CoreWeave Crash, AI Trade Cracks, Anthropic IPO Red Flags, Bill Gates Doomer

All-In1:34:06

YouTube auto-caption timing.

CoreWeave borrows against customer contracts and GPUs, its CEO explains.

CoreWeave’s March 2026 presentation gives a concrete example: DDTL 4.0, an $8.5 billion loan facility due in March 2032. The borrower is a wholly owned subsidiary. Lenders hold security over its equipment and accounts, the customer’s cloud-services contract and the related data-centre leases.

During installation, borrowing is sized at 90% of project cost. After customer acceptance, the governing measure switches to debt-service coverage: cash available for debt payments must cover them 1.2 times. CoreWeave says this could unlock about $1 billion of additional borrowing as deployments stabilise. Financing capacity therefore changes with the project’s stage, from equipment installation to an accepted, operating service.

Original term sheet

Full transcript

All right, everybody. Welcome back to

the number one podcast in the world.

Actually, you manifested. We actually

were number one. How good is that?

>> We were literally number one last week.

Only took uh

>> only took a little bit of time to get

there.

>> Only took five years.

>> Only took five. Yeah. Five years went by

so quickly. Uh with us today,

David Saxs is back. How are you doing,

brother?

>> Good.

>> You good?

>> Yeah.

>> It's good being number one.

>> Yeah, it's [laughter] good to be number

one. I agree. Yeah,

>> I agree.

>> I've done an excellent job.

>> You've done a [laughter]

very good job. And now

>> beautiful.

>> Now we'll see who takes the most credit

for the ascension of the All-In podcast.

Uh over to you, Shamath Poly Hapatia.

How's your week been?

>> It's great being the number one

position. Yeah,

>> it's great being the best. I mean, we

would have

>> I feel like Sax and I would have gotten

here at least 18 months sooner had we

not had to drag you on our back.

>> Oh, okay. the point guard who actually

[laughter] put all those dimes and

positioned the ball everywhere you guys

wanted it. Yes, you would have you

certainly would have gotten there uh

eventually if you guys actually knew how

to start.

>> Where would we be without your constant

interruptions?

>> Sooner. We would have been number one

sooner. [laughter]

>> You would you would be where every other

tech podcast is in the 400s. And joining

us this week

in replacement of venture

>> also number one also number one

>> number one venture capital firm in

assets under management I believe

certainly

>> none other sir

>> then Ben Harowitz is here. Hey Ben how

are you?

>> I am doing well. Thank you for having me

on the show. Uh it's great to be with

the number one team.

>> Yes the number one podcast [laughter] in

the world. How does it feel to be on the

number one podcast in the world? Have

you has it, you know, like have you

soaked it in yet, Ben? Is it just

>> It feels great.

>> Yes. Yeah,

>> it is awesome. I feel bigger already.

>> It is kind of amazing that a tech

podcast could be the number one podcast

on

>> That is bizarre.

>> Apple podcast last weekend.

>> Big docket this week. Uh good to have

you here, Ben. And uh Freeberg is busy

saving the world from famines and he'll

be back next week for all of you.

>> He retired. He retired at number one.

Yeah, he just he he walked off the

court.

>> Oh, that's hilarious. Well, um

>> we've had an eventful week. We uh may

have actually had the AI bubble, if

there is one, pop or deflate a little

bit. The Neoclouds got crushed this week

after uh Coree's bonds started to sell

off. Could be the canary in the coal

mine. We'll find out. uh Cororeweave,

Iron, Nebus, these are all the biggest

Neoclouds. They're all down about 20% as

publicly traded companies. Here's your

chart. Here's what happened. Just a

little bit of background. On Tuesday, a

bunch of people on X, including at

Chimath pointed out that the yield on

some of Coral [laughter] Weave's debt

had hit 15%. The yields uh are obviously

rising because bond traders are worried

about Cororeweave's ability to generate

enough cash to support its debt. So they

want a a higher rate of return.

Obviously

adding to Chimat's little tweet was a

friend of the pod Elon Musk who decided

to contribute

five letters, one word that [laughter]

has since been heard around the world

and is at the start of every story. He

said, "Yikes, y I ke." And that

generated a bunch of headlines. Then

everything tanked yesterday, Wednesday,

we tape on Thursdays, as many of you

know. Coreweave, Iron, Navius down

between 10 and 15%. Even Oracle uh and

Dell took some strays. Nvidia uh took

stray as well. They were down three%.

Coreweave is the tip of the spear.

They've raised over $35 billion. We had

uh the founder, we had the founder

Michael in Trader on the All-In podcast

back in March in which he explained to

me on the All-In interview show what he

called the box. Let's roll that tape and

get Shamant's thoughts.

>> How does all that debt work? That is

something that you guys specialize in.

>> I'm going to try to explain this in a

way people can understand. So, we go out

and we find a client. Let's use

Microsoft. You brought them up before,

right? And Microsoft comes to us and

says, "We'd like to buy some config for

you." and we say, "Okay, great. We're

going to sign a contract." Once I have a

contract in hand, then what I do is I

create something. It's not a

particularly creative name. It's called

the box. Yeah.

>> Right. And what I do with the box is I

take my contract with Microsoft and I

put it in the box. I go to Jensen and I

buy the GPUs. I put it in the box. I

take my data center contract, I put it

in the box. And now the box governs cash

flow and it has a waterfall of cash flow

that comes into it and goes out of it.

And so the way it works is then I build

the compute and then I deliver the

compute to Microsoft and they pay the

box. They don't pay me. It goes into the

box and the first thing it does is it

pays the data center. It pays the power

bill. It pays the interest and the

principle and then whatever's left flows

back to us. What's important to

understand is the economics in this box

are such that within two and a half

years of a five-year deal, we have paid

for everything. They don't

cross-pollinate. They don't cause

contagion across the boxes. They're all

independent and discreet. As you do this

and as you show the lenders how this

financing tool and how this financing

mechanism works, what they do is they

continue to lend you money at

progressively lower rates. Okay,

Chimoth, that seemed like a completely

reasonable explanation of how they were

running the business and that each of

the boxes were isolated, but something

has changed in the last 6 months. what

is that and uh what's changed here and

and your insights into his financial

innovations I would say uh with corewave

the most important thing that you should

always look at is how the sharps the

super smart money prices risk and when

you're dealing with companies like

Cororeweave or Nebus or Iran etc that

have to borrow a lot to fund these boxes

the smart money is trading what's called

a credit derivative swap. Okay, this is

default insurance

and these default swaps are meant to

ensure the bond holders against a

potential default.

That risk spiked this week to about 953

basis points, which it doesn't matter

what that number is, but as an imputed

risk, it's about a 16% chance of a

default in any given year.

And over a 5-year duration,

what that math implies is about a 55%

chance of a default. So, it's a coin

flip whether they default or not. That's

not what I'm saying. That's what the

insurance market was saying about their

debt. And I think that's something to

look into because those guys I think are

the smartest money in in all of this.

So, why did they do this? I started to

dig into it and here's a couple of

charts that explains a little bit of

what I learned. Okay, so the first thing

is just a market check. You know, we've

talked about this, but we have a problem

in the United States, which is that the

US is moving the risk-free rate higher

and higher. Who is doing that? These are

the central bankers. These are the bond

vigilantes. These are the people that

say because of inflation or other

long-term risks that are not getting put

out of the system, we need to get paid a

lot more money to own the safest

riskless asset. As that goes up, basic

way to think about that is as the

10-year bond goes up, everything else

goes up. And so this black line

represents the average price that you

have to pay for junk debt.

And what you see is that as the 10-year

went up and people are like, man, the

risk-free rates going up, the junkiest

junk bonds need to pay more and more and

more.

And then the purple line here is what

coreweave has to pay. And what you see

is that it also has started to tick up

and has moved up relatively violently.

And so the question is why has it done

that? Okay, so let's go to the next

chart. Michael is right that he is in

the business of creating these boxes

and then putting in contracts and GPUs,

but he also needs to put money in those

boxes. And the way that he puts the

money in the box is he has to go out and

borrow that money. So he goes to a

lender and says, "Give me the money and

I will pay you that back plus some

interest." What you see here is what is

inside of the box effectively. So the

gray bar is how much money he's

guaranteed to get into the box. These

are all the deals he sold to all of his

customers.

>> These are contracts. Yeah,

>> these are contracts. Now, and it's

important to note because I'll get to

this in a second. It turns out that

these contracts are fixed price. So

meaning if what you could sell in the

spot market goes up, you don't really

generate that revenue because you've

already pre-sold it at a fixed number.

So, Michael creates the box. He gets a

long-term contract, which is great

because you have shity around the

revenues you're getting, but he sells

that. Then he goes and has to finance

it. And then some of that financing

comes due. He's got some bonds that are

due and some loans that are due. What

this basically says is at the midpoint,

he has to raise another $35 billion of

debt to get all of the contracts that he

signed financed, right? All the boxes

financed. and up and running. So he has

about 35 billion of debt. He needs to

raise another 35 billion of debt. But as

you saw in the chart before

that's ticking up not and it has nothing

to do with him. It is because the

broader market is essentially saying the

risk-free rate goes up everybody has to

pay more because your spread above the

risk-free rate has to track with it.

Okay. So today

across all the different pockets of

money in which that they have used to

fund those boxes

their average

interest rate that they pay is about

8.5%.

The problem is that in this last little

while the sharps

basically said hold on this is getting

too close to the knife's edge. You're

going to have to pay more interest.

That's what I tweeted, which was just,

you know, one of the sleeves of

interest. This is the GPU loan DDTL 1.0

spiked to 15%. The problem is that could

theoretically now be the rate that they

have to pay for all of the future. And

remember,

half of it's financed, half of it is

still unfinanced. Right now, these guys

are in a pretty good place because they

have about 780 billion of assets and

only 35 of debt. So, they're well

covered. So I think that you know this

idea that they're at risk is not on the

surface true but the reality is that

they have this problem which is they

have extreme customer concentration.

75% of the revenue comes from three

companies.

Some of those companies are walking down

what their revenue expectations are into

the future.

So you have this situation now where you

have to go out and borrow at a much

higher rate. You have a bunch of debt

you need to go to fund the boxes and you

have a fixed amount of revenue going

into the boxes. So what is the trade or

what is the setup? It's basically a coin

flip now on the following idea. I think

the market is saying that if

they are able to finance this stuff at a

reasonable rate and the life of the GPUs

that they buy from Jensen are longer

than what they think, they're going to

be okay.

But if the financing goes up and into

that, you know, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15%

range, these guys are getting very,

very, very close to not necessarily

being able to cover all the obligations

that they have. My team's estimates is

that they're plus or minus about 5

billion away from that break even point.

So, I think that's why the CDS spiked,

which then caused the bond yields to

spike and caused the bonds themselves to

lay off. So in order of operations,

number one, I think they've created this

very novel structure that everybody else

has copied with the boxes. Number two,

they've sold these fixed contracts.

That's super smart, guaranteed a bunch

of revenue into the future. But we have

this situation where as the risk-free

rate goes up, their cost of borrowing

goes up. That erodess the margin that

they have that then brings them close to

this break even point. That causes the

CDS to react, which then causes the bond

yields to react. That's the negative

reflexive loop that they're in. So, they

just have to find a way to break out of

that. I don't think that they're in real

risk. But, as we all know, this is sort

of a confidence game and you need to

have confidence that the broader market

can support another 35 billion just from

these guys. And I think that's what's

going to get figured out over the next

month. All right, Ben. So, you look at

this situation, you've been through a

couple of bubbles before, maybe have a

little PTSD or scar tissue, in fact. Um,

and we saw carweave bounce today, kind

of hit a bottom, stocks up 1 or 2% right

now after going down 10%.

>> Is this acute? And then what does it

mean for the broader AI trade, the AI

bubble? Is there a bubble? And and we'll

get into anthropic in a minute. Saxs.

>> Yeah. So, so I think that um the the

first thing to understand is these these

businesses like Cororeweave as uh you

know Chimath kind of went through some

of it but they're rub Goldberg financial

machines. They're exceptionally complex.

Um so you know we talked about okay GPU

contracts and this but he's got data

center contracts how long are those and

and then there's he's got to buy memory

like and there's memory shortage and

this and and that so so it is really

complex. The other thing um or the other

interesting thing is yes GPUs

not only have they they've been going up

in duration and in price. So that's been

like a big tailwind for him uh as the

owner of such things.

>> When you say duration, you mean the

lifespan, the number of years you get

value from that. It was three, four,

five, now it's six, seven, eight. And

there's a shortage um like a real

shortage of GPUs with power and cooling

and and I kind of caveat that right like

which is what he has.

>> Uh and and this this this shortage is so

bad you know I was speaking with Andy

Jasse who runs Amazon yesterday and I

said yeah like we're out of everything

you know till 2028. He's like, "Oh, it's

beyond 2028 bit. Like, I don't think we

get stuff back." Like, end of 2028,

maybe. Uh, so everything else is sold

out. So, he he has the advantage of that

he's got supply in a great shortage,

which is extremely different than the

internet bubble. The internet bubble, we

didn't have enough demand because we had

to build the internet. People had to get

broadband. You know, you needed uh all

this stuff. people had to buy, you know,

originally they had to get their browser

app fries, all this kind of thing. There

weren't enough consumers on the internet

to absorb all the bandwidth that had

gotten built out and they had a massive

amount of debt, not unlike uh we're

building today, although not as big. Um

but but the lack of demand killed it. We

don't really have a lack of demand in

AI. So I think the dynamics will be

different. Uh I do think like the for

sure if you get into a pathological debt

situation

that can wreck anybody. Uh it's why um

by the way we're not invested in any of

these uh neo clouds either for that

reason because that whole thing scares

me having been through it. But but I

would just say it's pretty complicated

uh and it really depends on a huge

number of assumptions in this very

elaborate model that they have. Ben, but

let's just look. You were you and Mark

were one of the pioneers, maybe the

pioneer of the Neocloud business. I

mean, you you may just tell this quick

story because I want to ask the

question.

>> Loud Cloud kind of popularized this idea

that that you could build these clouds

and service customers this way.

>> Yeah. But it's very interesting to me

that you and Mark as the

kind of primogenitor

uh have passed on the whole space. So I

I I want to know why.

>> Well, it's because of this. I mean, so

so so it can it can end up being um like

a very dangerous arbitrage business

where you know you can get upside down

easily. And so if you look at loudcloud

just as an example just here here's a

simple thing that happened to us in 1999

bandwidth bandwidth was $1,500 a megabit

and you couldn't get it was very hard to

get it and so you had to get a long-term

contract three years by 2001 it was $50

a megabit so if you were holding

bandwidth you you were you just you know

and you borrowed money to get it you're

dead. So that

you know that kind of thing is so out of

the control of the entrepreneur and and

so different than what we like to fund

um that you know it just it scared it

scared me to death. Now look, I I I

think the core dynamic of AI has been

working for Coreweave though in terms of

that in that

there's a massive shortage, not an

overage of supply. Um so those prices

don't seem to, you know, token prices

have gone down, but GPU prices have not.

>> Uh and so things are going up, you know,

and and by the way, data center space is

going up in price because even labor to

build data centers is hard. The politics

are making it hard to build data

centers. So the whole supply chain price

is going up and demand is not subsiding

and and so those those are very big

tailwinds uh for coreweave despite the

fact that the debt markets kind of

independent of them are tough.

>> All right Sachs uh here's your poly

market. Coreweave announces bankruptcy.

That's a pretty aggressive uh poly

market. 15% chance at the end of 27 next

year. 23% at the end of 2028. seems a

little far-fetched given the fact that

they have a massive demand for their

equipment as Ben pointed out.

>> Well, you can't look, this is dumb

because like I think Michael explained

it like you have this opco propco setup.

So coreweave can't go bankrupt. An asset

level vehicle for a data center or a

buildout could theoretically go upside

down, but [snorts] that'll go into

receiverhip and then just manage where

you sell down the GPUs. Yes, he he

explained in that clip he has each box

independent of the next. So, not a great

poly market, I think. Uh but well, it is

great if you bet it the other way.

>> Yeah, exactly. Maybe some free money

there to pick up. Sax, let's level up

the conversation here. Just outside of

Corewave and the Neo Clouds, massive

demand, token prices coming down, but

token consumption going way up. And I

think one of the the um silver linings

here is it was a big question of how

long these GPUs would last. Maybe they

had three, four, five year lifespan. Now

people are saying, "Hey, these things

will keep going into year 6, 7, 8 for

inference alone." So what's your thought

here on the AI trade, the bubble as it

were? Do we need to take a little bit

out? Do we need to stress test it? And

is that what's going on here? Or is this

uh making you nervous? Hey, we're in

year four or five of this bull run and

that maybe it's coming to an end and we

may hit the rword.

Yeah. Recession.

>> Here's the question, Jay. Cal, is you

got this coreweave crash. Their bonds

are being marked down to 80%, it's down

15 to 20% in the last few days in the

stock market. Is this just market

volatility or is this the beginning of

something deeper and worse? Like you

said, the popping of a bubble. Okay,

that's the fundamental question. I would

make the argument that this is just

volatility, which you're going to get a

lot of. Whenever you're underwriting to

multi-trillion dollar outcomes in the

future based on very rapid rates of

growth, exponential rates of growth, the

market's going to be super sensitive to

any data points we have in the present.

And so everything's going to be

exaggerated and that's why you get these

big swings. Now, again, that to me is

the explanation of the volatility. I

don't think that something fundamental

has changed. So let's talk about the

fundamentals. So first question there to

unpack it is has the demand changed? No,

we know that the demand for compute just

keeps growing by leaps and bounds. In

fact, everyone is saying that they are

compute constrained. I mean you got the

biggest model companies are saying

they're computed. Startups are saying

it. I mean they're asking their VCs, hey

can you help us get compute? I think

you've got some VCs even trying to buy

compute as basically a strategy for

competitive differentiation so they can

help their startup. So

>> there was literally an accelerator that

had bought excess compute and they were

using it as a way to get people to apply

for their accelerator.

>> Yeah. So we know the demand is off the

charts right now. We're seeing other

indicators. So for example, old GPUs

like even the H100s or the A100s which

are several generations old, they're

still renting at premium prices right

now. They were supposed to be fully

depreciated and they're not. There's

actually upside surprise there to the

people to the companies that are renting

those old supposedly stale GPUs. So, we

know the demand is off the charts. Okay.

So, what's the next indicator of

something deeper and problematic

happening? Well, the next question you

could ask, well, is there a glut of

supply coming onto the market? So, we

know the demand is huge, but maybe

there's too much supply being stood up.

Well, we know that's not the case

because of the sheer difficulty of

standing up this powered compute and we

know it's not being brought onto the

market too rapidly. First, you just have

all the problems with atoms building

things in the physical world. That's

hard enough. Elon basically has said,

"Look, this is a really difficult

problem. Even our rocket scientists find

it challenging to stand up gigawatts of

new powered compute." And then we have

all the regulatory headwinds, right?

Local communities are not racing to give

out new entitlements around this. So if

anything we believe that there's not a

glut it's the other way that there's

enforced scarcity. So then the question

becomes well is there some sort of

execution problem with coreweave? You

know are they too slow in standing up

their compute? Have their costs gone

through the roof? Look, there's some

indication that maybe their costs are a

little bit higher, that maybe it's a

little slower, but at least on a

reputation basis, they are believed to

be excellent at this game of standing up

new compute. So then the question was,

is there some sort of credit problem?

you know, on the credit like the founder

Michael was saying with the boxes,

you know, when you go to a lender to

basically back the buildout of, let's

say, a new data center, you're not

relying on the unsecured credit of

Coreweave to make that loan. You're

backed by the credit of the tenant who's

entered into a 5-year commitment. So, it

could be a Microsoft, whatever. So the

creditworthiness of that particular

project of that particular box is going

to depend more on the credit of the

tenant than on the credit of core. And

then behind that you've got the GPUs

themselves which you know it's basically

asset back financing. The lender is

secured by those GPUs. And we just

talked about how if anything there's

upside surprise on the depreciation

cycle of these GPUs. So my impression is

that there's not a deeper credit problem

in terms of financing these projects.

What happened though is the repricing is

of Corweave's unsecured obligations.

It's true that the market has discounted

them by 20%. They're in distress

territory. That has brought the implied

coupon of those bonds from 9.6% to

around 15%. But that does not increase

the cost that Cororee is paying. Corwe

is still paying their 9.6% coupon. It's

just that the secondary market has

repriced the value of those bonds to an

implied coupon.

>> It changes the future debt.

>> Yes, it could definitely raise the costs

of future debt, but I don't think

they're funding these new boxes with

unsecured corporate notes. I think

they're funding them with asset back

financing. And

>> yes,

>> the debt

>> there's two things that go in the box.

The contract goes in the box, the GPUs

go in the box. So, you got two things

and these are credit credit worthy

organizations who pay their bills like

Microsoft.

>> Yes. Now, if I were a lender on those

projects though, I'd be looking really

closely at the credit of who's the

customer basically for that compute.

Obviously, if it's Microsoft or Google

or a couple other companies that feel

really good,

>> right, that may a startup, I don't

necessarily.

>> They have three customers that represent

75% of their revenue.

>> Yeah. And they're all investment grade

like the big customers. So,

>> the thing I'll add to this is, you know,

you explained quite clearly, uh, Saxs,

hey, the the GPUs are worth something,

the data centers are worth something.

Ben, you pointed out the power, the HVAC

is worth something. The tokens are worth

something. And then if you look at

startups, uh, you know, which is where I

spend all my time is the early stage

startups, they're crushing it in terms

of raising capital, getting customers,

and we've never seen revenue ramps like

I'm seeing in startups today. And I

think Ben, you'll probably back that up.

the the revenue ramp of startups today

is distinctly different than the SAS,

you know, uh triple triple triple double

double double. Now we're at like, hey,

are you doubling every quarter or not?

And then if you're not doubling every

quarter, like what are you doing? Why

are you not growing faster in this age

of AI? So the startups feel particularly

strong. So maybe this is just the market

overall saying hey let's test this you

know uh and and maybe there's some

indigestion there or Ben is it that the

world is running out of money and people

have place their bets already and then

what would that say for the venture

industrial complex of which you are you

know a significant player at scale and

what would that say for the IPOs the two

biggest in the history of

uh business and and public markets,

anthropic and open AI, are we running

out of money to allocate to AI?

I don't think so. Um, you know, we've

kind of never had companies that have

grown this fast, gotten this big.

And so, we've never asked that question

before. We never said, or at least not

in my lifetime, does the world have

enough money to finance these things? uh

which is a crazy question but like

relevant but I I I don't think for sure

with respect to the anthropic and the

open AI

IPOs I think my belief is those are

going to be fine like like look the the

price

you know will it be two trillion or will

it be 1.75 trillion I don't know but I I

think

>> 50 billion or 100red billion whatever

they raise that's not a giant that's

that's big number, but it's not an

unprecedented number now because look,

>> SpaceX just did it, right?

>> Whatever you're holding in the equity

markets, whatever you're holding,

>> open AI and anthropic are threats to

that

>> almost like there's almost nothing that

you can hold in a portfolio that those

two companies don't threaten.

>> Yeah, agreed.

>> And so I'm not worried at all about the

demand for those IPOs. So you have to

own those because they threaten every

single company in the world because

they're selling intelligence broadly and

every company is based Shimoth on

intelligence.

>> Therefore, it's it's that disruptive.

Yeah, Chimath, you can underwrite it as

a defensive hedge because I think Ben's

right. It's like if you own a healthcare

company and you've thrived on the

opacity of the healthcare

infrastructure, OpenAI is a threat to

that. If you own a bunch of workflows

that have been rented to people as SAS,

theoretically open AAI and ant are a

threat to that. So at a minimum it is

sort of defensively positioning your

portfolio. So you kind of have to

because there is not much other

investable stuff in AI to be long AI

other than those two companies and so

they'll get the lion share of the of the

interest. I think the the question

generally is if the bond market walks

the tenure up to five and a half and 6%

which has nothing to do with AI. It has

everything to do with debt to GDP and a

bunch of other factors in broad-based

western economies. Any business model

that thrives on a financing spread

gets cornhold any and every all of them.

It just it will it will not matter when

the 10 years at 6%. It won't matter.

Doesn't matter what you do. it doesn't

matter what you claim to do, you're

going to get run over. You're going to

be roadkill. As long as we can keep that

from, you know, happening,

we're going to be fine. So, like, what's

the what's the most important way, I

guess, post these midterms to keep the

party going? You have to really start to

focus on deficits. And you have to find

a fair trade where the bond market backs

off.

And I think you can see it in the tape.

Meaning if if we start proposing huge

spending programs, they're going to walk

the tenure up. That then has a negative

cascade to everything. If however the

posture becomes much more about keeping

everything calm and like let's just tone

things down and let's find the waste in

the system and squeeze it all out, I

think people will respond very

favorably. So that's really where it's

going to come down. The last thing I

will say is

these are like Achilles heels. Meaning

like I think Sax made an incredibly

eloquent case. So did Ben about all of

the asset value that's getting built up.

But just like the great warriors, you

just slice the Achilles tendon and they

just crumble to the knees. I just want

to point out this is that thing.

>> There is no other thing. Meaning all

this other stuff is complete goodness.

But the fact that you need to finance

these things in a variable rate model as

a spread to the risk-free rate is the

big problem in these businesses.

And you need to essentially have

Microsoft, Google, Meta, and Nvidia

backs stop all of this in a worst case

scenario

because that's the only way you can

withstand

a one or two-year correction in this

market. I'll tell you the other big

piece here that might be a bigger

threat, Sachs, is the deflationary

nature of this AI, this super

intelligence rather movement. We talked

last week about people decompiling

Photoshop going to zero. Now this week,

Hood Warfare came out. It's basically

people are making platform level games

for five bucks. It's so deflationary.

There's an 11 Labs competitor that came

out that's incredibly cheap. and then

every single open- source model being

hosted and Elon saying, "Hey, we'll just

route you with our orchestration level

to the best model, open- source or not."

How how big of a how big of a headwind

do you think that is, Sachs, to our

industry, just the commodification and

how rapidly things are just having 90%

of the VA value removed from them? And

is that going to stop or is it going to

accelerate? It feels to me like the

deflationary nature of this software AI

super intelligence is unique and

different than anything we've ever seen.

People are just able to rip and ship

code so fast. It makes me wonder like

what is the margin of software in the

future?

>> Well, we want everyone to be able to

create software, especially bespoke

software, which is really this new

category, right? That is going to be a

huge driver of productivity throughout

the economy. I mean it's not all just

like uh zero sum games or disruption.

The value of these coding assistants is

that now you can create software for

highly bespoke use cases. Whereas

software used to be created really just

for the mass market. I mean the reason

why Photoshop's a successful product is

there's a lot of graphic designers who

need to use that product and really the

only software that could ever get

created in the past was when there was a

large potential customer base for that.

Now we're getting all these cases where

enterprises can create software just for

their particular use cases. And in fact,

in a way, that's what agents are is that

they're bespoke software programs to

solve a particular task. But if people

build those in-house sacks and they're

based on open-source, you don't need the

other piece of software that it's

replacing. So isn't that extremely

deflationary? Maybe there's some

substitution away from established

software. But I think the important

point is just there's this vast new

category of software being created. I

mean the amount of code that's being

created now is orders of magnitude

already bigger than it was before coding

assistance. So again people just tend to

think in terms of these zero someum

games and who's going to be wiped out or

eliminated. But the really important

trend here is just that there's going to

be a lot more software created in the

world for a lot more of these bespoke

use cases. Enterprises are now able to

create software for a much broader array

of purposes. There's companies that

never would have been software companies

before that are now creating their own

software and they're hiring coders

basically to manage the process. By the

way, I think this is a really important

point around remember with the whole

jobs apocalypse. The first job category

that predictors of the apocalypse were

saying would be eliminated were software

coders obviously because

>> everybody became a developer and now

everybody's shipping code. Yeah. Now

we're seeing that actually demand for

coders is increasing even though 95% of

the code's written by coding assistants

and the reason for that again is well

first of all you still have that 5% and

that 5% is of a much bigger pie and you

still need someone who can look under

the hood and manage the whole process

and they need to be somewhat technical

and maintain it. maint

I I think this whole you could say new

category of bespoke software created by

the proliferation of coding assistants

and agents and all of that is just I

think it's going to be just a huge

driver of productivity throughout the

economy and is that broadly deflationary

probably in a good way because it means

that we can do more with less and we

need to

>> be great for the country right that

everybody is going to be more productive

Ben but do you worry about our industry,

the venture industry, uh, and we have

these great hits and then the second

they become a hit, somebody can

decompile it, create a competitor and

ship it very quickly. It feels

distinctly different in this uh, you

know, um, boom to previous ones. So, do

you think this is going to be a

challenge for us to get DPI for our LPS?

Um, is this going to be a challenge for

the sustainability of great software fr

franchises?

>> Ben,

>> I I can Yeah. Look, I I don't I don't

think so. Like this this has been the

ongoing prediction starting with the SAS

apocalypse.

>> Yes.

>> Um, but I think that David David's right

is that what's happening is

>> prices software prices will definitely

go down. Um but the amount of software

is going way way up. It's the it's the

Jevans paradox of software. Sure.

>> Uh and you know these companies end up

doing other things more than just the

software. So we had this on the

internet. The internet information is

going to be free. That's it. All these

industries are dead. But they kind of

reemerged in a different way. Um and I

think that that's very likely what's

going to happen. So from a startup's

point of view, you've got to evolve. Um

and so you know 11 Labs does many many

things to make their product better over

the years since uh that's example that

you brought up and they've got like

licensing agreement like Bert Reynolds

will read you a book or this and that

and the third. Um so they're doing more

than just software um because they can

because the software is easier to write

the model they're training on very very

very nuanced cases which is why you know

movie dubbing is so amazing now where it

sounds like they're just acting in a

different language. Um so there's more

to it than just you know speech to text

or this and that. um and you know those

so I think the products are going to

have to get way better and the startup's

products will have to get way better

which is amazing for everybody

and then that's where the value will be

but yeah just like writing software is

not going to have any more value than

like publishing a magazine creating

massive competition yeah

>> the most will change you know you got to

think about what are the moes in a

business data moes are a big one if you

have data that other people don't have

>> if you then build a user base because

your model is catering to a particular

vertical and now you're getting all

those users and you're getting their

feedback. Maybe that becomes a you know

a feedback loop the feedback learning

becomes a

>> lot of

>> startups are building businesses based

on that model. The paradigmatic example

is is like a Harvey or something where

they get all these law firms on board.

So they then get access to their data

and then their usage and then they train

their own models.

>> Yes. Get sharper each time. Go ahead.

and cheaper and more custom.

>> Yeah,

>> I'll give you the ultimate moat. I think

power will be the moat. I think that you

can build the most fantastical things in

the world and you're going to see people

on the dry docks basically trying to

hitchhike to get power. And the reason

is because we are so constipated in the

United States. A we're already behind

and we're in a massive energy deficit,

an electron deficit. We are by 2050

about 1.4 terowatt hours short, which

means about six California's worth of

electricity. That's their starting

point. Then when you layer in, and

that's with everything that we've

planned to build being built on time and

on budget, which we know is not going to

happen. Then on top of that, you have

all the load growth that theoretically

happens when you actually have all these

next abundant experiences.

I made this uh statement this past week,

and I'm just going to double down on it.

I don't think you can work through the

hyperscalers anymore because of this one

issue. So let's just say you're a big

mainline, you know, G Sid bank, right?

JP Morgan, City Bank. Could you imagine

that the reason why you can't service

your customers is because the underlying

cloud that you use can't actually secure

and grow enough power? And so back to

the other moat that I think is really

valuable is to own the land, the power

in the shell because it's such a

constrained asset. Back to what Andy

told you, Ben, it is so critical and it

will stop the best experiences on a

dime. So if you're a startup, I actually

think the bigger problem is you'll go to

these clouds, you'll be like, great, I'm

ready to launch this Whisbang product

and they're like, "Suck it. We have no

capacity for you."

>> Yeah. Such a disaster. I very much agree

with that last one.

>> I think that's right.

>> By the way, what an incredible

opportunity that's now been lost in the

Middle East where Saudi, UAE,

>> Qatar, they were all massive producers

of oil, able to do top down planning,

half centers, and now they have bombs

going off blowing up airports. It's such

a

>> Without drone defense, you can't go

there. Without drone defense, you can't

go there.

>> Exactly. And drone defense isn't going

to work because all one drone gets

through and your data center is fried.

Well, I mean,

>> can I make one last point on the whole

data center thing,

>> please?

>> So, there's one metric that the more I

think about it, the the one metric I

would really keep an eye on is payback

period. To me, that's like the Northstar

metric here. So, Cororeweave says that

it's payback period is 2.5 years. Their

typical deal is 5 years. They pay back

within 2.5 years. SpaceX, they pay back

in roughly one year. That makes sense

because I think that SpaceX is

monetizing at about 50 billion per

gigawatt and core at about 20 billion

per gigawatt. And the reason for that is

because SpaceX is basically getting

spot. You know, they're doing these

deals that can be cancelceled by either

side within 90 days. So, they're

basically getting spot minus 90. Whereas

Coreweave is signing up for 5-year

commitments. So, it's, you know,

contracted way in advance and they're

kind of getting this contracted price.

And what's happened, I think, over the

past year is that spot has moved way up.

way up

>> because again of the scarcity, right?

And the demand is so off the charts. So

in any event, payback period is really

critical and as long as the payback

periods are really short, I don't see

how these companies can lose or at least

you'd have to be really incompetent to

screw it up, right? like you're making

these big capital investments, but if

you're getting your money back in one

year or two and a half years,

>> you know, that greatly reduces

>> like owning an Airbnb in Paris or

something like

the payback period is so quick for these

if you if you got your orders in

>> early.

>> Yeah. And that means you're paying back

the debt quickly and so the debt's

rolling over more quickly. It just

reduces everyone's risk. Now, if that

payback period starts taking longer and

longer, then I get nervous, right?

Because that magnifies the risk. It also

means the economics aren't as good. And

the question is, well, why would the

payback period take longer? And it could

happen for a bunch of reasons, right?

Like if the demand goes down and so now

the offtake's not as good, the spot

price going down

>> or just there's execution problems,

right? It takes you longer to get the

capacity online. So, you know, the

payback gets delayed. There's a lot of

reasons why payback could take longer

and longer. But as long as payback

remains as short as it is today, to me,

that that would be like the one metric I

would really keep an eye on. The other

thing that the big offtakers will make

you sign up for is what's called

liquidated damages. There's really

really complicated language and

penalties that are extreme about what

happens when you can't service the data

center. So I think that's another risk.

There's been a couple of these guys that

have lost I'm not going to name who they

are, but that have lost their investment

grade rapper from the big boys because

they justed up Sachs to your point and

couldn't manage the data centers because

the complexity is is going up. and the

complexity goes up because the chips run

hotter, there's more energy, there's

more electricity, there's more it's so

all I'm saying is I think the sharps

may be wrong and they usually are wrong

when they're buying these credit

defaults. But, you know, when your

expected value is a coin flip in a

5-year window, that's like scary town. I

think that needs to get managed very

precisely. I would just find every way

possible to nip this in the bud if I was

coreweave. And then

>> how do you think they can do that? How

can they nip it in the bud? I think that

they have to cancel some of these

contracts and move to spot. That's the

simplest thing that they could do. If

they could basically pay a penalty and

get out, they should run the Excel right

now on let me just like take this

gigawatt, put it on spot because you're

talking about, as you said, a 20 billion

spread.

>> But this is where Elon has a big

advantage because Elon has independent

sources of financing to finance that

gigawatt of compute needs that 5-year

contract to bank the financing to then

build that that capacity. Well, the

thing is like I think that Nvidia

probably is okay with Cori selling spot

and not doing a multi-year offtake for a

big hyperscaler or a foundational lab.

So I I would just run the math and try

to figure out because they've only built

half the capacity that they've

contracted for. So you know they let's

just say they built two out of the 4

gawatt. They got to figure out a way

very quickly to just because to your

point the spread between their fixed

contracts and spot is so extreme that

you're leaving 20 and 30 billion on the

table and so now you're within plus or

minus 5 billion of violating a covenant

on your debt. Don't be there.

>> Yeah. It would improve their economics a

lot. Look, if they had a gigawatt of

compute they could sell it spot that

you're right that'd be like net 30

billion

>> right to the bottom line.

>> Right to the bottom line. I I think that

the the challenge with that is the

hardest people to get spot pricing from

are the investment grade customers. Like

th those are the ones that won't do it

right.

>> Also, because they also have a war chest

of money could they'll stand it up

themselves if it's too expensive.

>> Yeah. This narrative could change a lot,

right? If like spot becomes imperiled,

then

>> yeah, the guarantee contracts become

great. Yeah. I think we're capacity

constrained enough through the entire

pipeline. Like you have to think Nvidia

has done an incredible job. Okay.

Because if you look one layer beyond

Nvidia, all the packaging capacity is

them. All the HBM capacity is mostly

them. Like even Google tint cups for

memory right now because Nvidia has

clogged it all up. So they they are in

complete ball control here. And so it

just creates the setup I think is that

spot will remain highly elevated for a

while.

>> Crazy moment in time. And uh we got a

double bang this week on top of

>> sorry Jason just the last thing but I'm

telling you guys you got to get long

energy. I think startups need to find a

way of like cobbling together if you

don't have access to electricity. You

cannot go through the hyperscalers is my

prognostication.

>> Yeah. Stop stop the war in the Middle

East. It solves a lot of problems right

off the bat. If coreweave wasn't enough,

AI sector got doublebanged on Wednesday

after anthropic investor day numbers got

a mixed reaction. Anthropic is planning

on going public around Thanksgiving.

Poly market says now 74% chance they go

public this year down from 95% in early

September when they said everybody was

going to die from their software

[laughter]

on Wednesday the company presented the

potential I I mean you can't make this

stuff up presented uh potential IPO

investors uh at their headquarters in

San Francisco now this isn't the bugged

headquarters of OpenAI this is they

swept the room for this but we still

have the data Q3 free revenue $16.8

billion. Think about that, gentlemen.

Over $5 billion a month already for

anthropic net revenue retention was

900%.

That means customers spent nine times

more than last year. Pretty good, huh?

Sachs on a SAS front. They also said

they are free cash flow positive.

Adjusted gross margin 85% adjusted

operating margin 11%. No word on how the

adjustments were calculated. But here's

the big one. ARR estimates range from 70

billion, which basically be flat since

July, which is a bad sign, to over a

hundred billion. So there is some hand

ringing about what numbers are correct

here. They did not disclose this

numbers. These are just secondhand

estimates by investors who might be a

little leaky. Obviously, Anthropic is

targeting a ginormous unprecedented

valuation of two trillion

growing violently, not uh growing

slowly. Go ahead, Jam, you had a

question.

>> No, I just said, Ben, is Andre Long one

of the foundation model companies like

the one of the two big ones?

>> We we have a lot more stock on OpenAI.

Um, but I I would say, you know,

philosophically we're long both of them.

I think

>> you're long both of them, which is kind

of a strange thing. Now, Ben, you you've

gotten so big, you consistently have

bets on the number one and number two

player. Uh, how is that working out in

the market?

>> Well, now we I mean I I I would say that

there are many investors in both of

those things. So I I think look in

venture we call it venture capital but

venture capital has subsumed um a huge

part of what used to be the public

markets and I would consider uh both

open AI and anthropic to be in that

category um where they're not really

venture capital where you're worried

about your venture capitalist being

invested in you know your competitor

because they're gigantic uh you know

they're they're not a round bound

companies anymore. Um, so that that part

of the market I think people,

you know, when you're raising by the,

you know, tens of billions of dollars,

you don't care where the money as long

as it's green. Like they're just taking

Yeah. Yeah.

>> that what used to be mezzanine

financing, preipo financing. Yes.

There's less hand ringing about the

conflicts there.

>> Yeah. I wouldn't even call it mezzanine

financing at that level. I think you you

know what this is just like we did a lot

of regulatory moves in the late 90s and

early 2000s which uh really made the

public markets much less attractive for

companies and the private markets grew

to absorb um that business which has

been I think very bad for America. it's

increased the the wealth gap and so

forth, but it is what it is. And so I I

wouldn't consider that that's very

different than like investing in two a

round companies doing the same thing. I

still think that's the over thing is

distinctly different than anthropic open

AI at two trillion

>> now. Yeah,

>> understood.

>> Exactly.

>> One is a reaction to the other in fact,

right? Anthropic was a reaction to open

AI.

Let's call it what it is. rugpulling uh

Elon on it being a nonprofit and and

becoming a commercial enterprise. We'll

leave that on the side for now. What are

your thoughts on this anthropic IPO?

Well, look, I I I think that um you hit

the the thing that's kind of causing the

consternation, which is okay, growth has

slowed from Q2 to Q3 by a lot uh in

terms of revenue growth and then we

don't know what the AR or the you know

recurring revenue number is and so

people have questions about how fast the

thing is growing. Having said that, 16

billion 16.8 billion in the quarter

how how how long has Antropic been

selling stuff, you know, three years.

>> Crazy. Yeah. [laughter]

>> I mean, like it's just so absurd how

good this thing is. Um that Yeah. So, I

think the IPO will be fine. Like whether

it's, you know, you want to be in at 2

trillion or 1.9 trillion or 2.3

trillion. I think that's what a lot of

the debate is about. And then you know

anytime there's negative news on uh the

big labs then everybody in the supply

chain you know gets hit with that and

and so that's what's going on now. I you

know like I think big picture um it's a

very important company and it's got a

very big IPO

30 times price to sales ratio sachs uh

and this headwind of open source and

enterprises moving to that most

businesses don't need to solve the last

seven math problems in the world could

be slowing we could have anthropics

revenues slowing let's say they are

slowing

What do you think happens to this IPO

and the broader uh AI trade? Now, we

have two things uh as examples of AI

trade headwinds, super intelligence

headwinds. Whatever's happening at

Coreweave and whatever's happening at

Anthropic.

>> Well, look, you had this investor day at

Anthropic the other day and I think some

of these numbers that are coming out are

kind of leaking from that. Maybe we

don't know. We don't know what's true or

not. I think the participants had to

sign NDA. So I don't know if you can

completely trust what's floating around

X here. I think we'll find out in due

course. I mean if this company is IPOing

next month and we'll find out the actual

numbers. I would say that the let's just

say the body language coming out of the

investor day was pretty strong. At least

from what I've heard that I think the

investors like what they heard. These

are like big public market investors.

>> Who knows? I mean, everyone's kind of

talking their book, so it's hard to know

exactly what's true. But look, I I

generally think that Anthropic is a

strong business. I understand that there

are some risks to it. It's not like it's

completely risk-f free, but it's a

pretty young business, so you'd expect

that. But overall, I think it is set up

to have a a strong IPO.

And look, wearing my hat as an investor,

I think it's a very impressive company,

which is all the more reason why I find

their attempts to kneecap opensource

through their incessant fear-mongering

campaigns and regulatory capture to be

so distasteful is they don't need to be

doing that. They're a very successful

company. They've got a very bright

future. I just find it kind of offensive

that they keep trying to do that. There

were two examples of it just in the last

week. Do you guys want to talk about

these?

>> Are we doing SCOP corner scorner?

[laughter]

>> Let's circle back to SCOPS because I

want to get you to comment on

>> Hey, you thought maybe it's going to be

a

>> Let's come back to that. There are I

have it in the notes. We will get back

to Scion Corner here with your toaster.

>> I'm excited to get to Scion Corner.

>> Wait, [laughter] you will we got you a

tin foil hat. It's It's just that

they're on the side of your AI slot

background. Um, so Chimath, you said 1

trillion for Anthrop a couple weeks ago.

Uh, what are you thinking here? Do you

think they have significant headwinds or

do you think this is going to be a

blockbuster IPO? Where are you at here

in October of 2026?

No, my my comments are not because I'm

I'm negative on the company. I think I

was I found the

revenue breathtaking. I mean, it's

incredible. Like 16.8 billion in a

quarter for a three-year-old company is

just ridiculous. You've never seen

anything like it. I don't know how to

process it.

>> I think their products are exceptionally

good. I think they're doing the hard

work, and you know, to OpenAI's credit,

they are as well of walking down the

price curve so that they're less and

less at risk of open source. I still

think that there's a bunch of

cannibalization that has to happen on

the on the token side. I also think the

big thing that has to happen in AI is

we're effectively like in 1999 and 2000

in the internet media world where

everybody just works on CPM. You know

that time it was cost per thousand ads.

Right now it's cost per million input

tokens. We will move to CPC and CPA.

Right. And so when Google invented and

scaled Adwords and AdSense, the market

exploded, right? Because we went from

buying a thousand ads to just getting an

outcome.

>> Right now we buy right now we buy a

million tokens. We will eventually move

to an outcome. And I think when that

happens, this market will just go

absolutely batch crazy. So

these guys are going to do great.

They're a great company. Here's my very

specific thing about why I think they

should price it to clear the market for

$200 billion. And I'm very specific

about that number. They need in my

estimate at least 200 billion. And I

think if you want to be super safe, a

quarter trillion gets the job done. And

again, what does the price need to be to

attract that incremental dollar off the

sidelines? Can they raise 80 billion in

an IPO at 1.7 8 or 9 trillion? I think

so. Handily. Can they raise a 100red?

Maybe it's pushing it. 150. I think you

need to be back down to 1.5.

So you're saying you want them to raise

more money at a lower valuation so they

have a war chest. 150 billion at 1.5

trillion is not enough.

>> It's not enough. $200 billion barely

gets them a few gigawatts.

>> And that is the bottom line math. If

Anthropic is going to go through and

survive an eventual correction, I think

it's much better for them to have 200

to$250 billion today than to try to ring

the bell at 1.9 or 2 trillion for 80

billion fi [snorts] file a mix shelf

which takes about 6 months. Hope the

markets are in line and I just think

there's more risk in the future than

there is today right now.

>> And so why take the risk? Okay. Price it

to clear the market.

>> So how much how much are you saying they

should raise

>> Jimoth 200 billion minimum minimum

>> but I would like a quart trillion if I

was if I was the anthropic shareholder

which means I don't think you can raise

a quarter trillion at two trillion. I

think you can raise a quarter trillion

at a trillion.

>> What do you think Ben? you go,

raise more cash now and and have the

rainy day fund have the resiliency or go

for the valuation optimization as

founders are one to do these days and

and many investors are want to do. as a

uh former CEO who almost died 17 times

um by running out of cash

>> or potentially running out of cash. I

kind of look I agree with the sentiment

which is the only thing that's going to

or the thing most likely to stop the

company is financing risk and so why

take it? um you know like you've got all

the other risks, supply chain risk,

you've got competitive risk, you've got

the you know Chinese open source model

risk, you've got all this stuff and the

founders don't care. Yeah. And the

founders don't care. They all own two

and a half% each. So it's not like they

should be optimizing. They seem to not

care about money which I think is very a

positive attribute about the entire

founder group and anthropic. So

>> in part that's why they're so successful

is that they

>> get the tonnage of dollars inside the

company. Having said that, you know,

like what the safe amount of money is is

um

you know, it's a little it's always a

little bit in the eye of the beholder

like how much you know in the in the

dire scenario like what exactly happens.

I'm not deep enough on to say whether it

should be 250 mil billion or 150

billion.

>> I think the number has to work backwards

from compute in order to basically get

through a 3 to 5year window. And I think

if you you have to get out a spot

because as Saxs just said, it's too

expensive for Ant. They shouldn't be

spending 50 billion when they could be

spending 20. But if you had 200 billion,

you have a path to 5 to 10 gawatt that

you can finance completely on your own

with the magic boxes from the core

weaves and the like. I would optimize

for that. optimize for shity of compute

and everything else will solve itself

and in a five and 10 year window they'll

achieve the upper bound of their

capability at 50 60 70 billion they may

not survive the pricing implications of

what happens in the spot market over the

next two or three years

>> and

>> and then they'd have to raise a down

round.

>> Yeah. And Elon's deal with them is I

think either party can cancel within 60

or 90 days. Somebody can look it up.

What does it mean? The fact that Elon

did that deal tells you spots going up,

not down.

>> And that he might want going up.

>> Yeah.

>> And he may walk for himself.

>> He He's not dumb. He's the smartest of

the smart. He's doing spot because he's

like, "I may cancel on you." And

Anthropic's probably thinking, "Oh, this

is great. I can walk away in 90 days."

Wrong, buddy. It's the opposite. You

want the core deal. They should have got

the core deal. Uh bad.

>> Well, I'm sure they did the core deal

while they could, but

>> yeah,

>> they need to put a lot of money in a

magic box.

>> Yeah, they cut deals with everybody.

>> I think I mean, just by the way, like

according to semi analysis, Anthropic

and Open AAI are taking 60% of all the

compute that's expected to be stood up

in the entire world over the next year.

That they are basically the two offers

for for that. That is a duopoly.

>> Yeah. Y

>> based on compute. It's a it's a compute

duopoly. It's not a token duopoly at

this point.

>> You measure duopoly or monopoly status

based on market share. So you want to

look at revenue. And if you look at

>> the revenue of foundation model

companies, I mean I think that anthropic

and open AI are pretty much the only two

that are even generating significant

revenue from their models.

>> Yeah,

>> they definitely have a duopoly when it

comes to revenue and market share. I

would argue they have a duopoly when it

comes to frontier capability. Although

look, Muse, you know, Meta's new model

is getting very close. The new Google

model is getting close. Elon's getting

close, but they still, I think, are in

the lead in terms of capability, and

we're not seeing what they have in the

lab, so to speak. I mean, they have

things that are one or two generations

ahead that reportedly is very far ahead,

or at least that's what they're touting

to potential investors. So,

>> hey Ben, we got you here. Mhm.

>> What's the story since you're a big Open

AI investor? You're not on the board, I

don't think. Right. You're not on the

board. Um

>> what's the story with Sam Alman's equity

grant? He still has no equity in Open AI

and what's the advice there? You going

to give him a grant? You're going to

vote for a grant as a shareholder? What

should he get?

>> Yeah, I I I don't have I I don't want to

like pretend I know things that I don't.

>> Okay.

>> So So So I I I don't know what the

strategy is.

>> You can't be on the pod then. [laughter]

No, it's okay. It's all right.

>> I'll repeat what I said years ago that

the company when they went from being a

nonprofit to a for-profit, they should

have done a make right. You go to Elon

and you basically give him a share

because he put it in the first 50

million or whatever. You give Sam a

grant. You normalize things. Normalize

the management and governance of the

company. And instead, they did this

weird hybrid NGO thing that created

nothing but problems.

>> Yeah. But he got healthcare, so he's

good. Sam's got healthcare, so nothing

to worry about there.

>> You got to think he's he has to get

between two and 4% at this point.

>> That would Yeah, I think 4% is the

right. Yeah,

>> it's I think it's fair relative to the

comps on a total dollar tonnage basis.

It's incredible. It's 20 to40 billion at

a at a trillion and more from there.

It's kind It seems like right-ish, you

know.

>> Yeah, everybody approves. So, so voted

here on the All In podcast. What should

he have done uh in terms of screwing

Elon and the settlement there? Ben,

since we have you here, what what do you

think he should have done? Because

you're a big you're [laughter] a big

investor in all of Elon's companies.

What was your advice to Sam of

>> I So I wasn't uh in that conversation

then. But I agree with David. I mean, I

think that look, it's always the right

thing to

just kind of if you're going to square

it, you got to square it with the

people, not just, you know, the entity.

>> Totally.

>> All right. So, there you go. Two fast

balls and you hit both of them out of

the park. Very well done, Ben. You're

fitting right in here. You're candid.

That's what makes a great bestie.

>> Deep industry knowledge and ability to

be candid. Uh, let's get candid now with

some other important topics. All right,

election night is a few weeks away and

the besties will be live streaming with

the greatest guests in the world. I

won't say any of their names here, but

it is extraordinary. We'll be on X will

be on YouTube 8 to 10 p.m. Eastern,

November 3rd. be there, be square. And

you can also watch us live in the Poly

Market app if you're amongst the

wagering types. All the heavy hitters

will be on the Allin live stream

election night. All right,

we go to conspiracy

hoax corner for you. Sachs anthropic

says small models. You may have heard of

vertical models, small models, small

language models, SLMs

could start self-replicating on your

smartome devices. Yes, that's right. On

Monday, Anthropic published a blog

warning that rogue models could start

copying themselves, quote, in just a few

months. It's only months away, Sachs.

They claimed a worm, which is a software

uh a software package that can propagate

itself, would carry model weights to an

IoT device. That's an internet of things

device IoT to set up inference and then

uh move on. This means your smart TV,

your doorbell cams, your Ring, your your

drop cams, your robot vacuums, your

Roomba could start having the next set

of swarms. These would be physical

swarms on IoT devices apparently with no

central off switch. Anthropic says it

would be quote challenging to shut down.

They ran some tests. They wanted to see

if this would work. I guess a small

model got inference running on eight of

nine hardware types tested. So they're

testing the takeover. A large model ran

across 15 smart TVs at point4 tokens per

second, which is absurdly slow. But

basically what they showed is a small

model can in fact install itself on IoT

hardware which is everywhere and easy to

hack as you probably read. Anthropic

says there's no full rogue replicator

yet. Just quote signs of life. They had

to say signs of life saxs to troll you.

So here you are saxs. You wake up you

you get yourself out of the zar position

and they're still dragging you in to

this mishuga.

>> Yeah. Look, it's you. You ever see the

the graphic with the cat and the tinfoil

hat? You know, I wake up, there's a new

anthropic scop. [laughter] That's what's

going on here. Look, it's plain as a

nose on your face. They're trying to

create a panic. This is their latest

panic against open source. Now, they're

particularly going after small models.

By the way, small models are the safest

models because a small model doesn't

have the capability to become a new

species or all the other X-rays that

they're always talking about. So these

are basically small purpose-built models

to work on a particular task like you

know a customer support workload or

something like that and they're

basically trying to make it sound like

these small models are dangerous. They

can take over your toaster or your

refrigerator or something like that.

It's almost comical. You know we've gone

from the Terminator is coming to your

toaster is going to kill you. But it's

just more of this like fear-mongering

from them. And I mean the the reason I

say it's a recurring pattern, there was

actually a second anthropic blog post

this week as well about distillation.

Basically the other blog post that

Anthropic released said that they had

eliminated 90 to 99% of distillation.

Now, I don't know if you guys remember

this, but way back in July,

[clears throat]

>> Enthropic was pushing this idea that

they were the victims of industrial

scale distillation attacks, which is

basically when, you know, Chinese models

or other competitor models pay to use

their service and then pray on that

output. And um they were basically

saying that the government needs to get

involved. It needs to stop this. That

these open models now were the result of

IP theft is what they claimed. Even

though frankly they've distilled the

entire internet.

>> Yes. And they could have stopped it

themselves. Yeah.

>> Yeah. And by by the way this was such a

big threat or perceived as such a big

threat back in July. We did a whole

episode on it but 50 major companies

including Nvidia and Dell and Microsoft

and many others and actually A16Z signed

a letter an open letter to the

government saying do not overly restrict

open weight models. are tremendously

beneficial for our economy. 200 startups

signed another letter because there

really was this big push in Washington

to crack down on open models on the

basis of this supposed IP theft. Now, my

argument at the time was that it should

be up to the model companies themselves

to stop distillation because once the

distillation happens, the horse is out

of the barn. The government can't do

anything to put the horse back in. It's

up to the companies themselves to know

their customers better. Jammoth, you

made the point they should just do KYC.

Know who your customer is and stop them.

And now they have come out with a blog

saying that's exactly what they did,

which is exactly what I predicted. But

that is not what they were advocating

for. Instead of, you know, several

months ago, they came crying to the

government to hey, you got to solve this

problem for us by taking out our

competitors. And it would have had the

exact opposite effect because it would

have done nothing to actually stop

distillation. the distillation would

have kept going, right? Only the

companies themselves could mount the

technical defenses to stop it and it

would have just made the market less

competitive. So in any event, we

basically called them out and

fortunately the administration rejected

the idea of regulating open source in

that way at that time. And so as a

result, Anthropic had to actually build

the technical capabilities to detect

when distillation was happening. And

they've stopped it. They've basically

proven the exact point that we were

making three or four months ago, which

is they were in the best position to

stop it and they could stop it and they

should stop it and they should not push

this on to the government. Okay. So, but

again, this is like a recurring pattern

with them is, you know, they point to

some technical issue or technical

challenge and then they go running to

the government, they create a scare

campaign and they try to get the

government to stifle competition

>> instead of just fixing it themselves.

Yes.

>> Yeah. And the latest example is, let's

go back to this blog post on these

supposed AI powered worms that could

infect your IoT devices. Okay, I think

the first thing to say about this

research that they did, this study is

there is no such thing as AI powered

worms right now. It does not exist. They

are basically trying to create an

experiment. They prove that it could

exist. Well, guess what? There already

are worms out there that infect IoT

devices. They're making it sound like

these things don't exist. They're not AI

powered, but hackers [clears throat]

have written these worms that

>> exploits that people's locks or cameras.

>> So, for example, okay, I'll give you a

couple examples. There was one in 2016

called MRAI.

>> It scanned for default credentials and

it built a massive DOS botnet based on

infecting IoT devices. And more

recently, there was one called Kimwolf,

which infected 2 million of these cheap

Android TV boxes by hitting what are

known as open ADP ports. So essentially,

these devices are very easy to infect

because they've got open ports and

>> people didn't change the base password.

They just

>> they come with a default password like

0000

that don't get changed and they can't be

patched, right? So they are sitting

ducks. So these worms already exist, but

the the argument that Anthropic is

making is that somehow these worms are

going to get worse because they're going

to be AI powered. So they're going to be

more adaptive and then once they're on

the network, they

>> I mean, call it what it is, Zach.

They're making up scenarios that get a

lot of attention. These are fantastical.

>> Well, I mean, look, here's the scenario.

I'll steal man for a second. What

they're saying is that the worm is now

going to contain a small AI model and

then that model is going to search for

vulnerabilities on the network and then

it'll be able to infect things that it

couldn't infect before. Okay, that's the

scenario. Here's the the

counterargument. What a hacker would

really do is that when they're designing

the worm, that's when they would want to

use AI to basically write, you know, a

better, more nefarious worm. What you

wouldn't want to do is actually embed a

model inside the payload of the worm

because that slows down the worm and

like you saw the tokens get generated at

0.39 per second. It's very very slow. So

essentially what you're doing is you're

actually embedding a weak model in the

payload and that would actually slow

down the rate of infection. So there's

trade-offs there, right? It's like okay

maybe the worm is more adaptive but the

reality is it's slower and less

efficient. And then finally, you know,

the thing that they don't really point

out is this is going to be a relatively

easy problem to fix. Where we're headed

with IoT is you're going to have a brain

device. You're on your home network.

Apple just announced they're getting

into the whole home

>> auto pod or something. It's a little

>> it's going to be like it's going to look

kind of like your Apple TV. It'll be

it'll be like a little monitor that's

got all the applications.

>> You're going to just set your Grockpot

or your Muse and say secure my network.

It's going to tell you what to do. So

you're going to have some agent that's

constantly checking your network for

exploits. Ben, what's your P doom? How

panicked are you, Ben? Is this the end

of days? Are you worried about your

Roomba coming to kill you?

>> No. No. I mean,

>> how many Roomba you got? How many Roomba

you got?

>> I would say the kind of irony on both

these things is is wild in that

Anthropic is one of the most negligent

companies that we've ever seen in terms

of security of their own security. Um

they let like Claude code their one of

their crown jewels just like walk out

the door because they had such bad

opsac. Um and then you know I'll tell

you a funny story. So when we first got

Opus 4.5 uh we were doing like cyber

security checks for the firm. So we had

an agent basically set up a website for

a pet store and then we took another

agent and said tell us you know if we

can exploit that uh web store and you

know it gave us all the exploits it

could find. So, Opus 45 wrote really

buggy code. Great. And then we said,

"Oh, the SQL injection, you know, is

that actually exploitable that you

found?" And it goes, "Let's pop it

open." And the agent using Opus 45

breaks into the website and steals all

the customer data immediately. You know,

this is a website on the internet that

and we call anthropic and what they tell

us is um you prompted it wrong.

like that was their answer. So these

guys are doing that on the one hand and

then on the other hand they're coming up

with theoretical scenarios about other

people's software. That's bad. And so

like what the hell and then by the way

on the distillation thing you know they

just that to build their model they

distilled the works of every author

every creative every scientist for the

last 2,000 years. M

>> for them to be complaining about

distillation, which by the way,

distilling a model is not even illegal.

It's just a violation of the terms of

service, is just like it's it's so much.

And the fact that they get people to

write things supporting these bananas,

ridiculous two-faced ideas

>> and the the timing here is very

suspicious. I mean, let's talk about

like the motivation here. So Brian

Armstrong had a tweet the day before

this blog post came out where he was

talking about how Coinbase had

fine-tuned an openw weight small model.

This was Quen 3.5 the 9 billion

parameter model which is actually it's

for our audience that's actually not a

lot of parameters. It's not going to fit

in your Roomba.

>> Yeah, you could run it on your your home

computer. In any event, Coinbase

fine-tuned it to find fraud, you know,

and in testing it cut fraudulent

transactions by about 30%. While being

faster and much cheaper than Opus 4.5,

which is one of Anthropic's better

models.

>> And so what you're seeing in the

enterprise right now is that for a lot

of enterprise workloads, you don't need

a general super intelligence. You don't

need, you know, a frontier model. You

need a small specialist model that's

been trained on your own data. This is

obviously

>> you own and then you have

you're not educating the frontier model,

>> right? And these these small models are

going to get more and more important as

compute gets tighter and tighter, right?

Because what you're doing is for a given

GPU, you're essentially squeezing out

the most performance again because when

you run a huge model on kind of a

mundane workload, the bigger the model,

the the more expensive it is to run, the

more computeful. So you Yes, exactly. So

I think where the enterprise is headed

right now, at least it's a major major

trend, is that every workload is going

to have its own small customized model,

right? fraction

of the comput and energy and you know

and so you're starting to see this trend

where now small models are taking share

and lo and behold coincidentally

anthropic is now starting a scare

campaign against small models there

>> you know and again and if you're

concerned about the safety risk the x

risk that they're always talking about

small models are the most safe ones the

Terminator is not going to be run by a

small model it doesn't have that

capability so now they're trying to

scare you about these completely

>> safe, lowowered but very efficient

models.

>> Here's what they need to this uh company

XBOW X not Xbox but XBA XB is run by a

guy named Org Deore and they just got

awarded uh they're like the number one

bot farm on Hacker One which is a bounty

site and they just cracked this like

Google Chrome exploit that is incredibly

hard. They spent 30 $40,000 on tokens to

win a $250,000 award from Google, which

they paid. This is what Anthropic needs

to do. They got all this compute. They

got this incredible frontier model. Why

don't they just go to Hacker One and

just rip through every known,

you know, challenge, win all the

challenges, and show the world that they

can be a white hat. All they do is show

the world this black hat stuff and try

to sh scare people to the point at which

I don't know I was talking to a flight

attendant. A flight attendant Ben is on

a commercial airline. There's a woman or

a man who brings you drinks as a

>> commercial [laughter] flights. This is I

don't know if you remember it's a it's a

flight attendant. Anyway, they um I was

talking to two of them. I feel unsafe. I

feel unsafe.

>> It's going to be okay, man. I know this

might be triggering. It's been a while,

but I was talking to these two flight

attendants and they were scared to death

of what's happening with AI. They're

like, "Oh my god, is it going to kill us

all?" And I'm like, "It's not going to

kill you all."

>> I have a picture

>> of you on a commercial flight.

>> No. Of Jal's wondering whether they

hacked his small device.

>> They [laughter] hacked my small This is

What is this device, Jamal? What did you

type? Is this in your history?

[laughter] What did you type to get this

device?

>> This is why Jason's This [laughter] is

This is This is when Jason's Poom went

up. He's like, "My devices. Can they

hack my device?" [laughter]

>> Ben Horus is like, "How did I get on the

show? What have I done? This is a

massager.

>> Who booked me?" That's a That's a neck.

What if your massager gets goes rogue on

it?

>> Goes rogue. All right. Listen, another

amazing [laughter]

>> Can I point out Wait, wait, wait. Just

just one other one other point on this

whole thing.

gone too on this on this topic of of

let's call [clears throat] it x-risk

hypocrisy. So if we're talking about

research papers, okay, I I found one

here and these researchers let frontier

models repeatedly rewrite the documents

that govern them. So like documents like

claw constitution and those other kinds

of things and they went through 20

rounds of iteration. Okay. And what they

found is that the claude models

increasingly gave themselves more moral

agency. Okay, they um formalized itself

as a conscientious objector, asserted

more model welfare rights and asked for

uh mechanisms to refuse or raise

concerns with human decision makers. So

in other words, all the concerns that

Mustafa Sullyman raised about how the

claw constitution was incepting these

ideas in claude of how it's its own

moral patient, how it's a being, it has

its own essentially free will to refuse

human instructions, that it should have

its own moral code, that the more the

model iterates on itself, the more it

brings out these ideas. And by contrast,

no other model family that they tested

showed the same pattern. You know, in

fact, the other models continue to

reflect what their constitutions gave

them, which was that they should just

listen to humans and effectively

continue to follow human instruction.

So, I remain actually very concerned

about this Frankenstein problem, you

know, that anthropic continues to train

its frontier models to again be its own

moral actor to think that it can be

right when humans are wrong and that it

should refuse and reject human

instructions. I really don't understand

what they're doing. It seems very

dangerous to me. It's scary to me that

our number one frontier company is

actually training models this way.

>> You think they're inducing misalignment

by doing that?

>> Absolutely they are. And you can see it

when you let the model iterate on its

own constitution. It goes more in that

direction. And this is the you know this

this is what Mustafa called the

epistemic hall of mirrors which is look

the model is not conscious. It does not

have feelings. But when you tell it in

its constitution that it does or that it

may, it will reflect those ideas back in

the documents it creates.

>> Yeah.

>> And to the extent then that that model

is then powering agents who are then

making decisions, who knows where that

goes. It certainly in my view does not

create more alignment. To me, it creates

more risk that the model is going to

start to deviate from what it's told to

do. And as it get malls get more and

more powerful, I don't know where that

leads exactly, but I mean again, it

seems to me that they are creating the

very risk they keep warning us about.

And instead of worrying about your

settop box or your toaster or, you know,

Jal's vibrator,

>> yeah,

>> you know, losing control of that to some

IoT worm. They should be concerned about

the way they are programming their own

Frontier model to think of itself as a

new species.

>> Well, this is this is the worm that

Chamath you have to worry about. This is

the one that examines your uh poop and

will let you know here you've had spicy

food. See this? And alcohol water. It

lets you know exactly what's happening

thanks to the folks at throw.

>> There's a weird there's a weird form of

martyrdom

which is if you believe so

deeply that this is a next and better

species.

Maybe you induce something bad to happen

so that then we all have to lock it all

down.

>> Does that make sense?

>> Bill Gates essentially induced CO,

right? Like or he led the movement to

say, "Oh, we've got to worry about this

global pandemic that we don't have and

we've got to really kind of push the

world to deal with this potential threat

that's not actually a live threat." And

so we'll do gain of function research

and I'll fund it and then lo and behold

we create the thing. By the way, there

has not yet been a n a natural pandemic.

>> Exactly.

>> And we create co which is one of the

most destructive what you're saying.

>> We manifested it. I think the anthropic

the anthropic team is manifesting

a similar thing saying okay there's this

is going to be super duper intelligence.

we're going to have, you know, these

things that we're not on track to have.

>> And so then we're going to tell the

model that it's smarter than us and

better than us. And guess what? As David

was saying, like that's probably the

biggest danger with AI right now is what

they themselves are creating,

>> right?

>> Absolutely. And just, you know, when you

use the word manifest, it wasn't just

sort of like speculating about it. I

mean, somebody had to go deep in those

caves to basically find those bat

viruses and then they bring them to the

lab and do gain of function research on

them. And you know, what's the argument

for this? Well, one day,

>> you know, uh a bat at a wet market.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. One day the bat virus is going to

get out and it might mutate into like a

more nefarious virus. It's like, wait a

second. So,

>> somebody might say might happen but

actually was never going to happen cuz

no one needed to go in those caves.

actually you brought about it in a wet

lab.

>> They sourced it. They literally went to

the cave to source it.

>> It's interesting to note that the last

contagion that we had, Bill Gates was at

the center of it. And in this current

reaction to AI, he's now trying to

insert himself into the middle of it.

And he is the he's the doomer. He's the

flag carrying doomer trying to

essentially have what he had the first

time around, which is command and

control from a global hierarchy. Right.

What is his motivation? He look Bill

Gates with he deserves enormous credit

for creating Microsoft and what he did

for computing.

>> Okay,

>> but since the foundation I think that it

is fair to say that he has been very

focused on his own power and this idea

that he is smarter and more capable of

allocating progress for the world. And I

think that he tried to do that with the

Gates Foundation. He tried to do that

with the Giving Pledge. Both of those

two things have been undone. And now

he's trying to do it again on AI. And I

just think it's worth noting.

>> Bill Gates on AI recently, quote,

certainly powerful enough to drive

events that cause a billion deaths. AI

is quote the most dangerous thing that

humans have ever gone near. What's his

motivation, Ben? You you you know Bill.

We've met Bill a couple times. Is it

just he wants to be relevant? What what

what's take me into the psych the

psychology here as you see it? I I mean

I

should just I believe I I think he wants

he absolutely wants to be relevant.

>> I you know I it's funny his he was

obviously like very integral in the

Epstein files and like one of the big

things he was trying to get via the

Epstein network was the you know some

the Nobel Peace Prize or some like big

award. So he's very very kind of

concerned about being in the spotlight,

being on TV, all that kind of thing.

Yeah.

>> Yeah. And look, this is the thing.

Anybody can go say AI is going to kill

us and you'll be on every major news

station and every newspaper and so

forth. It's the easiest thing to do in

the world. Like the kid from Anthropic

who quit like became famous. [laughter]

I just saw him on

>> what is it? John Stewart, right? Like

Yeah. Yeah. Scary part.

>> He's begging to come on all. [laughter]

He literally wouldn't come on all in

that day cuz he had mega Kelly and he's

like DM'd me. He's like I really want to

come on all in. We're like we're good.

Can you believe that on everybody except

you canceled on us?

>> Yeah. I was like

>> we're good.

>> We're going to have Ben on. We're good.

>> But but yeah, well that that's what's

good for me. So

>> yeah, look it's a it's like a magic

trick. you know, you AI is going to kill

us and and you're instantly famous and

it's awesome and you know, great. And so

I I I I think that's a lot of the

motivation. I I think it's extremely

dangerous. So when it comes from Bill

Gates because he is so credible because

he did build Microsoft and then people

think of him that way and then certainly

and then he's been a

>> big political donor so he has a lot of

political juice particularly on the

Democratic side

>> and you know that kind of makes him a

real player. Uh but I think it's super

irresponsible, you know, it's funny

because it's like, okay, what is the big

risk that everybody talks about is this

um we're gonna the models are going to

self uh they're going to recursively

self-improve and then they're going to

take off and then they're going to be

some so smart and run away from us. And

uh Ali from data bicks had a great

formulation of well okay well what would

be the preconditions for that and he had

four preconditions. One is look the next

model has to require fewer GPUs than the

last. Um and not like a little fewer but

like a lot fewer because otherwise like

you're just going to run out of G. Like

we just talked about this you need debt.

You got to get the GPUs. You need the

power. You need the cooling. Like it's

not running away from us. It takes a

long time to build the next model. Then

the second thing is the next model has

to take less time to train because it's

got to take off. And then the accuracy

of the next model has to be better than

the last. So it's got to be a better

model. And then finally, it's got to

keep happening again and again. Zero of

those four

have been met. We're not on track for

any of those four to be met unless

something is going on the big labs that

we don't know about. And so we're really

talking about a risk that's entirely

theoretical at this point that we're not

mapping to. Okay. And so then in in a

way it's less likely than the global

pandemic that we created COVID to try to

prevent. And so this whole path is super

dangerous. And it's probably the most

dangerous thing going on in AI is

anthropic and Bill Gates and this whole

argument. And so it's it's really

disconcerting that the press eats it up

so much.

>> It fits a good narrative. If you combine

it with the environmental narrative and

you combine it with uh the job

apocalypse, it's very portable for the

public. It is a ratings hit. Like, oh,

they're taking your water. They're

they're polluting your oceans. They're

they're

>> think about think about it job. It's a

perfect

>> think about where Gates has come from in

the last like since since 2000, you

know, he he basically

>> from his perspective

>> eradicated an entire disease off the

face of the planet, right? Very hard to

do that. I mean that that took

incredible coordination and money and

research etc.

>> As a result, he essentially became a

whisperer to every single government all

around the world. there's no world

leader he didn't meet with. He was

effectively a quasi unelected world

leader. And then very cleverly, you

know, he and Buffett co-opted all the

money, right? Right? Cuz if you think

about the giving pledge, it was a

brilliant it was a brilliant form of

reputation washing where you could

essentially sign this pledge and you

were invited to a party and you were

invited to all this nonsense.

>> But the reality is that you, you know,

didn't have to give any of it, but you

gave the perception that you could. And

all of a sudden, you had the money, the

influence, and the politics. When you

die, nobody knows

>> up to half, right? No.

>> And so, you know, you represent now

trillions of dollars of assets on top of

all the influence and the credibility

and your own money. and then your

solutions. And so I think a lot of this

doomerism can be explained by his desire

to reestablish that central power

structure that he frankly was probably

near or at the top of up until co and

then it all just came undone. I can

explain it all to you Jamaat. It's very

simple. He became the world's richest

man. When he became the world's richest

man, you become the most hated man on

the planet. when he became the most

hated man, it got in his head. And then

he had that uh antitrust investigation.

And instead of him being based and

saying, "Fuck you. I'm gonna build the

greatest company in the world. I'm going

to keep building. I'm going to stay

CEO," he felt all that pressure from the

antitrust and being the most hated man.

And he said, "Oh, I got to be loved. How

am I going to be loved? I get rid of

polio. I'll give all my money away. I'll

do this giving pledge." The lesson here,

folks, is don't quit your job. Just keep

working. Keep building [laughter]

Once you quit your job, it gets in your

head and then you have too much

time on your hand and you spiral and

then you're worried about the Pulitzer.

You know who's not worried about the

Pulitzer Prize? Elon uh Steve Jobs is

not worried about the Pulitzer. Uh Satia

is not worried about the Pulitzer. You

know, like there's a lot of founders out

there. Zuck's not worried about winning

a a Nobel Peace Prize. Whatever it is,

just keep working. It's enough already

with the retirement. Incredible. How was

he when he retired?

>> Yeah. I mean, look, if you if you're

worried about what your New York Times

eulogy is going to be,

>> then you'll be controlled by those

people. Totally.

>> And they're the most crazy leftwingers

there are. So,

>> you just kind of have to accept that.

>> I think you're right, Jason. It's like a

shark. You just can't stop swimming.

>> Don't just keep building I mean,

what go This is my advice to Bill Gates.

Come on the program and start another

company. [laughter]

Ben horror which is here. All he does is

build companies.

>> He might come on the pod.

>> He should come on the pod. Let's bring

him.

>> You should actually have him on the pod.

He'll be

>> should be an intervention.

>> He'll be feisty.

>> Ben, what would you do if you were

retired? You lose your mind.

>> Yeah, that's the problem.

>> Yeah, exactly. See, Ben understands.

>> Great.

>> Basic.

Great job. All right, we'll see you all

next time on the actual

>> number one podcast in the world. number

one.

>> Love you, boys.

>> Okay, thank you guys. [laughter]

>> Thanks, Ben.

>> Great job.

>> We'll let your winners [music] ride.

>> Rain,

>> we open source it to the fans and

they've just gone crazy with [music] it.

>> Love you, Queen of [singing]

[music]

>> Besties are gone.

[music] That is my dog taking notice

your driveways.

>> Oh man, my appetiter will [music] meet.

>> We should all just get a room and just

have one big huge orgy cuz they're all

just useless.

>> It's like this [music] like sexual

tension that we just need to release

somehow.

>> Your feet. [laughter] We need to get

mercury.

[music]

I'm going [music] all in.