficult. a major driver of costs to a normal person. And Obamacare has been a disaster.

And the people that Trump has put in place to drive this in Treasury, the National Economic Council absolutely understand this. And they're committed to driving down actual prices. The hardest area is going to be health care. That is really, really difficult. And it is difficult. a major driver of costs to a normal person. And Obamacare has been a disaster.

The question is, what do you do about that? And I don't have an answer for you right away. I have some ideas.

The question is, what do you do about that? And I don't have an answer for you right away. I have some ideas.

I fit in really, really well at KV.

I fit in really, really well at KV.

Well, A, I'm very good at it. I think I prefer to invest as early as possible on a keynote deck only. If I meet a founder and there's a keynote deck, there's no product, there's no metrics, that's my sweet spot. Because I also know nobody else in venture is good at that. Nobody else is still active in venture.

Well, A, I'm very good at it. I think I prefer to invest as early as possible on a keynote deck only. If I meet a founder and there's a keynote deck, there's no product, there's no metrics, that's my sweet spot. Because I also know nobody else in venture is good at that. Nobody else is still active in venture.

It comes down to founder assessment. At the end of the day, the only data point is, is this founder capable of building an iconic company, period? And I prefer to compete when there's no metrics because all the metrics you're going to do is confuse you. That said, there's a lot of investors who are very good once there's product metrics, financial metrics.

It comes down to founder assessment. At the end of the day, the only data point is, is this founder capable of building an iconic company, period? And I prefer to compete when there's no metrics because all the metrics you're going to do is confuse you. That said, there's a lot of investors who are very good once there's product metrics, financial metrics.

Well, short version on crypto generally is I still think the primary use case is speculation. And not that there's anything wrong with that. People speculate on stocks, retail, trading. People speculate on football games, gambling. Like the natural tendency for humans to want to speculate is very real.

Well, short version on crypto generally is I still think the primary use case is speculation. And not that there's anything wrong with that. People speculate on stocks, retail, trading. People speculate on football games, gambling. Like the natural tendency for humans to want to speculate is very real.

The art to me is because everybody's now a node connected into these crypto, let's call Bitcoin, you know, Can you build an application on top that would have too much inertia, too much friction to start from scratch, but it has real value? And I think it's possible because so many people are now connected based upon speculation initially. So that's what's exciting to me. But, you know,

The art to me is because everybody's now a node connected into these crypto, let's call Bitcoin, you know, Can you build an application on top that would have too much inertia, too much friction to start from scratch, but it has real value? And I think it's possible because so many people are now connected based upon speculation initially. So that's what's exciting to me. But, you know,

We've watched speculation before in crypto markets and it's very volatile. So hopefully someone builds real layers of productivity or utility on top, but takes advantage of the network.

We've watched speculation before in crypto markets and it's very volatile. So hopefully someone builds real layers of productivity or utility on top, but takes advantage of the network.

It's a little bit like back in your days at Facebook, Chamath, you had the social graph and you'd say, you can build applications on top of the social graph, but if you had to create a social graph from scratch, that was a heroic effort and nobody else was going to do it. That was like literally the Facebook monopoly story. And so I think that's true of crypto. There's lots of nodes.

It's a little bit like back in your days at Facebook, Chamath, you had the social graph and you'd say, you can build applications on top of the social graph, but if you had to create a social graph from scratch, that was a heroic effort and nobody else was going to do it. That was like literally the Facebook monopoly story. And so I think that's true of crypto. There's lots of nodes.

Someone's got a sociographic net.

Someone's got a sociographic net.

Someone's got to build the application on top. And then it'd be extremely exciting.

Someone's got to build the application on top. And then it'd be extremely exciting.

And so I can compete with people who are pretty good at what they do. So I'd prefer to go as early as possible. And then secondly, I like company building. I think part of my role is to help the founder increase the amplitude or probability of success. And I enjoy that. At FF, that's very controversial.

And so I can compete with people who are pretty good at what they do. So I'd prefer to go as early as possible. And then secondly, I like company building. I think part of my role is to help the founder increase the amplitude or probability of success. And I enjoy that. At FF, that's very controversial.

40 to 42, like measured by eight sleep, typical day.

40 to 42, like measured by eight sleep, typical day.

Ooh.

Ooh.

Well, we'll see. I don't know if I would have made that trade, honestly, but it's complicated. For Carl Anthony Towns? Really? Yeah. Fascinating. He's playing so good. I know, but I think he had the chemistry all dialed in. Hopefully they can build back better. Build back better, absolutely.

Well, we'll see. I don't know if I would have made that trade, honestly, but it's complicated. For Carl Anthony Towns? Really? Yeah. Fascinating. He's playing so good. I know, but I think he had the chemistry all dialed in. Hopefully they can build back better. Build back better, absolutely.

He's got to compete with our friend, Kenny Howery.

He's got to compete with our friend, Kenny Howery.

Hopefully some great destination, I'm sure.

Hopefully some great destination, I'm sure.

No. I love politics. If you follow my Twitter feed, I pay a lot of attention. I used to be involved in politics before I got into tech. However, what I realized about where I am in my career in tech is if I stop doing what I do, I'm never going to come back. Like technology is rapidly emerging. We're going to talk about all the latest developments this week.

No. I love politics. If you follow my Twitter feed, I pay a lot of attention. I used to be involved in politics before I got into tech. However, what I realized about where I am in my career in tech is if I stop doing what I do, I'm never going to come back. Like technology is rapidly emerging. We're going to talk about all the latest developments this week.

Like you can't take your foot off the gas in the network building parts of venture for two to five years and come back when you're like 50 years old. And so I felt like I'm not ready to give up on venture. I'm in like the prime of my venture career. I'm only 12 years in actually Chamath. So figure five, 10 more years like is the sweet spot.

Like you can't take your foot off the gas in the network building parts of venture for two to five years and come back when you're like 50 years old. And so I felt like I'm not ready to give up on venture. I'm in like the prime of my venture career. I'm only 12 years in actually Chamath. So figure five, 10 more years like is the sweet spot.

And so I'd like to see the companies that I was involved in grow up, become public companies, et cetera. And I didn't feel like I could ever come back if I quit. At some point, would I like to get involved in politics? Probably yes, but it's a decade out.

And so I'd like to see the companies that I was involved in grow up, become public companies, et cetera. And I didn't feel like I could ever come back if I quit. At some point, would I like to get involved in politics? Probably yes, but it's a decade out.

Yeah, it's extremely exciting for him, obviously for the country, I think. which is he's going to be the chief economic officer really for the country. His job is to build foreign policy from the business standpoint, which if you think about it, what's the foundation of power in the world? It's economic success. Why did the United States win World War II?

Yeah, it's extremely exciting for him, obviously for the country, I think. which is he's going to be the chief economic officer really for the country. His job is to build foreign policy from the business standpoint, which if you think about it, what's the foundation of power in the world? It's economic success. Why did the United States win World War II?

Because we had an economic engine that could out-compete Germany plus Russia plus Japan. We could build more tanks, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc., And so the economic engine is critical to this administration. Obviously, Trump understands that. We had a great three years under his first administration, as he likes to say, best economy ever before COVID, which may be true.

Because we had an economic engine that could out-compete Germany plus Russia plus Japan. We could build more tanks, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc., And so the economic engine is critical to this administration. Obviously, Trump understands that. We had a great three years under his first administration, as he likes to say, best economy ever before COVID, which may be true.

And we need to rebuild American strength. And Jacob's job is to export that philosophy. And sometimes you can build economic strength through working through foreign affairs. And so that's his main job is to be the primary point person, undersecretary of economics. of economic affairs, and then they've got a bunch ... The Democrats and the woke people added a bunch of other things to the title.

And we need to rebuild American strength. And Jacob's job is to export that philosophy. And sometimes you can build economic strength through working through foreign affairs. And so that's his main job is to be the primary point person, undersecretary of economics. of economic affairs, and then they've got a bunch ... The Democrats and the woke people added a bunch of other things to the title.

It used to be just Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs, and they added environment and all these politically correct things, so hopefully they'll subtract all that stuff and just go back to Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs.

It used to be just Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs, and they added environment and all these politically correct things, so hopefully they'll subtract all that stuff and just go back to Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs.

I think it's very obvious watching from afar that the way Trump makes decisions is he likes to ask a lot of people a lot of different questions, and then he makes the decision. That's why he's, to some people, the media...

I think it's very obvious watching from afar that the way Trump makes decisions is he likes to ask a lot of people a lot of different questions, and then he makes the decision. That's why he's, to some people, the media...

enemies very unpredictable is he doesn't just take one source of input and so you can never totally predict the output but he arrays an interesting cast of characters and listens to them like so for example i haven't spent that much time with him but insofar as i have he would go around the room and ask every single person a dinner what's your view on x and literally go around a room of 28 people and listen to every single person so i think that's how he makes decisions

enemies very unpredictable is he doesn't just take one source of input and so you can never totally predict the output but he arrays an interesting cast of characters and listens to them like so for example i haven't spent that much time with him but insofar as i have he would go around the room and ask every single person a dinner what's your view on x and literally go around a room of 28 people and listen to every single person so i think that's how he makes decisions

I have a very funny story to tell you, Jason.

You got to hold some back.

Careful.

It is the best one yet.

I mean, every year we have this.

Before we start, Nick, can you please show Elon's tweet about how they did on the AGI benchmark?

It's absolutely incredible.

Two things.

One is how quickly, starting in March of 2023, so we're talking about less than two and a half years, what this team has accomplished.

and how far ahead they are of everybody else as demonstrated by this.

But the second is a fundamental architectural decision that Elon made, which I think we didn't fully appreciate until now.

And it maps to an architectural decision he made at Tesla as well.

And for all we know, we'll figure out that he made an equivalent decision at SpaceX.

And that decision is really well encapsulated by this essay, The Bitter Lesson, by Rich Sutton.

And Nick, you can just throw this up here.

But just to summarize what this says, it basically says in a nutshell that you're always better off when you're trying to solve an AI problem, taking a general learning approach that can scale with computation, because it ultimately proves to be the most effective.

And the alternative would be something that's much more human labored and human involved that requires human knowledge.

And so the first method, what it essentially allows you to do is view any problem as an endless scalable search or learning task.

And as it's turned out, whether it's chess or Go or speech recognition or computer vision, whenever there was two competing approaches, one that used general computation and one that used human knowledge, the general computation problem always won.

And so it creates this bitter lesson for humans that want to think that we are at the center of all of this critical learning and all of these leaps.

In more AI-specific language, what it means is that a lot of these systems create these embeddings that are just not understandable by humans at all, but it yields incredible results.

So why is this crazy?

Well, he made this huge bet on this 100,000 GPU cluster.

People thought, wow, that's a lot.

Is it going to bear fruit?

Then he said, no, actually, I'm scaling it up to 250,000.

Then he said it's going to scale up to a million.

And what these results show is a general computational approach that doesn't require as much human labeling, can actually get to the answer and better answers faster.

That has huge implications.

Because if you think about all these other companies,

What has Lama been doing?

They just spent 15 billion to buy 49% of scale AI.

That's exactly a bet on human knowledge.

What is Gemini doing?

What is OpenAI doing?

What is Anthropic doing?

So all these things come into question.

And then the last thing I'll say is, if you look back, he made this bet once before, which was Tesla FSD versus Waymo.

And Tesla FSD only had cameras,

It didn't have LIDAR, but the bet was I'll just collect billions and billions of driving miles before anybody else does and apply general compute and it'll get to autonomy faster than the other more laborious and very expensive approach.

So I just think it's an incredible moment in technology where we see so many examples.

Travis is another one, what he's just talked about.

The bitter lesson is you could believe that food is this immutable thing that's made meticulously by hand by these individuals, or you can take this general purpose computer approach, which is what he took, waited for these cost curves to come into play, and now you can scale food to every human on earth.

I just think it's so profoundly important.

Yeah, I just meant that, you know, other than the first versions of FSD, which I think Andre talked about, Andre Karpathy talked about, you know, they're not really so reliant anymore on human labeling per se, right?

So that, yeah, that, that interference.

And then the other crazy thing that he said, subsequent versions of Grok

are not gonna be trained on any traditional data set that exists in the wild.

He said that he's going to have agents creating synthetic data from scratch that then drive all the training, which I just think is, it's crazy.

But Nat and I went to Pasalaqua, which is in Lake Como, which is, I mean, it's stunning.

So here's the Yeah, so the two approaches would be, let's say, like Travis and I were building competing versions of a chess solver.

And Travis's approach would say, I'm just going to define the chessboard.

I'm gonna give the players certain boundaries in which they can move, right?

So the bishop can only move diagonally, and there's a couple of boundary conditions, and I'm gonna create a reward function, and I'm just gonna let the thing self-learn and self-play.

That's his version.

And then what happens is when you map out every single permutation, when you go and play Keith, who's the best chess player in the world,

What you're doing at that point is saying, okay, Keith made this move.

So you search for what Keith's move is, and you have a distribution of the best moves that you could make in response or vice versa.

That was the cutting edge approach.

The different approach, which is more, you know, what people would think is more, quote unquote, elegant and less brute force, would be, Jason, for you and I to sit there and say, okay, if Keith moves here, we should do this.

We should do this specific variation of the Sicilian defense.

And it's too much human knowledge.

And I think what it turned out was there was a psychological need for humans to believe we were part of the answer.

But what this is showing is because of Moore's law and because of general computation, it's just not necessary.

You just have to let go, give up control.

And that's very hard for some people.

TK, can you tell us what you're doing with this pony?

Or not, that's speculation.

I would just say that that's like intuitive knowledge versus like the expressly labeled human knowledge.

The question for me is, if everybody was so reliant on human labeling initially, if you're an investor now, when you see these grok-4 results, how do you make an investment decision that's not purely levered to just computation?

So if you look at these results, does it mean that there's 300 to a thousand basis points of lag between just letting the computers vibe itself to the answer versus interjecting ourselves?

If interjecting ourselves slows us down by 300 to a thousand basis points per successive iteration, then over two or three iterations, you've totally lost.

What was announced or at least why don't you frame it?

So what does it mean for everybody that's not grok

when they wake up today and they have to decide, how do I change my strategy or double down?

Where have you been?

To your point, when these models are fully divorced from having to learn on the known world and instead can just learn synthetically, then everything gets flipped upside down to what is the best hypothesis you have or what is the best question?

You could just give it some problem and it would just figure it out.

Okay, so look, well, the deal was basically that you partner with Uber license in the pony technology and essentially start a competitor, I guess, to Waymo and Tesla.

One of the seven most difficult problems in math with the most important problems in math is proving a general solution to this thing called Mavie-Stokes, which is basically like viscous fluid dynamics and conservation of mass.

We use it every day in the design of everything.

You know what?

It hasn't been proved.

Isn't that the craziest thing where you're just like, how is this even possible?

We use it to design airplanes, to design everything.

The grounds are stunning.

It hasn't been proved.

And so you could just point a computer at this thing and you would unlock all these incredible mysteries of the universe.

And we would probably find completely different propulsion systems.

We could probably do things that we didn't think were possible.

Teleportation.