Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Chamath: Banning Open Source AI Will Crash the Stock Market Chamath Palihapitiya: “If the United States government intervenes, it will tank the stock market. Not debatable. Now, you can debate which companies get tanked. For example, if they said, ‘No more open source. American companies cannot use open source.’... Okay, let's take an average normal company, Coca-Cola. ‘Hey, Coca-Cola, you're trying to use AI to improve your business. You know what? You can only use these two options. And those things cost 50-100x more than your other best alternative that you may use otherwise.’ That will eventually show up in your costs. And so this incredibly important input into your cost model is now orders of magnitude, multiples greater than your competitors that are outside the United States, simply because you're in the United States. So what would the capital markets do? They're going to say, ‘Wow, you have a crazy cost structure. This doesn't make sense.’ You're forced to absorb costs that aren't rational nor market-driven. So then Coca-Cola has to get re-rated. But then you look at the people who are selling those tokens, and this is where Anthropic and OpenAI need to understand, if the government comes in and actually tells you that there's no open source, their valuation will crater. Why? Because all of that revenue is artificially being propped up. It's not being driven by market demand where you're being forced to compete. It's because of regulatory capture where you now get an artificial constraint. But it only works in one market. All roads lead to market chaos if anybody gets involved, so we should just not get involved.”show more

The All-In Podcast

601,013 subscribers

211,679 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & Technology Finance

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

30 Comments

Ron Pragides 2 months ago

@chamath CHAMATH:

Mike Warner | Managed Websites | SEO | AEO | Intel2 months ago

Markets don't discount regulatory-capture revenue. They pay up for it. Moody's, S&P, the utilities, the defense primes all trade at premium multiples because the moat is legislated. Ban open source and you hand the closed players exactly that kind of moat. That gets valued up, not cratered.

Gnos Grajab, a 20-watt honeydew2 months ago

I am for one regulation. All deployed agents with autonomy to act, by law, must act on behalf of a human who is responsible for all actions made by the AI. This sets up a chain of accountability which will drive market demand for safe, reliable models, without intrusive government interference or oversight. This is a market solution.

KC2 months ago

Banning OS wont necessarily hit stocks of companies that need to use AI, ex: Coca Cola. That would depend on if Coca Cola can still gain productivity by using closed source AI or not. Or foreign competitors would use cheaper OS AI to beat Coca Cola. There are many variables involved. Companies may not use OS AI unless security and backdoors are properly vetted.

Tungfa … τ2 months ago

@markjeffrey @chamath Reg AI + Regulations + Open Source , their last show was Spot On 🤝

Carry2 months ago

@chamath the coca-cola framing is actually the clearest way ive heard this explained the cost structure argument lands harder than any freedom-of-speech angle ever will

Texian2 months ago

@chamath Who is suggesting this? The executive branch has the ability to do such a thing but this policy would not be terribly durable legally or with a change in the administration. No one in Congress is talking about this? The premise of this argument is a dumb sequitur

DS*2 months ago

@chamath Too much of the same advice!

lucas2 months ago

@chamath @grok does US have any com/segment whose moat is mostly regulatory capture at the moment, and valuation being crushed by Chamath's reasons?

Ramesh Byrapaneni Dr2 months ago

@chamath "Regulatory capture may inflate a few AI valuations today, but it plants the seeds of tomorrow's market collapse. True growth comes from open competition, not government thumbs on the scale—history shows closed doors breed stagnation, while open ecosystems build empires."

John Williams2 months ago

@chamath

Daizy2 months ago

@chamath Open source is oxygen.

Sir M2 months ago

@chamath

Worth Seeing2 months ago

@chamath The debate over AI regulation is only getting bigger as the technology moves faster.

nosovietanymore2 months ago

@chamath Grok “DeepSeek is seeking investors and preparing for a possible IPO on Shanghai’s STAR Market even while keeping its strongest models open-source because open-source does not eliminate the need for massive capital “- 😊 open source at the start.

Marko2 months ago

Great episode! I was thinking the exact same thing last week How much intelligence is really enough to solve my IT tasks? In my experience, Opus and Fable give pretty similar results. They often don’t take enough context into account the way they should. But I truly believe open-source, on-prem, and local models are the future. We went from computers that started as shared terminals to personal computers — and the same shift is happening again now, with AI becoming personal AI

Luís Rodrigues2 months ago

@chamath The hard part of AI policy is balancing safety with keeping innovation open. Small decisions can have huge market effects.

walosomaloso2 months ago

@chamath You mightcbe right. You might also cinclude that you are doing your own brand of fear mongering

Bugs Bunny from Beverly Hills2 months ago

@chamath What do you mean by "crush"? It is inflated to the ceiling, an overvalued bubble. A crash is inevitable.

B Right2 months ago

@chamath Not to mention the healthcare tax in the US that is a similar noose around global competitiveness.

Lucky Cat2 months ago

@chamath chamath makes a solid point about regulatory capture distorting real market demand

J Lory2 months ago

@chamath

Ezana Azene MD PhD1 month ago

There are far less heavy-handed ways to address these risks than banning open-source models: KYC, open-source guardrails, engage China. KYC: Labs can substantially limit illicit distillation with the same KYC methods used in fintech. Model-routing services that provide access to U.S. frontier-model APIs, such as OpenRouter, should meet the same standard. Guardrails: Require U.S. companies to use frontier-level open-source models only in deployments with built-in safeguards, including on-premises deployments. Require periodic audits for sensitive sectors such as finance, defense, and critical infrastructure. @NIST Engage China: The CCP does not want open-source models banned in the United States. Nor does it want threat actors using them to create chaos. Those interests overlap. Negotiate accordingly. #OpenSourceAI #AIGovernance #AISafety

Murchadh ₿2 months ago

@chamath they will find a way to pass the baton off before the music stops and they lock everyone down again.

wgzhu12 months ago

@chamath it won’t

Marcus Johansson2 months ago

@chamath More bluntly: Do you bet on the gains of open sourced AI, or or on your current levels of tax benefits? - A public company may say: wow, we do not want our shares to tank. So what if we just move? Wouldn't that hit the US economy harder? 1/x

Worth Seeing2 months ago

@chamath Open source vs regulation is one of the biggest questions shaping the future of AI.

ThinkBigKorea🇰🇷🇺🇸2 months ago

@chamath Free world needs US open source model not Chinese ones.

The Long Game ♟️2 months ago

@chamath Indeed. Why would America deliberately make its own businesses less competitive just to protect the pricing power of a few model providers? It's common sense.

Kovan2 months ago

@chamath market demand should decide the winners, not regulation

Related Videos

SITUATION EXPLAINED: What happens to open source when the US restricts access to frontier AI models? We asked Adrian Dittmann: "China is releasing these models [open source] to gain international dominance, people will work on these things and say, 'Hey, maybe I can contribute to this if it's open source.' This is the thing that actually gets them talent." "If you're not allowed into the next GPT release or you're not allowed to use Fable, then what are you gonna do? You're stuck with the existing stuff, or you will have to use an open source model that might have subtly better capabilities." "The United States will catch up to open source in some form as well. They seem to just be maximizing product creation." "The problem with open source models is you have to be kind of a nerd in order to use them properly. Consumer facing, the effects will be minimal because the average person doesn't care about open source models. They only care whether or not they can do a quick search with Gemini or ChatGPT."

SITUATION EXPLAINED: What happens to open source when the US restricts access to frontier AI models? We asked Adrian Dittmann: "China is releasing these models [open source] to gain international dominance, people will work on these things and say, 'Hey, maybe I can contribute to this if it's open source.' This is the thing that actually gets them talent." "If you're not allowed into the next GPT release or you're not allowed to use Fable, then what are you gonna do? You're stuck with the existing stuff, or you will have to use an open source model that might have subtly better capabilities." "The United States will catch up to open source in some form as well. They seem to just be maximizing product creation." "The problem with open source models is you have to be kind of a nerd in order to use them properly. Consumer facing, the effects will be minimal because the average person doesn't care about open source models. They only care whether or not they can do a quick search with Gemini or ChatGPT."

MTS

14,406 views • 3 months ago

RFK JR: “If you get poisoned by Coca-Cola, you can stop drinking Coca-Cola. But if you get poisoned by a vaccine, your kids still have to take that vaccine to get to school.” “If you have reservations about it … you’ve got to take it anyway.” “And then, of course, the mainstream media is bought and brain dead when it comes to these issues.” “They will not criticize, they will not report vaccine injury.” “You have none of the market forces that apply that make other products safe.” “There is zero incentive for these companies to make them safe.” “They don’t get punished for it in the market, they don’t get punished for it in the court.” “What we’re going to try to do is to make sure that the parents who do get injured get compensation, that they get it very quickly and they get it without the kind of adversarial impediments that have now been erected over the past 40 years.”

RFK JR: “If you get poisoned by Coca-Cola, you can stop drinking Coca-Cola. But if you get poisoned by a vaccine, your kids still have to take that vaccine to get to school.” “If you have reservations about it … you’ve got to take it anyway.” “And then, of course, the mainstream media is bought and brain dead when it comes to these issues.” “They will not criticize, they will not report vaccine injury.” “You have none of the market forces that apply that make other products safe.” “There is zero incentive for these companies to make them safe.” “They don’t get punished for it in the market, they don’t get punished for it in the court.” “What we’re going to try to do is to make sure that the parents who do get injured get compensation, that they get it very quickly and they get it without the kind of adversarial impediments that have now been erected over the past 40 years.”

Children’s Health Defense

1,128,454 views • 1 year ago

The *If* Market: Chamath Explains Why AI is Tanking Stocks @jason: What's happening in the market, Chamath? Is this the go-forward reality that AI is going to compress these kinds of stocks? Chamath Palihapitiya: In a normal functioning market, what we are always debating is *when* a set of cash flows go from becoming highly confident to less highly confident. It's a *when* conversation. So when will Coca-Cola's cash flows be impacted? When will Eli Lilly's cash flows be impacted? And the answer to the "when" gets translated by the public markets into three things: 1) your price to earnings multiple, 2) a revenue multiple, and 3) what's called your weighted average cost of capital. And the basic math of this is that when you have a high WACC, you're massively discounting these cash flows. When you have a low WACC, you're assuming that these things are very durable. Okay, so what is happening? We used to debate *when* – this is no longer a “when” moment, the market is very much in an "if" mode. Are these cash flows durable at all? Could they fall off a cliff in year three? Is there some AI model that's gonna come around the corner and obliterate this business without me knowing it? And because they've shifted into this "if" mindset, your risk becomes totally different. You have this event risk that you don't know how to price, and whenever the market shifts into that mode, what you see is that the holders of those equities want a massive margin of safety. What does that mean? They have to take PEs way down. If you used to trade at 40, you should trade at 20. If you used to trade at 20, you should trade at 10. They take revenue multiples down. You used to trade at 10x revenue, now you're gonna trade at 3x. You take the WACC way up. Used to be a 6% discounted weighted average cost of capital. You know what? I'm taking you to 12 or 13. That's the market's way of saying, I'm now debating if these things will even exist, and so I need to give myself a huge buffer to own this stuff. That's what's happening right now.

The If Market: Chamath Explains Why AI is Tanking Stocks @jason: What's happening in the market, Chamath? Is this the go-forward reality that AI is going to compress these kinds of stocks? Chamath Palihapitiya: In a normal functioning market, what we are always debating is when a set of cash flows go from becoming highly confident to less highly confident. It's a when conversation. So when will Coca-Cola's cash flows be impacted? When will Eli Lilly's cash flows be impacted? And the answer to the "when" gets translated by the public markets into three things: 1) your price to earnings multiple, 2) a revenue multiple, and 3) what's called your weighted average cost of capital. And the basic math of this is that when you have a high WACC, you're massively discounting these cash flows. When you have a low WACC, you're assuming that these things are very durable. Okay, so what is happening? We used to debate when – this is no longer a “when” moment, the market is very much in an "if" mode. Are these cash flows durable at all? Could they fall off a cliff in year three? Is there some AI model that's gonna come around the corner and obliterate this business without me knowing it? And because they've shifted into this "if" mindset, your risk becomes totally different. You have this event risk that you don't know how to price, and whenever the market shifts into that mode, what you see is that the holders of those equities want a massive margin of safety. What does that mean? They have to take PEs way down. If you used to trade at 40, you should trade at 20. If you used to trade at 20, you should trade at 10. They take revenue multiples down. You used to trade at 10x revenue, now you're gonna trade at 3x. You take the WACC way up. Used to be a 6% discounted weighted average cost of capital. You know what? I'm taking you to 12 or 13. That's the market's way of saying, I'm now debating if these things will even exist, and so I need to give myself a huge buffer to own this stuff. That's what's happening right now.

The All-In Podcast

73,879 views • 7 months ago

David Sacks Predicts the Regulatory Capture Playbook to Ban Open Source AI, Step by Step: David Sacks: “I got bad news for you, Chamath, an open source ban is coming. They're not going to call it that. They're going to say that we simply have to apply the same standards to open models that we apply to closed ones. Here's how they do it step by step, let me explain how regulatory capture actually works. So first of all, you have to get this regulatory apparatus. Dario wants an FDA for AI, but he doesn't have enough political support for that, so instead they do this Trojan horse of a FINRA for AI. They call it self-regulating, it's not really, but anyway, that gets them off the ground. Now they've created the standard-setting organization. Now they've got pre-release model testing. Then the pressure grows to codify that in law, so that happens next. And then what they do is they say, ‘Look, all these standards need to apply equally to all models.’ But here's the problem with that. Open models and closed models are technologically different. Once you release an open model into the world, you can't roll it back and you can't monitor exactly how people are using it because they run it on their own hardware. Dario says this is what makes open models dangerous. So what they're going to do is they're going to have the standard-setting body say, ‘Well, we have to set the standards for AI safety.’ By the way, Dario and OpenAI, they're going to fund the whole thing. They're going to contribute all the compute. They're going to be behind it. They're going to be the ones coordinating with the government officials because frankly, people in government have no idea how to monitor and control and set standards for AI safety. Technologically, this is way beyond them. So they're going to go to these companies and say, ‘Tell us how to do it.’ And so what will happen is the standards will get set, and then it'll be a very simple matter of fairness to say that the standards need to apply to open as well as closed models. The open models cannot comply in the same way, and gradually they will be shut out of the market.”

David Sacks Predicts the Regulatory Capture Playbook to Ban Open Source AI, Step by Step: David Sacks: “I got bad news for you, Chamath, an open source ban is coming. They're not going to call it that. They're going to say that we simply have to apply the same standards to open models that we apply to closed ones. Here's how they do it step by step, let me explain how regulatory capture actually works. So first of all, you have to get this regulatory apparatus. Dario wants an FDA for AI, but he doesn't have enough political support for that, so instead they do this Trojan horse of a FINRA for AI. They call it self-regulating, it's not really, but anyway, that gets them off the ground. Now they've created the standard-setting organization. Now they've got pre-release model testing. Then the pressure grows to codify that in law, so that happens next. And then what they do is they say, ‘Look, all these standards need to apply equally to all models.’ But here's the problem with that. Open models and closed models are technologically different. Once you release an open model into the world, you can't roll it back and you can't monitor exactly how people are using it because they run it on their own hardware. Dario says this is what makes open models dangerous. So what they're going to do is they're going to have the standard-setting body say, ‘Well, we have to set the standards for AI safety.’ By the way, Dario and OpenAI, they're going to fund the whole thing. They're going to contribute all the compute. They're going to be behind it. They're going to be the ones coordinating with the government officials because frankly, people in government have no idea how to monitor and control and set standards for AI safety. Technologically, this is way beyond them. So they're going to go to these companies and say, ‘Tell us how to do it.’ And so what will happen is the standards will get set, and then it'll be a very simple matter of fairness to say that the standards need to apply to open as well as closed models. The open models cannot comply in the same way, and gradually they will be shut out of the market.”

The All-In Podcast

299,476 views • 1 month ago

Chamath says OpenAI and Anthropic could be $5 to $10 trillion companies each if they remain a duopoly "I suspect revenues are going to crank at OpenAI and Anthropic and the open labs for a while. But again, that's not the important thing." "If you're thinking about valuation, the markets will look five to 10 years out to answer that question, they're not going to give you a premium valuation on something that they feel could be fragile in the first two to three years." "Somebody has to answer that question precisely. Because if the answer is that it is a duopoly, then there is no risk to the revenue five to 10 years from now, these things are $5 to $10 trillion companies each." "But if there are harnesses that cut the token consumption, because you stop wasting tokens to get to the same output, then it's a little bit more of a question mark. And I think that'll need to get sorted out."

Chamath says OpenAI and Anthropic could be $5 to $10 trillion companies each if they remain a duopoly "I suspect revenues are going to crank at OpenAI and Anthropic and the open labs for a while. But again, that's not the important thing." "If you're thinking about valuation, the markets will look five to 10 years out to answer that question, they're not going to give you a premium valuation on something that they feel could be fragile in the first two to three years." "Somebody has to answer that question precisely. Because if the answer is that it is a duopoly, then there is no risk to the revenue five to 10 years from now, these things are $5 to $10 trillion companies each." "But if there are harnesses that cut the token consumption, because you stop wasting tokens to get to the same output, then it's a little bit more of a question mark. And I think that'll need to get sorted out."

dnap

275,325 views • 1 month ago

David Sacks: Anthropic Is Trying to Crush Open Source AI and the American Developers Who Use It David Sacks: “I know people don't have a lot of sympathy for Chinese companies, that's fine. I'm not defending Chinese companies. I'm defending American developers who need to be able to use everything in the public domain. And let me give you an example. Cursor rolled out its new product, Composer 2. They were able to post-train that model using Kimi K2.5 on their own proprietary coding data. They started with a Chinese open source model, and then they used their own data, and they came up with a new derivative product. This is the way that open source works. You take things that are in the public domain, you fork them, you make them your own. And by the way, once it's in the public domain, it's not a Chinese model anymore. No data is going back to China, nothing's going back to China. An American company has taken open source contributions in the public domain, made it their own, and then developed their own model. And if you say that American companies can't do that, or that somehow it's tainted with IP theft, you are basically going to put a dagger through the heart of the entire American open source ecosystem. And that is exactly what Anthropic wants, because they do not want to have the competition.”

David Sacks: Anthropic Is Trying to Crush Open Source AI and the American Developers Who Use It David Sacks: “I know people don't have a lot of sympathy for Chinese companies, that's fine. I'm not defending Chinese companies. I'm defending American developers who need to be able to use everything in the public domain. And let me give you an example. Cursor rolled out its new product, Composer 2. They were able to post-train that model using Kimi K2.5 on their own proprietary coding data. They started with a Chinese open source model, and then they used their own data, and they came up with a new derivative product. This is the way that open source works. You take things that are in the public domain, you fork them, you make them your own. And by the way, once it's in the public domain, it's not a Chinese model anymore. No data is going back to China, nothing's going back to China. An American company has taken open source contributions in the public domain, made it their own, and then developed their own model. And if you say that American companies can't do that, or that somehow it's tainted with IP theft, you are basically going to put a dagger through the heart of the entire American open source ecosystem. And that is exactly what Anthropic wants, because they do not want to have the competition.”

The All-In Podcast

278,276 views • 2 months ago

I love this idea from Jason Fried "Your only competition is your costs." Keep costs low, keep the team small, make stuff you want to use. You don't need the whole world: “A business is very simple. You got to make more than you spend. If you're making more than you spend, then your competition is your cost. That's what you're really in business against, how much it costs you to stay in business. It's not all the other alternatives that are on the market. You can't control what they're going to put out there, what they're going to price it at, all the things they're going to do. They're going to do what they're going to do. What I can control is how much it costs me to run my business, how much I sell my product for, and as long as I make more than I spend, I get to stay in business. And isn't that what this is all about, staying in business? That's what it's all about because I like this. I want to keep doing this. I can't keep doing it if I don't stay in business. I can't keep doing it if I make less than it costs me to make the things that I make. So I'm always thinking about the only competition I really have on an annual basis is to make sure that we make more as a company than it costs us to run the company. That's my real competition.”

I love this idea from Jason Fried "Your only competition is your costs." Keep costs low, keep the team small, make stuff you want to use. You don't need the whole world: “A business is very simple. You got to make more than you spend. If you're making more than you spend, then your competition is your cost. That's what you're really in business against, how much it costs you to stay in business. It's not all the other alternatives that are on the market. You can't control what they're going to put out there, what they're going to price it at, all the things they're going to do. They're going to do what they're going to do. What I can control is how much it costs me to run my business, how much I sell my product for, and as long as I make more than I spend, I get to stay in business. And isn't that what this is all about, staying in business? That's what it's all about because I like this. I want to keep doing this. I can't keep doing it if I don't stay in business. I can't keep doing it if I make less than it costs me to make the things that I make. So I'm always thinking about the only competition I really have on an annual basis is to make sure that we make more as a company than it costs us to run the company. That's my real competition.”

David Senra

103,371 views • 4 months ago

Bending Spoons CEO Luca Ferrari says too many companies chase vanity metrics while ignoring what actually matters: cash. “For instance, if you are running a business where most of the revenue comes from subscriptions, and you know that the optimal price is a higher price, pretty much with any product in a free market, if you raise prices, you're going to have fewer customers. Which can be fine. Maybe you have 30% fewer customers, but each ultimately contributes twice as much—you're better off. However, often the markets will punish you dramatically if you do that because when they see that the number of subscribers has gone down, even if revenue has gone up, they will not like it.” “If you're a management team, in that particular context, you will have to heed the opinion or expectations of the market, and you will not do that pricing change even if you know that it's going to be positive.” “However, if a business is run within the broader Bending Spoons, where none of the businesses ends with itself, but it's a piece of a broader puzzle, a source of cash for further deployment and growth, then it's much easier to make those otherwise unpopular decisions.”

Bending Spoons CEO Luca Ferrari says too many companies chase vanity metrics while ignoring what actually matters: cash. “For instance, if you are running a business where most of the revenue comes from subscriptions, and you know that the optimal price is a higher price, pretty much with any product in a free market, if you raise prices, you're going to have fewer customers. Which can be fine. Maybe you have 30% fewer customers, but each ultimately contributes twice as much—you're better off. However, often the markets will punish you dramatically if you do that because when they see that the number of subscribers has gone down, even if revenue has gone up, they will not like it.” “If you're a management team, in that particular context, you will have to heed the opinion or expectations of the market, and you will not do that pricing change even if you know that it's going to be positive.” “However, if a business is run within the broader Bending Spoons, where none of the businesses ends with itself, but it's a piece of a broader puzzle, a source of cash for further deployment and growth, then it's much easier to make those otherwise unpopular decisions.”

David Senra

29,353 views • 12 days ago

David Sacks says an open-source AI ban is coming, disguised as holding open models to the same standard as closed "I got bad news for you, Chamath. An open source ban is coming. They're not going to call it that." "You know what they're going to say? They're going to say that we simply have to apply the same standards to open models that we apply to closed." "Okay, here's how they do it step by step. Let me explain how regulatory capture actually works." "So first of all, you got to get this regulatory apparatus. Okay, Dario wants an FDA for AI, but he doesn't have enough political support for that, so instead they do this Trojan horse of a FINRA for AI." "They call it self-regulating, it's not really, but anyway that gets them off the ground. Now they've created the standard-setting organization. Now they've got pre-release model testing. Then the pressure grows to codify that in law."

David Sacks says an open-source AI ban is coming, disguised as holding open models to the same standard as closed "I got bad news for you, Chamath. An open source ban is coming. They're not going to call it that." "You know what they're going to say? They're going to say that we simply have to apply the same standards to open models that we apply to closed." "Okay, here's how they do it step by step. Let me explain how regulatory capture actually works." "So first of all, you got to get this regulatory apparatus. Okay, Dario wants an FDA for AI, but he doesn't have enough political support for that, so instead they do this Trojan horse of a FINRA for AI." "They call it self-regulating, it's not really, but anyway that gets them off the ground. Now they've created the standard-setting organization. Now they've got pre-release model testing. Then the pressure grows to codify that in law."

Fireside Alpha

254,573 views • 1 month ago

‼️ Donald Trump just posted the video saying any immigrant that comes to America and demand we change our culture is not an immigrant, they are an invader and must be removed “Just so we we’re clear, if a foreigner comes to your country and demands that you accept their culture as your culture or demands that you change your beliefs, that is not a foreigner, that is not an immigrant. What that is, is an invader. That is someone that is coming over to your space to take over and invade it. So when you sit there and you look at what's happening in New York, you look at what's happening in Texas, you look at what's happening in the places where these people came from, you look at Somalia, you look at all of these individuals who are being put into a position of power who support this type of invasion. You need to understand what's coming next. - They will take away our weapons - They will tell us that we cannot eat certain foods - They will tell us that we cannot go to certain places - They will tell that our women that they have to wear certain clothes - They will tell them that they have to dress modest. They will forced them to do a lot of different things. - You will have to deal with people praying in the middle of the street while you're driving and stopping you and invading your movement, your space You need to understand what's taking place in America so that you can understand that these people are not coming here with good intentions. This is not me saying that I hate people. This is me basically saying, look, if you like the fact that America is a free place where you get the freedom to believe in what religion you want to, to believe in. If you get the freedom to decide what you want to do as long as nobody is getting hurt. If you love that part of America, the freedom of choice part of America, you need to understand when people come over and they say that you don't have a choice, they probably should go because you don't get to tell us what to do in our own country. It's not being rude. It's just saying, hey, look, this country was built in a way where everybody can come here and feel happy and feel blessed. And enjoy the fact that this is a free nation, not a nation that will be enslaved by any Foreigner invading it”

‼️ Donald Trump just posted the video saying any immigrant that comes to America and demand we change our culture is not an immigrant, they are an invader and must be removed “Just so we we’re clear, if a foreigner comes to your country and demands that you accept their culture as your culture or demands that you change your beliefs, that is not a foreigner, that is not an immigrant. What that is, is an invader. That is someone that is coming over to your space to take over and invade it. So when you sit there and you look at what's happening in New York, you look at what's happening in Texas, you look at what's happening in the places where these people came from, you look at Somalia, you look at all of these individuals who are being put into a position of power who support this type of invasion. You need to understand what's coming next. - They will take away our weapons - They will tell us that we cannot eat certain foods - They will tell us that we cannot go to certain places - They will tell that our women that they have to wear certain clothes - They will tell them that they have to dress modest. They will forced them to do a lot of different things. - You will have to deal with people praying in the middle of the street while you're driving and stopping you and invading your movement, your space You need to understand what's taking place in America so that you can understand that these people are not coming here with good intentions. This is not me saying that I hate people. This is me basically saying, look, if you like the fact that America is a free place where you get the freedom to believe in what religion you want to, to believe in. If you get the freedom to decide what you want to do as long as nobody is getting hurt. If you love that part of America, the freedom of choice part of America, you need to understand when people come over and they say that you don't have a choice, they probably should go because you don't get to tell us what to do in our own country. It's not being rude. It's just saying, hey, look, this country was built in a way where everybody can come here and feel happy and feel blessed. And enjoy the fact that this is a free nation, not a nation that will be enslaved by any Foreigner invading it”

Wall Street Apes

88,662 views • 9 months ago

Jordan Peterson: "If you're competent and silent you will be ignored." "You might think well people should reward you because you're competent. And yes of course they should. But if you're competent and silent then you're just part of the background that's keeping everything functioning" On why you cannot negotiate from a position of weakness: "If you want to push your career forward you have to push it forward. You have to be competent and you have to be strategic" "To be strategic when you negotiate for a new position or a new salary you have to be able to say if you don't give me what I want then something you don't like will happen to you" "It's not a physical threat. It's that you have an option" "You have your CV in order. You're educated and competent and desirable to people outside of your immediate job. You're willing to instantly put yourself on the job market" "So that when you go talk to the person you're negotiating with you're credible" On the one thing most people completely miss about negotiation: "It's very seldom that you're talking to the person who's at the top of the pecking order. What you need to do is tell them a story that they can tell to their boss to make you not a problem" "A good story is look we really need this person because they're hyper competent and they have a better offer" "If you go in there with no power you're going to lose. Obviously" He concludes with the one thing every competent person needs to hear: "The first thing you need to know if you're going to negotiate is that you have to be able to say no. And what no means is that you're not going to do it"

Jordan Peterson: "If you're competent and silent you will be ignored." "You might think well people should reward you because you're competent. And yes of course they should. But if you're competent and silent then you're just part of the background that's keeping everything functioning" On why you cannot negotiate from a position of weakness: "If you want to push your career forward you have to push it forward. You have to be competent and you have to be strategic" "To be strategic when you negotiate for a new position or a new salary you have to be able to say if you don't give me what I want then something you don't like will happen to you" "It's not a physical threat. It's that you have an option" "You have your CV in order. You're educated and competent and desirable to people outside of your immediate job. You're willing to instantly put yourself on the job market" "So that when you go talk to the person you're negotiating with you're credible" On the one thing most people completely miss about negotiation: "It's very seldom that you're talking to the person who's at the top of the pecking order. What you need to do is tell them a story that they can tell to their boss to make you not a problem" "A good story is look we really need this person because they're hyper competent and they have a better offer" "If you go in there with no power you're going to lose. Obviously" He concludes with the one thing every competent person needs to hear: "The first thing you need to know if you're going to negotiate is that you have to be able to say no. And what no means is that you're not going to do it"

Brad

35,334 views • 1 month ago

Codex doesn't lock you into OpenAI models. Tibo Tibo on why: "If you are part of this community and building an excellent coding harness, why would you couple it to your model? That felt quite disappointing, to make that decision. It didn't feel right. And it's open source in the first place. It would have been trivial for anyone to fork it. But then you're encouraging people to go and use that fork, and now suddenly you have overhead and the only reason you have a fork is because you wanted to change 10 lines of code to add support for another model provider. That feels very silly. So why not just support it in the first place? The other thing is we benefit a lot from being able to give optionality. Maybe today you love using OpenAI models and you're super productive with them, but tomorrow there's a new model that comes out and you want to try that. Why force you to completely change your setup just to try a new model? Optionality is very important to companies that we work with. And this is something that we absolutely lean into."

Codex doesn't lock you into OpenAI models. Tibo Tibo on why: "If you are part of this community and building an excellent coding harness, why would you couple it to your model? That felt quite disappointing, to make that decision. It didn't feel right. And it's open source in the first place. It would have been trivial for anyone to fork it. But then you're encouraging people to go and use that fork, and now suddenly you have overhead and the only reason you have a fork is because you wanted to change 10 lines of code to add support for another model provider. That feels very silly. So why not just support it in the first place? The other thing is we benefit a lot from being able to give optionality. Maybe today you love using OpenAI models and you're super productive with them, but tomorrow there's a new model that comes out and you want to try that. Why force you to completely change your setup just to try a new model? Optionality is very important to companies that we work with. And this is something that we absolutely lean into."

The Pragmatic Engineer

198,981 views • 14 days ago

"Warren Buffett has this old metaphor: the yes basket, the no basket, and the too-hard basket. For me, software is generally in the too-hard basket." — Brad Gerstner Brad shows how the recent rerating of software stocks simply brought them down to the average market P/E ratio. "So when I hear everybody crying, 'Hey, these multiples aren't fair,' it looks to me like the multiples reset from an above-market multiple — where everybody thought the revenue and earnings were impenetrable — to now, they're saying, 'Maybe 3-5 years out, they'll be replaced. So we're going to raise the discount rate and lower the multiple.' They've only lowered it to the market multiple." "Let me just suggest there's a possibility [software] will trade well below the market multiple. I'm not wishing for that, I'm just saying there's a distribution of potential outcomes here." "If you get on the AI train, if you get in the token flow, you're gonna get an above-market multiple. If you don't, if you slow down and it looks like every time that computational intelligence improves, your business gets worse, then I promise you, [you] will trade below the market multiple."

"Warren Buffett has this old metaphor: the yes basket, the no basket, and the too-hard basket. For me, software is generally in the too-hard basket." — Brad Gerstner Brad shows how the recent rerating of software stocks simply brought them down to the average market P/E ratio. "So when I hear everybody crying, 'Hey, these multiples aren't fair,' it looks to me like the multiples reset from an above-market multiple — where everybody thought the revenue and earnings were impenetrable — to now, they're saying, 'Maybe 3-5 years out, they'll be replaced. So we're going to raise the discount rate and lower the multiple.' They've only lowered it to the market multiple." "Let me just suggest there's a possibility [software] will trade well below the market multiple. I'm not wishing for that, I'm just saying there's a distribution of potential outcomes here." "If you get on the AI train, if you get in the token flow, you're gonna get an above-market multiple. If you don't, if you slow down and it looks like every time that computational intelligence improves, your business gets worse, then I promise you, [you] will trade below the market multiple."

TBPN

77,089 views • 4 months ago

Databricks CEO Ali Ghodsi describes the difficulties of building a business around open source: "You have to hit two home runs, consecutively." "Your first home run - and you're banking on hitting that home run - is that your open source project takes over the world. Everybody wants to download it." If you don't hit that home run, Ali says, you just shot yourself in the foot. You just gave away your IP and got nothing back for it. But even if you hit this home run, you still don't have a monetizable business. You still can't make any money. So you have to hit the second home run: "You need a 10x innovation on top of the open source. That's the proprietary value you'll provide companies. That's why they'll come to you. Otherwise, they can get the open source anywhere." If you don't hit the second home run, the hyperscalers pick up your open source model, and they offer it for almost-free. "Getting into open source and monetizing is not an easy sport. Preferably don't get into it, because you might get hurt."

Databricks CEO Ali Ghodsi describes the difficulties of building a business around open source: "You have to hit two home runs, consecutively." "Your first home run - and you're banking on hitting that home run - is that your open source project takes over the world. Everybody wants to download it." If you don't hit that home run, Ali says, you just shot yourself in the foot. You just gave away your IP and got nothing back for it. But even if you hit this home run, you still don't have a monetizable business. You still can't make any money. So you have to hit the second home run: "You need a 10x innovation on top of the open source. That's the proprietary value you'll provide companies. That's why they'll come to you. Otherwise, they can get the open source anywhere." If you don't hit the second home run, the hyperscalers pick up your open source model, and they offer it for almost-free. "Getting into open source and monetizing is not an easy sport. Preferably don't get into it, because you might get hurt."

TBPN

45,393 views • 9 months ago

Mark Cuban said what every CEO in America needs to hear. "There are only two types of companies in this world, those who are great at AI, and everybody else. If you don't know AI, you are going to fail. Period, end of story." Mark Cuban didn't stop there. "Whether you are an employee, you're going to have to understand how AI impacts your job and how you can use it to be better at your job. Same if you're a student. And if you're a CEO, you can't just say, okay, I'm going to get my tech guys to understand it and educate me on it. You have to understand it yourself because it will have significant impact on every single thing that you do. There's no avoiding it." This is coming from someone who built and sold the Dallas Mavericks, who made his first fortune selling a company to Yahoo for $5.7 billion in 1999, and who has spent the last two years going deeper on AI than almost any investor his age. He is describing the Innovator's AI Dilemma, entrepreneurs are right now building AI-native companies designed to displace every major incumbent. If a CEO tears down their company to rebuild it AI native, investors revolt but if they do nothing, AI-native startups eat their market and investors revolt anyway. Either path leads to shareholder lawsuits and there is no comfortable middle. The companies that survive will be the ones where leadership, not just the tech team, genuinely understands what the technology can do. The ones that don't will look back at this moment the same way Blockbuster looks at 2005.

Mark Cuban said what every CEO in America needs to hear. "There are only two types of companies in this world, those who are great at AI, and everybody else. If you don't know AI, you are going to fail. Period, end of story." Mark Cuban didn't stop there. "Whether you are an employee, you're going to have to understand how AI impacts your job and how you can use it to be better at your job. Same if you're a student. And if you're a CEO, you can't just say, okay, I'm going to get my tech guys to understand it and educate me on it. You have to understand it yourself because it will have significant impact on every single thing that you do. There's no avoiding it." This is coming from someone who built and sold the Dallas Mavericks, who made his first fortune selling a company to Yahoo for $5.7 billion in 1999, and who has spent the last two years going deeper on AI than almost any investor his age. He is describing the Innovator's AI Dilemma, entrepreneurs are right now building AI-native companies designed to displace every major incumbent. If a CEO tears down their company to rebuild it AI native, investors revolt but if they do nothing, AI-native startups eat their market and investors revolt anyway. Either path leads to shareholder lawsuits and there is no comfortable middle. The companies that survive will be the ones where leadership, not just the tech team, genuinely understands what the technology can do. The ones that don't will look back at this moment the same way Blockbuster looks at 2005.

StockMarket.News

163,468 views • 5 months ago

David Friedberg Explains the Hidden Key Behind Trade Discussions: Regulatory Parity 🇺🇸 david friedberg on E225: "There's a lot of conversations about tariffs and about trade deficits, but very little about regulatory parity." "And I think that this is really critical for these trade negotiations to actually resolve to a positive outcome for American businesses and American enterprises, because there is not parity in how American businesses can do their work overseas relative to how foreign companies can do work in the US." "So if you're an Indian company and you want to sell something in the US, you set up an LLC, you set up a bank account, you set up a store, you take a lease, and you sell your product." "There is not a lot of hoops and challenges to that business operating in the United States." "The stories around the world start to paint the picture of why American businesses find it so hard to develop international markets and sell into those countries, when in the US we make it so easy for companies based in foreign countries to come and sell in America." "And that's a big part of where the trade imbalances arise from. It's not just because Vietnamese people can't afford expensive American goods, it's because it's so much more regulatorily difficult to do work in these countries." "They can come in and take your IP." "And so I think that this is a really important part of the trade discussions and negotiations that a lot of people miss, that American businesses will see massive revenue growth and massive market adoption if we can get regulatory parody in some of these key trade deals that are being negotiated."

David Friedberg Explains the Hidden Key Behind Trade Discussions: Regulatory Parity 🇺🇸 david friedberg on E225: "There's a lot of conversations about tariffs and about trade deficits, but very little about regulatory parity." "And I think that this is really critical for these trade negotiations to actually resolve to a positive outcome for American businesses and American enterprises, because there is not parity in how American businesses can do their work overseas relative to how foreign companies can do work in the US." "So if you're an Indian company and you want to sell something in the US, you set up an LLC, you set up a bank account, you set up a store, you take a lease, and you sell your product." "There is not a lot of hoops and challenges to that business operating in the United States." "The stories around the world start to paint the picture of why American businesses find it so hard to develop international markets and sell into those countries, when in the US we make it so easy for companies based in foreign countries to come and sell in America." "And that's a big part of where the trade imbalances arise from. It's not just because Vietnamese people can't afford expensive American goods, it's because it's so much more regulatorily difficult to do work in these countries." "They can come in and take your IP." "And so I think that this is a really important part of the trade discussions and negotiations that a lot of people miss, that American businesses will see massive revenue growth and massive market adoption if we can get regulatory parody in some of these key trade deals that are being negotiated."

The All-In Podcast

49,334 views • 1 year ago

Perfect breakdown of how Gavin Newsom is stealing the Pacific Palisades fire victims land “Did you see Gavin Newsom's new legislation that's pretty much going to force everyone in the Palisades to sell their home to the government. They just instituted new rules that said if you're going to rebuild your home after it burnt down from the Palisades wildfire, and if the expenditure on rebuilding that home is more than 50% of the prior property value, which is, let's just be real, everyone. - Now you need to raise the entire property structure of the home 3 to 4 feet to meet new floor flood requirements. Yeah, because the problem in the Palisades is too much water - If you're unaware, raising your entire property structure 3 to 4 feet in the Palisades, you're talking tens of millions of dollars per home - Not only will it cost tens of billions of dollars, but for each property, it's going to add years to the rebuild - Oh, and if you can't afford to do that, you can't rebuild - You're not allowed to rebuild your home unless you have a few extra tens of millions to be able to raise the property structure. So what would be your alternatives? Well, you could sell it privately. By the way, they just instituted new rules that are delaying people trying to privately sell their homes in the Palisades. However, you could sell to the government and they will expedite your sale. So if you're in the Palisades and your home burnt down, and when you go to rebuild, if the costs are more than 50% of what the house is worth before, which again, I will say is fine fucking everyone, unless you're building a fucking shack where a mansion used to be, you either need to spend tens of millions of dollars and wait years more, or you can wait years to sell privately, or you can have an expedited sale to the government. Yeah, you guys are never getting your homes back.”

Perfect breakdown of how Gavin Newsom is stealing the Pacific Palisades fire victims land “Did you see Gavin Newsom's new legislation that's pretty much going to force everyone in the Palisades to sell their home to the government. They just instituted new rules that said if you're going to rebuild your home after it burnt down from the Palisades wildfire, and if the expenditure on rebuilding that home is more than 50% of the prior property value, which is, let's just be real, everyone. - Now you need to raise the entire property structure of the home 3 to 4 feet to meet new floor flood requirements. Yeah, because the problem in the Palisades is too much water - If you're unaware, raising your entire property structure 3 to 4 feet in the Palisades, you're talking tens of millions of dollars per home - Not only will it cost tens of billions of dollars, but for each property, it's going to add years to the rebuild - Oh, and if you can't afford to do that, you can't rebuild - You're not allowed to rebuild your home unless you have a few extra tens of millions to be able to raise the property structure. So what would be your alternatives? Well, you could sell it privately. By the way, they just instituted new rules that are delaying people trying to privately sell their homes in the Palisades. However, you could sell to the government and they will expedite your sale. So if you're in the Palisades and your home burnt down, and when you go to rebuild, if the costs are more than 50% of what the house is worth before, which again, I will say is fine fucking everyone, unless you're building a fucking shack where a mansion used to be, you either need to spend tens of millions of dollars and wait years more, or you can wait years to sell privately, or you can have an expedited sale to the government. Yeah, you guys are never getting your homes back.”

Wall Street Apes

56,793 views • 1 year ago

The respect of capital. If you want to be wealthy, you have to respect money. You have to understand where it fits in your life. And you have to understand that the way to get rich is not to spend it, to save it and let it grow. This is the key to success. I've been saying it for decades. You save twenty percent of your income in perpetuity, put it into the market, and you leave it alone. You start doing it in your late twenties, even if you just got the average salary, by the time you're sixty-five, you have one and a half to two million bucks. Stock market does that. You do it. But the reason most people can't is they don't have the discipline to save. They buy too much stuff they don't need.

The respect of capital. If you want to be wealthy, you have to respect money. You have to understand where it fits in your life. And you have to understand that the way to get rich is not to spend it, to save it and let it grow. This is the key to success. I've been saying it for decades. You save twenty percent of your income in perpetuity, put it into the market, and you leave it alone. You start doing it in your late twenties, even if you just got the average salary, by the time you're sixty-five, you have one and a half to two million bucks. Stock market does that. You do it. But the reason most people can't is they don't have the discipline to save. They buy too much stuff they don't need.

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

56,991 views • 3 months ago

Chamath and Larry Summers Debate the Market Reaction to Trump's Tariffs Lawrence H. Summers: "If this is such a terrific thing, why do markets think it's so terrible for the American economy?" "Maybe the market's just completely wrong ... but the job of markets is to look forward." "It's to look passed the immediate." "It's to see what the long run consequences are going to be." "And markets are making a pretty devastatingly negative judgment on this step." Chamath Palihapitiya: " Larry, that's not true." " So let's just establish a couple facts about 'the markets.'" "Number one, there are two markets and they behave totally differently, and sometimes inversely to each other." "There's the stock market and there's the bond market." 1) Stocks: mean reversion "With respect to the stock market, what they are debating, and you're right Larry, is what is the effective long-term rate of return a dollar needs to generate in order to pay me back that dollar?" "That is what the fundamental stock market does." "And what we've seen for many years with trade imbalances, trade deficits, and close-to-zero interest rates, of which more of that happened under Democrats than Republicans, we have allowed the stock market to inflate past historical averages." " What we've actually seen happen in the last week is what most people would call mean reversion." "The stock market is still way above where it was last year, two years ago, three years ago." "What has happened is that the forward multiples have compressed. So that's number one. That's a fact." 2) Bonds: it's possible a major trade blew up "And then with respect to bonds, what we are seeing now is there are two very complicated issues." "In the last two days, we saw one part of the bond market totally get out of whack." "And what we know is that the yields changed materially in a very acute way, which is atypical of how the bond market typically digests a philosophical change in approach to policy." " What we heard in the last 24 hours is a lot of this move may have been attributed to an enormous levered bet on US treasuries by a Japanese hedge fund." " It will take three, and four, and five, and six weeks for us to really know." 3) Private credit: something to watch closely " Separately, what we do know, though, where the structural complexity of the market — and this is where, Larry, I agree with you — is acute and important to observe is in the credit markets for private companies." "And that is where you have to pay a lot of attention."

Chamath and Larry Summers Debate the Market Reaction to Trump's Tariffs Lawrence H. Summers: "If this is such a terrific thing, why do markets think it's so terrible for the American economy?" "Maybe the market's just completely wrong ... but the job of markets is to look forward." "It's to look passed the immediate." "It's to see what the long run consequences are going to be." "And markets are making a pretty devastatingly negative judgment on this step." Chamath Palihapitiya: " Larry, that's not true." " So let's just establish a couple facts about 'the markets.'" "Number one, there are two markets and they behave totally differently, and sometimes inversely to each other." "There's the stock market and there's the bond market." 1) Stocks: mean reversion "With respect to the stock market, what they are debating, and you're right Larry, is what is the effective long-term rate of return a dollar needs to generate in order to pay me back that dollar?" "That is what the fundamental stock market does." "And what we've seen for many years with trade imbalances, trade deficits, and close-to-zero interest rates, of which more of that happened under Democrats than Republicans, we have allowed the stock market to inflate past historical averages." " What we've actually seen happen in the last week is what most people would call mean reversion." "The stock market is still way above where it was last year, two years ago, three years ago." "What has happened is that the forward multiples have compressed. So that's number one. That's a fact." 2) Bonds: it's possible a major trade blew up "And then with respect to bonds, what we are seeing now is there are two very complicated issues." "In the last two days, we saw one part of the bond market totally get out of whack." "And what we know is that the yields changed materially in a very acute way, which is atypical of how the bond market typically digests a philosophical change in approach to policy." " What we heard in the last 24 hours is a lot of this move may have been attributed to an enormous levered bet on US treasuries by a Japanese hedge fund." " It will take three, and four, and five, and six weeks for us to really know." 3) Private credit: something to watch closely " Separately, what we do know, though, where the structural complexity of the market — and this is where, Larry, I agree with you — is acute and important to observe is in the credit markets for private companies." "And that is where you have to pay a lot of attention."

The All-In Podcast

98,290 views • 1 year ago