Anthropic's Fable Backlash, Nationalizing AI, Inflation Heats Up & California's Broken Elections

David Sacks: It's not just the fact that they're doing mandatory surveillance. Remember, this is a company that said that it was against government surveillance, they are now retaining for 30 days every prompt and every output you send to one of these Mythos class models. There are no exceptions. Even enterprise customers who had signed zero data retention agreements, they do not have a choice... And it does it to build a profile on you, to classify you, and then to determine what capabilities it then unlocks. And the thing that created the most outrage in addition to the surveillance is the fact that they would degrade the product. They would degrade what they show you. They would nerf their models if it decided in anthropic sole discretion that you are not worthy of having access to that level of information. So they're creating a new level of AI haves and have-nots.

Chamath Palihapitiya: Two years ago, I bought 2000 acres in Arizona with a partner. We got it zoned, we got it approved. So we're allowed to build a two gigawatt data center. And I thought that this was the moment where you just turn around and you flip it to the Blackstones, the Brookfields of the world, to the Googles of the world, let them develop it. And I've come to the conclusion that I don't think I can. And the reason is because I think that unless we direct large swaths of compute exactly at the direction that Friedberg says, what Sachs says and what Jason just said will happen, and we won't have open source... And so I'm coming to the conclusion that I think we may just be dragged into having to build 2 gigawatts. And I just put in an offer for another gigs in a different place because I'm like, if you could take 3 gigawatts and now actually create a deep and liquid access to open source, we're going to have to do it. We as a community. Now, I don't have the money to do that because just to put it out on the table, a gigawatt now costs $100 billion, guys.

David Friedberg: I would argue that there's three kinds of weapons. There's cyber weapons, there's physical weapons, and there's bioweapons... But the truth is that the capabilities that allow that weaponization are the same capabilities that I'm describing that can be used to cure cancer, to make more food, that can be used to make software tools that create extraordinary leverage for people, that increase their income, that give everyone the ability to be an entrepreneur and make millions of dollars and live a good life. The same tools are hand in hand. And fundamentally, I don't think it's about restricting access to the tools, which is unfortunately how it is being manifest. But the restrictions and any regulation, any observation should be organized around the manifestation of the tools in creating weapons and weaponization of the tools... I think the enforcement of those laws, the mechanism by which there can be tracking and early estimation of those uses of the technology, I'm not trying to be naive here. I recognize there have to be guardrails and there have to be stage gates put into these systems, but limiting the systems themselves is denying us both the economic opportunity, the job creation opportunity, and also the world-changing opportunity that these tools can enable.

David Sacks: Well, I'm not in favor of Bernie's proposal because it's a straight up confiscation of property, and I just think that'd be a terrible precedent. You just can't do that. However, I do have sympathy for where it's coming from, and I understand and could support some sort of more voluntary means of allowing the public to participate in this. Wow. Here's the reason why. You've got all these AI CEOs telling the public that they're going to basically put half of them out of work. 50% job loss.