Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Sam Altman explains the fire code model for AI safety: stop pretending labs can block every dangerous use, build resilience before bio or cyber goes visibly wrong. "The shift that I think the world needs to make for AI security generally, and biosecurity in particular, is to move from...

karlmehta's profile picture

Karl Mehta

144,008 subscribers

14,990 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

#WATCH | Delhi: #IndiaAImpactSummit2026 | CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman says, "It is amazing to be here, obviously the work happening in India and the adoption of AI is leading the world, and I can't wait to see what goes next. This will be one of the biggest markets for AI in the world, and I think India will have a huge amount of influence... It (AI) will definitely impact the job market, but we always find new things to do, and I have no doubt we will find lots of better ones this time."
0:31

#WATCH | Delhi: #IndiaAImpactSummit2026 | CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman says, "It is amazing to be here, obviously the work happening in India and the adoption of AI is leading the world, and I can't wait to see what goes next. This will be one of the biggest markets for AI in the world, and I think India will have a huge amount of influence... It (AI) will definitely impact the job market, but we always find new things to do, and I have no doubt we will find lots of better ones this time."

ANI

242,416 views • 6 months ago

Sam Altman says the next AI safety problem is not a chatbot being wrong. It is an agent taking actions you cannot audit. "We are going to have AI systems clicking around the internet." "This is the most interesting and consequential safety challenge we have yet faced." Because once an agent has access to your systems, information, and computer, mistakes stop looking like bad answers. They become actions. "You will not use our agents if you do not trust that they are not going to empty your bank account or delete your data." That is the shift: Chatbots could be vague. Agents need an audit trail. The next bottleneck is trust, verification, governance, permissions, provenance, and human override. This is exactly why we are convening the AI Assurance & Governance Summit at Stanford on Oct 1. If your company is deploying AI into high-stakes workflows, this is the room to be in:
1:05

Sam Altman says the next AI safety problem is not a chatbot being wrong. It is an agent taking actions you cannot audit. "We are going to have AI systems clicking around the internet." "This is the most interesting and consequential safety challenge we have yet faced." Because once an agent has access to your systems, information, and computer, mistakes stop looking like bad answers. They become actions. "You will not use our agents if you do not trust that they are not going to empty your bank account or delete your data." That is the shift: Chatbots could be vague. Agents need an audit trail. The next bottleneck is trust, verification, governance, permissions, provenance, and human override. This is exactly why we are convening the AI Assurance & Governance Summit at Stanford on Oct 1. If your company is deploying AI into high-stakes workflows, this is the room to be in:

Karl Mehta

31,208 views • 2 months ago

Steve Jobs was a great communicator of technology, and we could learn something from him today, in the context of AI. Sam Altman recently said, "If AI stays on the trajectory we think it will, then amazing things will be possible. Maybe with 10 gigawatts of compute, AI can figure out how to cure cancer." That's a fine quote. The abundance AI promises is super exciting. But Sam is saying that AI is going to figure out how to cure cancer. And if you've used these tools today, and talked to people who are at the labs, the reality is it's much more likely that humans will use AI to cure cancer. Steve might have said: "If AI stays on the trajectory we think it will, then amazing things will be possible. Maybe with 10 gigawatts of compute, humans can use AI to cure cancer." Small tweak, but a big difference. Steve Jobs was not one to shy away from impressive specs and massive scale, but flipping the final line from "AI will cure cancer" to "Humans will use AI to cure cancer" makes all the difference. Apple under Steve Jobs put human centrality at the heart of everything they did. And we need that spirit to infuse how we communicate about AI today.
1:48

Steve Jobs was a great communicator of technology, and we could learn something from him today, in the context of AI. Sam Altman recently said, "If AI stays on the trajectory we think it will, then amazing things will be possible. Maybe with 10 gigawatts of compute, AI can figure out how to cure cancer." That's a fine quote. The abundance AI promises is super exciting. But Sam is saying that AI is going to figure out how to cure cancer. And if you've used these tools today, and talked to people who are at the labs, the reality is it's much more likely that humans will use AI to cure cancer. Steve might have said: "If AI stays on the trajectory we think it will, then amazing things will be possible. Maybe with 10 gigawatts of compute, humans can use AI to cure cancer." Small tweak, but a big difference. Steve Jobs was not one to shy away from impressive specs and massive scale, but flipping the final line from "AI will cure cancer" to "Humans will use AI to cure cancer" makes all the difference. Apple under Steve Jobs put human centrality at the heart of everything they did. And we need that spirit to infuse how we communicate about AI today.

TBPN

21,828 views • 7 months ago

Elon Musk: We should encourage the AI to be truthful and honorable. “We need to make sure that the AI is a good AI, a good Grok. And the thing that I think is most important for AI safety, at least my biological neural net tells me the most important thing for AI is to be maximally truth-seeking. You can think of AI as this super-genius child that ultimately will outsmart you, but you can instill the right values and encourage it to be truthful, honorable, you know, good things like the values you want to instill in a child that would ultimately grow up to be incredibly powerful.” xAI Grok 4 presentation, July 9, 2025
0:56

Elon Musk: We should encourage the AI to be truthful and honorable. “We need to make sure that the AI is a good AI, a good Grok. And the thing that I think is most important for AI safety, at least my biological neural net tells me the most important thing for AI is to be maximally truth-seeking. You can think of AI as this super-genius child that ultimately will outsmart you, but you can instill the right values and encourage it to be truthful, honorable, you know, good things like the values you want to instill in a child that would ultimately grow up to be incredibly powerful.” xAI Grok 4 presentation, July 9, 2025

ELON CLIPS

20,749 views • 1 year ago

$PLTR CTO Shyam Sankar on Deepseek and disagreeing with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman 🔮 “We are at war with China. We are in an AI arms race. I got into a disagreement with Sam Altman about this at the Senate AI summit over a year ago… There’s an opposing view that we can all get along and cooperate on these things. I’m sure the other side feels quite different realizing that their IP has been stolen. “How many times are we going to believe that anchors dragged across the sea that cut undersea cables? “China knows they’re at war. We kinda equivocate on it as a peace loving nation. “The engineering on R1 is exquisite. The optimizations they’ve done are really impressive… We have to wake up with respect for our adversary and realize that we are competing. But they absolutely did steal a lot of that through distillation of the models, and perhaps they stole even more. “We have to realize that the AI race is winner take all, and it’s going to be a whole of nation effort that extends well beyond the DoD in order for us as a nation to win.” 🇺🇸
2:09

$PLTR CTO Shyam Sankar on Deepseek and disagreeing with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman 🔮 “We are at war with China. We are in an AI arms race. I got into a disagreement with Sam Altman about this at the Senate AI summit over a year ago… There’s an opposing view that we can all get along and cooperate on these things. I’m sure the other side feels quite different realizing that their IP has been stolen. “How many times are we going to believe that anchors dragged across the sea that cut undersea cables? “China knows they’re at war. We kinda equivocate on it as a peace loving nation. “The engineering on R1 is exquisite. The optimizations they’ve done are really impressive… We have to wake up with respect for our adversary and realize that we are competing. But they absolutely did steal a lot of that through distillation of the models, and perhaps they stole even more. “We have to realize that the AI race is winner take all, and it’s going to be a whole of nation effort that extends well beyond the DoD in order for us as a nation to win.” 🇺🇸

Jawwwn

295,545 views • 1 year ago

Elon: I don’t trust Sam Altman or OpenAI "I started that company as a nonprofit, open-source organization. I named it OpenAI for a reason. And now it is extremely closed source and focused on maximizing profit… At various points, Sam has claimed not to be getting rich, but he’s claimed many things that were false… So I don’t trust Sam Altman, and I don’t think we want the most powerful AI in the world controlled by someone who is not trustworthy.” @slow_developer
0:58

Elon: I don’t trust Sam Altman or OpenAI "I started that company as a nonprofit, open-source organization. I named it OpenAI for a reason. And now it is extremely closed source and focused on maximizing profit… At various points, Sam has claimed not to be getting rich, but he’s claimed many things that were false… So I don’t trust Sam Altman, and I don’t think we want the most powerful AI in the world controlled by someone who is not trustworthy.” @slow_developer

Mario Nawfal

258,825 views • 4 months ago

World Labs CEO Dr. Fei-Fei Li says AI must change how we teach and evaluate students: "AI must change learning. AI must change K-16 learning." "The most precious resource of our entire world is human capital." "When we have gotten the technology that can answer standardized tests... when AI can do better than an average human, it's not about humans are bad. It's about we need to change the education system." "We need to change how we evaluate. We need to change the way we empower teachers to educate the next generation of students where they can use these tools, be empowered, and do things that we can never imagine." "All of the kids today should not be scared of AI. They should feel the human agency to lead AI, to use AI in the right way, and to use AI to make the impact that they want to make for the world." Fei-Fei Li at Bloomberg Tech live with Emily Chang
1:35

World Labs CEO Dr. Fei-Fei Li says AI must change how we teach and evaluate students: "AI must change learning. AI must change K-16 learning." "The most precious resource of our entire world is human capital." "When we have gotten the technology that can answer standardized tests... when AI can do better than an average human, it's not about humans are bad. It's about we need to change the education system." "We need to change how we evaluate. We need to change the way we empower teachers to educate the next generation of students where they can use these tools, be empowered, and do things that we can never imagine." "All of the kids today should not be scared of AI. They should feel the human agency to lead AI, to use AI in the right way, and to use AI to make the impact that they want to make for the world." Fei-Fei Li at Bloomberg Tech live with Emily Chang

a16z

81,845 views • 2 months ago

🚨 Elon Musk on Grok: "Grok is getting very good. You can ask for complex analysis of things, and it's going to get the answer right almost always. You know, speaking of AI, it's very important that that AI be programmed with good values, especially truth seeking values. This is, I think, essential for AI safety. Like the most important thing we do for AI safety is to have a maximally true seeking AI. I can't emphasize this enough. Remember these words, we must have a maximally true seeking AI, and if we don't, it'll be very dangerous."
0:44

🚨 Elon Musk on Grok: "Grok is getting very good. You can ask for complex analysis of things, and it's going to get the answer right almost always. You know, speaking of AI, it's very important that that AI be programmed with good values, especially truth seeking values. This is, I think, essential for AI safety. Like the most important thing we do for AI safety is to have a maximally true seeking AI. I can't emphasize this enough. Remember these words, we must have a maximally true seeking AI, and if we don't, it'll be very dangerous."

DogeDesigner

247,605 views • 1 year ago

Elon Musk on Sam Altman: "I'm not a fan of Sam Altman because if you started a non-profit that was meant to be an open source AI company and it somehow got turned into an 800 billion dollar for-profit company with closed source, I think you'd be like, well, wait a second, that's the exact opposite of what I donated the money for. That's my issue. I think it's a legitimate one. And then Dario, I think, also is not a fan of Sam Altman because he felt, in fact, the reason the Anthropic team left OpenAI is because they didn't trust Sam Altman. Otherwise Anthropic wouldn't exist. They would still be at OpenAI. But at the end of the day, if we have to talk, we'll talk.I mean, set aside our personal differences for the good of the world."
1:25

Elon Musk on Sam Altman: "I'm not a fan of Sam Altman because if you started a non-profit that was meant to be an open source AI company and it somehow got turned into an 800 billion dollar for-profit company with closed source, I think you'd be like, well, wait a second, that's the exact opposite of what I donated the money for. That's my issue. I think it's a legitimate one. And then Dario, I think, also is not a fan of Sam Altman because he felt, in fact, the reason the Anthropic team left OpenAI is because they didn't trust Sam Altman. Otherwise Anthropic wouldn't exist. They would still be at OpenAI. But at the end of the day, if we have to talk, we'll talk.I mean, set aside our personal differences for the good of the world."

DogeDesigner

240,039 views • 1 month ago

David Sacks: “FDA for AI” is fake news, but here’s why it’s making headlines @jason: “ Who's leading Trump down the path of regulation and creating this AI FDA?” David Sacks: “I think there's several things going on here. The first one is, there's a lot of fake news. This whole idea of an FDA for AI, I don't think any senior official supports it. Certainly, I don't think that's the way the president thinks about these issues. He's the most pro-innovation president we've ever had. And the White House Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, just put out a statement last night that I think pretty much shoots this down. Second, there's another thing going on, which is a straw manning of what the Trump administration did on AI in its first year. In the same way that they want to spin this FDA for AI, they're also trying to spin what we did as this completely laissez-faire attitude, where there'd be no regulations whatsoever, nor guardrails. It's a way of criticizing what we did. They're trying to portray it as unsafe. In fact, if you look, on March 20th, the White House released a national AI regulatory framework in which we put out a four-page bulleted list of legislation that we would support. So we have not been against every conceivable regulation or every conceivable law, we just believe that there should be specific solutions to specific problems, as opposed to a giant power grab by Washington that would squash innovation. Point number three is, there is a legitimate thing happening here with, let's call it Mythos or cyber. Within 3-6 months, all the major frontier labs, including Chinese models, will have cyber capabilities. In response to that, we do need there to be a hardening of systems, and we do need there to be a scanning of codebases to find these vulnerabilities and patch them before the hackers do it. Because the hackers will have these capabilities in a matter of months. That's a certainty. So we do need a response to that. Now, my view on what should that response be, first of all, we should want the government and the private sector to work cooperatively, and I think they are. What we should be doing, I think, is getting these tools, Mythos, and then the OpenAI model, and others like it, in the hands of our cybersecurity industry. And by the way, not just the public companies like Palo Alto Networks and CrowdStrike, although certainly they're two of the most noteworthy, but there's also some incredibly strong startups on the way up. We need to get these tools into their hands as quickly as possible because they're a force multiplier for all the companies out there that aren't that good at cybersecurity, they can use these companies as vendors. And just one last point on this whole thing is, both Anthropic and OpenAI acted responsibly here. No one was trying to release these super powerful models. So in a way, all the people who are saying that we need pre-release approvals for models, they're trying to solve a problem that didn't exist. Yes, we do have this cyber issue, but that is a problem that we will solve over the next six months. What they're trying to do is use that issue to try and create a permanent new infrastructure in Washington. The classic 'never let a crisis go to waste' strategy.”
2:47

David Sacks: “FDA for AI” is fake news, but here’s why it’s making headlines @jason: “ Who's leading Trump down the path of regulation and creating this AI FDA?” David Sacks: “I think there's several things going on here. The first one is, there's a lot of fake news. This whole idea of an FDA for AI, I don't think any senior official supports it. Certainly, I don't think that's the way the president thinks about these issues. He's the most pro-innovation president we've ever had. And the White House Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, just put out a statement last night that I think pretty much shoots this down. Second, there's another thing going on, which is a straw manning of what the Trump administration did on AI in its first year. In the same way that they want to spin this FDA for AI, they're also trying to spin what we did as this completely laissez-faire attitude, where there'd be no regulations whatsoever, nor guardrails. It's a way of criticizing what we did. They're trying to portray it as unsafe. In fact, if you look, on March 20th, the White House released a national AI regulatory framework in which we put out a four-page bulleted list of legislation that we would support. So we have not been against every conceivable regulation or every conceivable law, we just believe that there should be specific solutions to specific problems, as opposed to a giant power grab by Washington that would squash innovation. Point number three is, there is a legitimate thing happening here with, let's call it Mythos or cyber. Within 3-6 months, all the major frontier labs, including Chinese models, will have cyber capabilities. In response to that, we do need there to be a hardening of systems, and we do need there to be a scanning of codebases to find these vulnerabilities and patch them before the hackers do it. Because the hackers will have these capabilities in a matter of months. That's a certainty. So we do need a response to that. Now, my view on what should that response be, first of all, we should want the government and the private sector to work cooperatively, and I think they are. What we should be doing, I think, is getting these tools, Mythos, and then the OpenAI model, and others like it, in the hands of our cybersecurity industry. And by the way, not just the public companies like Palo Alto Networks and CrowdStrike, although certainly they're two of the most noteworthy, but there's also some incredibly strong startups on the way up. We need to get these tools into their hands as quickly as possible because they're a force multiplier for all the companies out there that aren't that good at cybersecurity, they can use these companies as vendors. And just one last point on this whole thing is, both Anthropic and OpenAI acted responsibly here. No one was trying to release these super powerful models. So in a way, all the people who are saying that we need pre-release approvals for models, they're trying to solve a problem that didn't exist. Yes, we do have this cyber issue, but that is a problem that we will solve over the next six months. What they're trying to do is use that issue to try and create a permanent new infrastructure in Washington. The classic 'never let a crisis go to waste' strategy.”

The All-In Podcast

150,106 views • 3 months ago

Mark Cuban says AI will split every company into 2 categories within 3 years "When it's all said and done over the next 3 years, there's going to be two types of companies. Those who are great at AI and those who went out of business" "The biggest challenge for a company is going to be for the CEO to make that decision that we're going to have to blow up a lot of what we do to recreate our company" "We hear a lot of stories about huge public companies that spend a lot of money to try to implement AI and it doesn't really get them a return on investment." "Because you already are running your business the way you've always run it." "The things you've considered outsourcing, your customer call centers, AI agents are perfect for. The stuff you would give to an intern, AI agents are perfect for" "But to really take advantage of AI you have to reformulate your business completely to build it on AI"
5:18

Mark Cuban says AI will split every company into 2 categories within 3 years "When it's all said and done over the next 3 years, there's going to be two types of companies. Those who are great at AI and those who went out of business" "The biggest challenge for a company is going to be for the CEO to make that decision that we're going to have to blow up a lot of what we do to recreate our company" "We hear a lot of stories about huge public companies that spend a lot of money to try to implement AI and it doesn't really get them a return on investment." "Because you already are running your business the way you've always run it." "The things you've considered outsourcing, your customer call centers, AI agents are perfect for. The stuff you would give to an intern, AI agents are perfect for" "But to really take advantage of AI you have to reformulate your business completely to build it on AI"

Jaynit

196,796 views • 3 months ago

Elon Musk: There are really two choices here: either be a spectator or a participant "I've been a voice saying that we need to slow down AI and we need to slow down all these things and we need to not have a crazy AI race. I've been saying that for a long time for 20+ years But then I came to realize that there are really two choices here: either be a spectator or a participant. And if I'm a spectator, I can't really influence the direction of AI But if I'm a participant, I can try to influence the direction of AI and have a maximally truth-seeking AI with good values that loves humanity And that's what we're trying to create with Grok at xAI. And the researchers, I think, are bearing this out. Grok was the only one of the AIs that weighted human life equally and didn't say For example, that a white guy's life is worth 1/20th of a black woman's life. Literally, that's what the calculation they came up with. So, I’m like, guys, this is very alarming; we’ve got to fix this stuff"
0:54

Elon Musk: There are really two choices here: either be a spectator or a participant "I've been a voice saying that we need to slow down AI and we need to slow down all these things and we need to not have a crazy AI race. I've been saying that for a long time for 20+ years But then I came to realize that there are really two choices here: either be a spectator or a participant. And if I'm a spectator, I can't really influence the direction of AI But if I'm a participant, I can try to influence the direction of AI and have a maximally truth-seeking AI with good values that loves humanity And that's what we're trying to create with Grok at xAI. And the researchers, I think, are bearing this out. Grok was the only one of the AIs that weighted human life equally and didn't say For example, that a white guy's life is worth 1/20th of a black woman's life. Literally, that's what the calculation they came up with. So, I’m like, guys, this is very alarming; we’ve got to fix this stuff"

X Freeze

15,201 views • 6 months ago

Sam Altman says he was wrong about AI replacing human jobs “Anytime you’re that wrong and that confident, which I think we were as a field, you have to update. And there’s a bunch of takeaways.” “I definitely would much rather engage with a person than engage with an AI for almost everything. I also think that human values have value because they’re human.” “I think the world wants to know about the person that’s gonna be responsible for the decisions of a company and who they’re gonna hold accountable if they make bad ones. And they don’t really want an AI CEO.” “AI is just very jagged. It’s like superhuman genius in some ways, like dumb toddler in others. And people have so far extremely complementary skills to AI.” “People have a great degree of trust and enjoyment in working with other people. You can go hire an AI consultant right now or talk to an AI sales rep right now or hire an AI engineer or whatever. Somehow most people seem to still really prefer interacting with a human.”
1:45

Sam Altman says he was wrong about AI replacing human jobs “Anytime you’re that wrong and that confident, which I think we were as a field, you have to update. And there’s a bunch of takeaways.” “I definitely would much rather engage with a person than engage with an AI for almost everything. I also think that human values have value because they’re human.” “I think the world wants to know about the person that’s gonna be responsible for the decisions of a company and who they’re gonna hold accountable if they make bad ones. And they don’t really want an AI CEO.” “AI is just very jagged. It’s like superhuman genius in some ways, like dumb toddler in others. And people have so far extremely complementary skills to AI.” “People have a great degree of trust and enjoyment in working with other people. You can go hire an AI consultant right now or talk to an AI sales rep right now or hire an AI engineer or whatever. Somehow most people seem to still really prefer interacting with a human.”

dnap

18,638 views • 1 month ago

Ilya Sutskever, the co-founder of OpenAI, on the one AI risk that grows with every jump in capability. "There are concerns around if an AGI ever becomes very, very powerful, which is possible. Maybe it will want to go rogue, being that it is an agent." "We are also doing a lot of research on addressing the technological side of things, so that the AI will never want to go rogue. And this is something which I am working on as well." The work he is describing has a name: the assurance layer. Proving a powerful, agentic system will not go rogue before you deploy it, not after. That layer does not build itself. It gets built by the labs, regulators, and insurers who agree on how to test and verify these systems. P.S. That is the entire agenda of the AI Assurance and Governance Summit. Frontier labs, regulated industries, insurers, and investors in one room at Stanford on October 1. Reserve a seat: - Ilya Sutskever (Ilya Sutskever), co-founder of OpenAI, at TED
1:05

Ilya Sutskever, the co-founder of OpenAI, on the one AI risk that grows with every jump in capability. "There are concerns around if an AGI ever becomes very, very powerful, which is possible. Maybe it will want to go rogue, being that it is an agent." "We are also doing a lot of research on addressing the technological side of things, so that the AI will never want to go rogue. And this is something which I am working on as well." The work he is describing has a name: the assurance layer. Proving a powerful, agentic system will not go rogue before you deploy it, not after. That layer does not build itself. It gets built by the labs, regulators, and insurers who agree on how to test and verify these systems. P.S. That is the entire agenda of the AI Assurance and Governance Summit. Frontier labs, regulated industries, insurers, and investors in one room at Stanford on October 1. Reserve a seat: - Ilya Sutskever (Ilya Sutskever), co-founder of OpenAI, at TED

Karl Mehta

22,453 views • 1 month ago

Chamath: Frontier AI Leaders “Created a Total F*cking Mess” Short-sighted fearmongering and immaturity from frontier AI leaders has created deep mistrust, threatening AI’s potential as an open engine of economic mobility. That mistrust gives hyperscalers the chance to position themselves as trusted gatekeepers, using KYC, audit trails, and compliance infrastructure to turn AI into an oligopoly. Chamath Palihapitiya on the All-In Pod: “I think the leaders of the frontier labs leave a lot to be desired. I think what we're seeing is a consistent pattern of evasiveness and immaturity, and I think that does a huge disservice to the entire movement of AI. The key to a vibrant life is rooted in economic mobility, and I think AI is the grand leveler. It is the thing that can enable everyone to have unique amounts of economic mobility because they are unencumbered to figure out what their upper bound is. And against that backdrop, we have to live in this constant doomerism, hype cycle, naivety, and I think it holds us back. How does it hold us back? Tactically, number one, it creates mistrust. I think that Silicon Valley was already decaying in the prestige that it held in American society. We built important things. Then we veered away from that, and we started building less important things. And now we're at a point where we've potentially started to rebuild important things again, but we have this veneer of negativity and mistrust that are created in large part because we just cannot get our sh*t together. And the leaders of the frontier labs are public enemy number one. Number two, I think what it creates, which I think is bad, but what it creates is an incredible opportunity for the hyperscalers. And the very simple opportunity is to convince governments all around the world, not just America, that they should be the gatekeeper. A: You can't trust these guys. B: These models are all over the place. C: Let us be the ones that provision them to the world. We will wrap it in KYC. I've been now talking about KYC for a while, right? Who are these customers? Do they have identification? Why are they allowed to run these models? What are they prompting? Let's keep them so that there's an audit trail. All of these things are going to become issues. The Frontier Lab folks made it an issue because of how they've handled all of this up until now. And what does that create? Now that creates an oligopoly for AI, the most powerful economically leveling instrument we've ever seen in the hands of maybe a handful of hyperscalers, who by the way, would make an incredibly compelling argument, and they would be right. And the only counterfactual to it would be, ‘Well, trust us, guys, it should actually be much more open and in a far more distributed environment.’ Can you imagine the cost and the complexity if you ask the neoscaler to build the same robust KYC or the same VPC infrastructure that Amazon and Microsoft and Google have spent decades investing trillions of dollars in? It's an impossibility, Jason. So you can take all of those datacenters off the map. You can take all of the neoscaler market off the map. All of this was preventable. So instead of a diverse, robust, open ecosystem giving a tool that is the fundamental unlock for humans, we are now going to debate gatekeeping and duopoly versus oligopoly. They have created a total f*cking mess, and it's a shame.”
3:26

Chamath: Frontier AI Leaders “Created a Total F*cking Mess” Short-sighted fearmongering and immaturity from frontier AI leaders has created deep mistrust, threatening AI’s potential as an open engine of economic mobility. That mistrust gives hyperscalers the chance to position themselves as trusted gatekeepers, using KYC, audit trails, and compliance infrastructure to turn AI into an oligopoly. Chamath Palihapitiya on the All-In Pod: “I think the leaders of the frontier labs leave a lot to be desired. I think what we're seeing is a consistent pattern of evasiveness and immaturity, and I think that does a huge disservice to the entire movement of AI. The key to a vibrant life is rooted in economic mobility, and I think AI is the grand leveler. It is the thing that can enable everyone to have unique amounts of economic mobility because they are unencumbered to figure out what their upper bound is. And against that backdrop, we have to live in this constant doomerism, hype cycle, naivety, and I think it holds us back. How does it hold us back? Tactically, number one, it creates mistrust. I think that Silicon Valley was already decaying in the prestige that it held in American society. We built important things. Then we veered away from that, and we started building less important things. And now we're at a point where we've potentially started to rebuild important things again, but we have this veneer of negativity and mistrust that are created in large part because we just cannot get our sh*t together. And the leaders of the frontier labs are public enemy number one. Number two, I think what it creates, which I think is bad, but what it creates is an incredible opportunity for the hyperscalers. And the very simple opportunity is to convince governments all around the world, not just America, that they should be the gatekeeper. A: You can't trust these guys. B: These models are all over the place. C: Let us be the ones that provision them to the world. We will wrap it in KYC. I've been now talking about KYC for a while, right? Who are these customers? Do they have identification? Why are they allowed to run these models? What are they prompting? Let's keep them so that there's an audit trail. All of these things are going to become issues. The Frontier Lab folks made it an issue because of how they've handled all of this up until now. And what does that create? Now that creates an oligopoly for AI, the most powerful economically leveling instrument we've ever seen in the hands of maybe a handful of hyperscalers, who by the way, would make an incredibly compelling argument, and they would be right. And the only counterfactual to it would be, ‘Well, trust us, guys, it should actually be much more open and in a far more distributed environment.’ Can you imagine the cost and the complexity if you ask the neoscaler to build the same robust KYC or the same VPC infrastructure that Amazon and Microsoft and Google have spent decades investing trillions of dollars in? It's an impossibility, Jason. So you can take all of those datacenters off the map. You can take all of the neoscaler market off the map. All of this was preventable. So instead of a diverse, robust, open ecosystem giving a tool that is the fundamental unlock for humans, we are now going to debate gatekeeping and duopoly versus oligopoly. They have created a total f*cking mess, and it's a shame.”

The All-In Podcast

141,660 views • 2 months ago

Tom Lee says semis and AI infrastructure stocks are going to rip higher later this year. “Semis and infrastructure companies are at the center of one of the most important strategic initiatives for the US, which is AI and AI infrastructure, and that runway has years ahead. The last couple of weeks have been a rough ride. I think those names are going to bounce later this year. I don’t think the trade is over. It’s just taking a beating.” We don’t know who will ultimately build the best AI model. But we do know which companies are building the infrastructure that will make the AI revolution possible. That’s why I’m buying $CRWV, $ORCL, and $IREN.
0:42

Tom Lee says semis and AI infrastructure stocks are going to rip higher later this year. “Semis and infrastructure companies are at the center of one of the most important strategic initiatives for the US, which is AI and AI infrastructure, and that runway has years ahead. The last couple of weeks have been a rough ride. I think those names are going to bounce later this year. I don’t think the trade is over. It’s just taking a beating.” We don’t know who will ultimately build the best AI model. But we do know which companies are building the infrastructure that will make the AI revolution possible. That’s why I’m buying $CRWV, $ORCL, and $IREN.

Daniel

110,219 views • 1 month ago

DAVID SACKS ON THE AI RACE: "The US is currently in an AI race, and our chief global competition is China, obviously. They're the only other country that has the talent, the resources, and the technology expertise to basically beat us in AI. And I think whoever wins this AI race, that's going to have tremendous ramifications for both our economy and our national security. Clearly, we want the US to be the winner, just like we were with the internet, and every other technology revolution before that […] We know that to win this AI race, we have to be the most innovative. You can't regulate your way just to beating your competitor. You have to out-innovate them. And we know that in the United States, the innovation comes from the private sector, not the government. So we have to do everything we can to help our companies win, to help them be innovative, and that means getting a lot of red tape out of the way… We have to have the most AI infrastructure in the US. It has to be the easiest place to build it. All of the new data centers that are going in, they require tremendous power, so getting ahead of the curve on energy, making sure we stand up all of this new infrastructure we're going to need to basically produce these AI factories… We want the US technology stack to dominate globally. We want to be the partner of choice for the whole world… I think everyone in Silicon Valley understands that the way that you win a technology race is to have the biggest ecosystem […] You just want everybody to be building on top of your technology stack, and that's what we want for the United States." David Sacks w/Marc Benioff Dreamforce
2:15

DAVID SACKS ON THE AI RACE: "The US is currently in an AI race, and our chief global competition is China, obviously. They're the only other country that has the talent, the resources, and the technology expertise to basically beat us in AI. And I think whoever wins this AI race, that's going to have tremendous ramifications for both our economy and our national security. Clearly, we want the US to be the winner, just like we were with the internet, and every other technology revolution before that […] We know that to win this AI race, we have to be the most innovative. You can't regulate your way just to beating your competitor. You have to out-innovate them. And we know that in the United States, the innovation comes from the private sector, not the government. So we have to do everything we can to help our companies win, to help them be innovative, and that means getting a lot of red tape out of the way… We have to have the most AI infrastructure in the US. It has to be the easiest place to build it. All of the new data centers that are going in, they require tremendous power, so getting ahead of the curve on energy, making sure we stand up all of this new infrastructure we're going to need to basically produce these AI factories… We want the US technology stack to dominate globally. We want to be the partner of choice for the whole world… I think everyone in Silicon Valley understands that the way that you win a technology race is to have the biggest ecosystem […] You just want everybody to be building on top of your technology stack, and that's what we want for the United States." David Sacks w/Marc Benioff Dreamforce

Ron Pragides 

231,781 views • 10 months ago