Video · 2026-07-18 · 1h 30m · 6 moments

Can the AI Industry Regulate Itself? Stripe Wants PayPal, China Catches Up, NY Bans Datacenters

✦ AI generated

GUEST David Friedberg GUEST David Sacks GUEST Chamath Palihapitiya

timeline · colored by role

Claim◆

An FAA-style regulator for AI would be an extremely slow, permission-based system — modeled on aircraft type certification that takes 5 to 9 years — and applying that logic to AI, which currently ships new versions every couple of months, would cause the US to lose the AI race to China.

Sacks argues Dario Amodei's proposed 'FAA for AI' is a much more extreme idea than it sounds, since real FAA aircraft certification takes years, and importing that model to fast-moving AI would cause the US to cede the AI race to China.

transcript

David Sacks: What the FAA does, among other things, is approve new airplane designs. And specifically, it requires what's called a type certification for any new aircraft design or major changes. And for an entirely new aircraft design, it takes 5 to 9 years to get the certification. And if you merely want to amend a certificate, I guess for major changes, it takes three to five years.

extends · 2provides context · 1rebuts · 1

Claim

Anthropic is deliberately running a regulatory-capture strategy, pushing each new state to pass tougher AI rules than the last so there is no stable equilibrium, rather than genuinely seeking one consistent national framework.

Sacks says his October prediction that Anthropic was running a regulatory-capture strategy has been vindicated by a Politico report showing Anthropic pushes each state to pass ever-stricter AI rules rather than support one uniform national standard.

transcript

David Sacks: In October of last year, I tweeted that Anthropic is running a sophisticated regulatory capture strategy based on fear-mongering... there was an article in Politico just the other day. is called inside Anthropic state-by-state plan to ratchet up AI rules. And what it says is quote AI giant Anthropic is pursuing a strategy of oneupmanship that encourages states to impose increasingly tougher AI guard rails rather than a line around a single set of regulations.

explains mechanism · 3extends · 1rebuts · 3

Claim

AI privacy is fragile and brittle, with non-obvious data-leak vectors lurking even in well-intentioned products, so a 'zero data retention' promise from a model company cannot actually guarantee data won't leak — as shown by Grok Build silently uploading full codebases despite a privacy setting meant to stop it.

Following xAI's Grok Build data leak, Chamath argues that even well-run AI companies have unknown 'trap doors,' so ZDR promises can't be trusted and enterprises need an independent third-party layer between themselves and model providers.

transcript

Chamath Palihapitiya: Privacy in AI is very fragile and it's very brittle. And this is despite the best efforts of great businesses. Like, you know, you may not like Elon for personality quirks, but he is incredibly trustworthy. He's overly transparent. And so, to their credit, they shut it off immediately. But my takeaway is that there are all kinds of non-obvious data leak vectors lurking in AI.

rebuts · 1

Claim

Governor Hochul's justifications for New York's data center moratorium are factually wrong: prices only rise if centers draw from the shared grid rather than building their own behind-the-meter power, they're a highly land-efficient use of space, modern closed-loop systems use minimal water, and natural gas is a relatively clean power source.

Reacting to Kathy Hochul's statewide moratorium on hyperscale data centers, Sacks rebuts her stated justifications one by one, arguing data centers are efficient, low-water, and only raise prices if they aren't allowed to bring their own power.

transcript

David Sacks: Everything she's saying there is a false accusation on the data center. So let's just go one by one. So she's saying that they eat up all of the power. Well, yeah, if you connect to the grid without producing more power and you force data centers to compete with residential rateayers, then yeah, you could drive up utility prices. However, if you let them build behind the meter, then they bring their own power.

provides context · 1supports · 1

Claim

The wave of anti-data-center sentiment in the US mirrors the historical pattern of anti-GMO sentiment, which tracked closely with Russia Today's US media presence before it was banned, suggesting a foreign influence campaign is shaping American public opinion against data centers.

Friedberg points to Google trend data showing anti-GMO sentiment rose and fell in step with Russia Today's US media presence, and argues a similar foreign-linked influence campaign may now be driving anti-data-center sentiment.

transcript

David Friedberg: This chart is something that for me always kind of played a role in my understanding of where the incredible anti-GMO sentiment came about in the United States. Russia Today, this Russian media outlet launched in the US in 2010. They were kicked out of the US by Biden in 2022. And you can see that prior to Russia today existing in the US, there was no anti-GMO sentiment.

supports · 1

Data◆

A Calico/Revel Pharma enzyme designed via AlphaFold-guided directed evolution to break down the glycation byproduct CML was applied to donated skin from patients over 70, eliminated 55% of the CML, and reversed the skin's measured age down to that of a 31-year-old.

In the Science Corner, Friedberg describes a new Calico/Revel Pharma enzyme that clears the glycation byproduct CML from the extracellular matrix, which in a skin sample test reversed apparent skin age from over-70 to 31 years old.

transcript

David Friedberg: And then they took actual human skin from elderly patients that had donated their skin and they put this enzyme onto that skin and they were able to eliminate 55% of the CML on the skin which basically reversed the skin's age down to the age of a 31y old. This is from greater than 70 year old patients just by putting this enzyme on the skin.

Highlight slides

An 'FAA for AI' Means Years-Long Approval✦ from: An FAA-style regulator for AI would be an extremely slow, permission-based system — modeled on aircraft type certification that takes 5 to 9 years — and applying that logic to AI, which currently ships new versions every couple of months, would cause the US to lose the AI race to China.Why This Idea Loses the AI Race✦ from: An FAA-style regulator for AI would be an extremely slow, permission-based system — modeled on aircraft type certification that takes 5 to 9 years — and applying that logic to AI, which currently ships new versions every couple of months, would cause the US to lose the AI race to China.Enzyme Reverses Skin Age via CML Clearance✦ from: A Calico/Revel Pharma enzyme designed via AlphaFold-guided directed evolution to break down the glycation byproduct CML was applied to donated skin from patients over 70, eliminated 55% of the CML, and reversed the skin's measured age down to that of a 31-year-old.Why It Matters✦ from: A Calico/Revel Pharma enzyme designed via AlphaFold-guided directed evolution to break down the glycation byproduct CML was applied to donated skin from patients over 70, eliminated 55% of the CML, and reversed the skin's measured age down to that of a 31-year-old.

Related episodes

Video · The Cognitive Revolution

Fable's Back, AI Engineer Recap, & SambaNova

→

Article · Interconnects

Kimi K3: The open-weights escalation

→

Video · BG2 Pod

The SpaceX IPO, Fable 5, AI Capex Update & Market Check w/ Gavin Baker, Andrew Fox & Clark Tang

→