All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg
01:06:11 · Jason Calacanis, David Friedberg, Chamath Palihapitiya
[01:06:11] S0: I think this is like you're getting into doctor Doom scenarios. I think you're completely wrong. I think there's like a 1% chance something crazy like this happens, but I like that you exist in the world, Friedberg, to present it because idiot, you are the backstop to this level of lunacy. [01:06:25] S3: Chance is By by the way, Jay Cal, let let me... Call me doctor Doom all you want, but but this this is a fundamental question about what's the intention of this country. The the intention of the country was individual liberty. Yes. [01:06:37] S0: Of course. [01:06:37] S3: The right the rights of the citizen, the rights of the individual. It is not about state power, and it is not about us. And and we have a lot of laws that protect citizens from each other. Mhmm. What we're doing now is creating a different system that extends well beyond the founding principle of The United States to give a small group of actors an incredible amount of power that they're gonna centrally command and control. Okay. And I think that that's something that we need to pay attention to. And I'm not saying this is happening and the world's over blah blah blah. [01:07:03] S0: Well, that's why I'm trying like, percentage on it. [01:07:05] S3: As as this... It's not it's not binary. As the policies develop, we have to keep in mind what we're doing. [01:07:11] S2: And we already slippery have slope. You're saying it's
01:07:11 · Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis
[01:07:11] S2: And we already slippery have slope. You're saying it's [01:07:13] S0: a slippery slope. Yes. Okay. Sacks. But I do think, you know, just like the p doom where people say ten percent of people are gonna die, I like to put a percentage on it. What are the chances of this happening, Chamath, or or Sacks? You... You're the closest to this, but, you know, haven't been the czar. Do do you think that this is in the realm of possibility what what Friedberg's describing? If so, maybe you could put a percentage likelihood of it happening. And then what is your take on data centers and the net exporter, net importer of tokens potentiality here?
01:07:42 · David Sacks
[01:07:42] S1: Okay. So it's a 100% that Democrats are gonna make a major push for AI legislation in the next congress. The question is what that looks like. Yes. And I don't think you have to speculate too much to understand where it's going. I believe that Democrats wanna create a surveillance and censorship state that's turbocharged by superintelligence. I mean, that's ultimately the end state. How do you get there? You create a department, a federal department of AI. You require that all the so called frontier models have to be reviewed and approved by that. The regulators give their notes on it. You can't get a model released unless you address their concerns. And their harms will include all the things that the government is telling us that social media companies should be concerned about, like disinformation and misinformation and dissident thought. All the things that the government was pressuring the social media companies to crack down on and censor during COVID, I mean, how quickly we forget all of this, they're gonna basically reenact that whole regime again using AI. And it's gonna be infinitely more powerful because we're talking about super intelligence here. So I I do believe that that is the regime that we're headed towards. So it may not be exactly the the version that Friedberg's talking about where Friedberg's saying that only the government can use the tools. I don't think that'll be the case.
01:09:02 · David Friedberg, David Sacks, Jason Calacanis, Chamath Palihapitiya
[01:09:02] S3: Not not that binary Sacks. Sorry. Meant like obviously, they're they're gonna get access to models and capabilities that the public doesn't. At the end of the day, any amount of distinction between [01:09:11] S1: Oh, for sure they [01:09:12] S3: will. State. What a central state actor gets and what the general public gets is really where that distinction of power arises, and it's really what makes it difficult for the founding principles to persist. [01:09:22] S0: Which would be a quasi de facto, nationalization of the technology here, Chamath. So what what... What's your take on this? I'm gonna force everybody to... And and try to pin you guys down a little bit. You think that this nationalization of the technology, the government having the best version, everybody else, in The United States, corporations, individuals having 60, 70, 80% of that version? You think that's a possibility here? [01:09:44] S2: No. I don't think this is the priority. Again, I think people will get animated about this issue, but I don't think this matters. And I think that to the extent that people legislate an oligopoly, it'll further entrench economic power, and I think that that's counter to what these people want. So I think when they put the... They connect the dots, I don't think that that's what's going to get legislated. I don't think they have the energy for that. And I think at
01:09:44 · Chamath Palihapitiya, David Sacks, Jason Calacanis
[01:09:44] S2: No. I don't think this is the priority. Again, I think people will get animated about this issue, but I don't think this matters. And I think that to the extent that people legislate an oligopoly, it'll further entrench economic power, and I think that that's counter to what these people want. So I think when they put the... They connect the dots, I don't think that that's what's going to get legislated. I don't think they have the energy for that. And I think at [01:10:07] S1: What's the end gonna get legislated is the quid pro quo, okay? The quid pro quo is this, the government gets more power and the duopoly of closed model companies get more regulatory capture or moats around their business. That's gonna be the quid pro quo. The government's gonna come in. The Democratic Congress is gonna say, look, we have to regulate this. It's unsafe. What do you think those companies are gonna do? You think they're gonna say, no, you can't do that? They're gonna say, okay, You know, let's work together on this. [01:10:36] S2: I think what's gonna happen is, [01:10:37] S1: government ends up with more power, and those companies end up with regulatory protection. [01:10:41] S0: Moff, go ahead.
01:10:41 · Jason Calacanis, Chamath Palihapitiya
[01:10:41] S0: Moff, go ahead. [01:10:41] S2: I don't think so. I think... Yeah. I think that if... To the extent that anybody legislates AI, I think it's gonna be broad based and include a lot of coverage around data centers and AI factories. And to the extent that that happens, maybe you'll get some regulatory capture on the one end, but you're gonna constrain the supply so severely on the other that the that the real people that will be in control of it are Meta, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and SpaceX. And so you have to remember, the foundational model companies are not home free. What does home free mean? That they have a fortress balance sheet, a profitable business model, and and quasi infinite compute for their own ambitions. And right now, they are renters. And the renter class in data centers as of Tuesday is very much at risk. And so if anything, I think what's gonna happen is all the renter classes will get co opted. For example, I don't know if you guys saw today, but Google just took over a Crusoe data center. They co opted the renter. They're like, you're gone. We're gonna take it over. [01:11:48] S0: They did?