Another huge shout out to Starlink. How good do I sound right now?
It's flawless. It's flawless. Shocking. Nick, show this behind the scenes shot of what it took to get us going.
That's amazing. Do you guys want to know something about the Starlink network that I think is just kind of coming out now? Basically, the Starlink network because it's putting out radio waves and it can pick up radio waves and you've got so many of them. You've basically got a phased array telescope looking down on the Earth and you can pick up what would otherwise be stealth aircraft from above.
So this is a UFO detector. You're saying it's a stealth airplane detector.
It basically, Starlink, it could be a UFO detector, but the Starlink network basically becomes this incredible radar system that sits above the Earth to look down on things that would normally be stealth from the surface of the Earth.
So does this mean we don't have to do a science corner today? Because you just did it.
Jack, great to see you. So, as one of the architects of Bretton Woods 2.0, Sacks is on a high. He's coming in hot.
We open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.
All right, everybody. Welcome back to this week in AI. Sorry, all-in podcast, and we've got a ton of news to get to.
You're such an idiot. You're an idiot.
I mean, it's just every week is AI on top of AI on top of AI.
You have a show called This Week in AI and you cover nothing about AI.
No, no, we cover AI, but thank you for the plug. This week in AI. Sign up for the newsletter.
This week in super intelligence.
I'm going to change the name. This week in chat DJ.
What I should say is we have four super intelligences here. Four super intelligence is here to super intelligence the week's news.
To intelligently discuss the news. Yes. And what a week it was. We were sitting here just a couple of weeks ago, or sitting in Los Angeles, I should say, and there was a bit of a chaotic moment. Hey, should we be auditing or decelerating with all this AI? And three weeks later, President Trump held a super intelligence summit in DC. Many of the besties were there, or three or four, I should say. On Tuesday, President Trump convened the biggest names in AI: Elon, Jensen, Zuck, Dario, Sundar, Satya, yada yada yada, all the way down the line, and everybody from the government as well. I could ramble on about this, but Sacks, I have a feeling you were instrumental in setting this up. So maybe I'll just hand it off to you. Tell us how this went down so quickly and then what the outcome is of this super intelligence summit.
Well, the reason it happened so quickly is because President Trump convened all of these people to the White House, and I think he's the only person who could get all these CEOs of all these companies in one room. I mean, these are the leading companies in the world across data centers, across chips, hyperscalers, and then obviously frontier models. And many of them, frankly, don't like each other. They have disputes with one another. We all know this. They may have lawsuits with one another. All of that didn't matter because President Trump called them to the White House for this conversation. And I've called it the Bretton Woods of super intelligence. This was the first gathering of really all the critical players across the entire stack of the industry, and I think we had a really good, open, and honest conversation about both the opportunities and the risks of super intelligence. And as a result of that meeting, I'd say during the meeting, we worked out this agreement that has come to be known as the White House Accord on Super Intelligence, that was then signed by the six major frontier model companies.
And I think we'll now apply a new rigor, a new set of controls on the development of super intelligence so that the public can be more confident that this will be done safely. And if I could just highlight a few of the key features. So first of all, the companies who are developing these products acknowledge that they are responsible. They have to be the responsible actors. Let's not deflect it onto someone else or anthropomorphize the models or talk about the United Nations. These companies accept responsibility. Number one. Number two, they agree to have internal controls and to have those internal controls verified by an internal team that does that. But we don't just leave it to quote unquote self-policing. It starts there. But then you have external auditors who will then validate and verify that the internal controls are working. And these companies will set up an independent committee of the board to then receive those reports. And as Gavin Baker pointed out this morning, you know, when the board receives a report from an external auditor, you can't disregard that. It's not optional. The board has a massive fiduciary duty to then act on that. Otherwise, their D&O policy can get cancelled. Right? So now the board is going to receive the report of the external auditor and they have to make sure as a board that they're overseeing, they're providing oversight to make sure that the frontier development is happening safely. And then finally, sitting behind all of that, you still have the FTC and the SEC, which have the ability and the responsibility to enforce the public commitments of these companies. So although this agreement was entered into voluntarily, the governance that follows from it is not voluntary. It is now law.
It's fiduciary. This is a critical point because it's an audit, and D&O, for people who may not be familiar, directors and officers, that's the liability insurance that that board of directors has in case something goes wrong. So this has got teeth to it even though it was voluntary. It has deep, deep hooks into the board of directors.
That's right. And just one final point on this is that again, this White House Accord on Super Intelligence, it was convened by the president. It was as a result of that discussion and that conversation, we got the major companies to sign it. And I think everyone in the room, there's basically a consensus around it. And these controls can now be implemented basically immediately or very, very quickly. And it doesn't require new legislation. It certainly doesn't require some new international agreement that's never going to happen. So this is something that can be done right away. I think it's a credit to the president, and I think this should in large part, I think, address many of the concerns that the public has about the safe development of super intelligence.
Absolutely. And I think there's a lot of Democrats right now who don't want to give the president credit around this because they want to keep using it as a campaign issue, but the reality is that I think the president dealt with it swiftly and sensibly and practically. This is way more practical than trying to declare a pause on frontier development that China would never go along with or creating some DMV for models that again would slow us down to the point where China just wins. So this is very practical and it's immediate and the president deserves credit even though the Democrats won't give it to him. But I'll notice that even Jacob Coxin, where you know in a way you could say that the whistleblower, quote unquote, quit after six weeks who is working with the PR firm for the...
Yes. Yes. Yeah. So I would say fake whistleblower because he was working with the PR firm the whole time even though he said he wasn't.
Artificial whistleblower.
But the artificial whistleblower. But look, even he said that he was happy to read this. He was giving credit to the president. So maybe everybody else should as well.
Even the most cynical person, Chamath, looking at this would say great first step, right? Like if you just wanted the global UN, United Nations of AI, this would be a great precursor to that. A first step where everybody's opting in to be regulated, to regulate themselves, as we discussed on this very podcast with the MPAA analogy. And here we are three weeks later. Take us behind the scenes. There was one notable addition to the group of AI executives. Dario from Anthropic is obviously very anti-Trump. He has never shown up for these things. The organization is 96% anti-Trump, left-leaning, etc. But he participated. So how did Dario wind up participating in this? How did he wind up doing dinner one-on-one with the president? Take us to the palace intrigue here. Dario was a conscientious objector. He did not want to participate in any of this and now he was front and center.
I can tell you what I heard and I just think it speaks to how conscientious and gracious the president is. I think there was like a couple of previous events he noticed that Dario wasn't invited and actually just called and said, you know, this was an oversight and invited him to dinner. And I think that's how it started. And they had dinner, I think, two nights before that was widely reported. And then he stayed and he was at the dinner. So I think it was just a very smart strategic thing to do. It was also a very conscientious and very polite thing to do as well, just to make sure that this is a broad coalition of people that were included. And I think that's sort of been the general pattern that the president has exhibited. Let me maybe give you a couple of other things that happened at the luncheon that had an impact on me. The first was, it sounds like a very simple statement, but the gravity of it kind of has built in my mind as I thought about it. He says, 'Whoever wins super intelligence wins.' And then he just stopped talking. That was the first line of his prepared remarks. And then he said it again. And when you think about it, he's completely right. There is no world in which you're going to have this multinational corpus of people trying to allocate wins and losses on this thing. This is on the order of the industrial revolution. In fact, Sacks had some really nice comments at the luncheon which framed it as even bigger than the industrial revolution. He went through the numbers and it's bigger than the industrial revolution and like three or four other things all added up together. This thing is still bigger.
The railroads, the canals, and the electrical grid combined.
And the pyramids and the Great Wall to it.
Well, that was in the Wall Street Journal last week.
When you think about it that way, it's very important that we win. And so he started by setting the stage that way. He had a couple of other specific things, which was it's really important that the extremely positive use cases that exist out of AI and now SI are demonstrated. And he said you have a responsibility to lead with the benefits. And then he said you also have a responsibility to impact the local communities in which you operate. And he pointed at Meta as an example of a company doing really good things with teacher bonuses and hospitals. And we heard about that from Dina at the All-In Summit. And he said, 'You need to continue to do these things, but meanwhile, we have to have the checks and balances to trust and verify.' After the luncheon, I had to fly to Orlando because we at 8090 have a long-term partnership with Ernst & Young. And I was speaking to their 3,400 partners. And one of the things that Ernst & Young and 8090 were doing was building an entire audit infrastructure for super intelligence. And what's so cool is that we had been building it for EY as our first customer, but on the heels of this, I think we're going to be able to take that infrastructure and roll it out to everybody, as Sacks said, because everybody's going to need it. And there's really three things that you're going to need in an age of super intelligence so that boards are protected, CEOs have visibility, and all of the other compliance infrastructure and governance infrastructure of a company like D&O insurance and all these other things are kept in place, which is end-to-end traceability, right? Which is to say when you deploy super intelligence you need to know what's going on. You need to map it to the policies so that you understand what the risks are. All companies have standard operating procedures but you need to know exactly when you're deploying super intelligence how that builds on top of your standard operating procedures. So you need to map policies to risk. And then the third is you need to have auditable evidence, which is your way of showing all of your downstream ecosystem, here's what I've done. So if anybody taps you on the shoulder, whether it's a lawyer, whether it's an auditor, whether it's a regulator, whether it's in a lawsuit, whether it's a customer, hey, how did this happen? You can present something. So these are like very practical, sane things. And you can expect folks like EY now to deploy this broadly and quickly to all of the companies that they work with. And this is just one extra step. But if you think about how fast this happened, this is like three weeks and you have this solution where the alternative was hit the pause on trillions of dollars of GDP so that we could sort this out in a multinational body. The alternative was crazy. So I think what happened was historic and important.
Was there any pushback on the doomerism narrative? Take us behind the scenes.
Jensen was really powerful. He said something to the effect of alarmism without solutions is unproductive, which I thought was helpful grounding, but he said alarmism with solutions is helpful. Everybody had the same perspective in the room, to be honest.
Was that directed at Dario, that comment?
It was just generally said, but I think, you know, if we had to guess who was...
Did Dario respond after that? I mean, you know, Susie and I were sitting right across from him, so it was very fun just to watch his reactions in general. So, please unpack it. What was his reaction to that comment?
I mean, like, he listened.
Got it. Who moderated the discussion, Sacks? How was this moderated? Were you the moderator? I noticed I didn't get an invite. The world's greatest moderator wasn't there, but Trump's a pretty good moderator himself. Who moderates?
The president moderates it. The president actually actively moderates.
Oh, yeah. No, no, no. He... Give an example of his moderation. I would like to take some notes here.
Well, first, first we got there, you know, this is in the East Room of the White House, I believe, and through the back of the East Room, you get to where this new corridor to the ballroom is going to be. And so, we did a quick tour out there and he showed us what they're building and it's really amazing. And I predict that...
Which is the new ballroom.
The new ballroom and the new East Wing.
Did you have to wear hats and go into the construction zone? You're on the first...
Yeah, we walked out there and, I mean, the cranes were out there, foundation.
They are making record progress. You know, the thing is like seven stories. So, the ballroom itself is two stories, but it goes five stories down.
Oh, wow. So, there's all sorts of stuff that they're building there.
Alley, no, no. For the military. There's all sorts of...
I know. There's like all sorts of vaults that they want. But in any event, and he's going to have it done in like a year under budget and on schedule. By the way, when it's done, I predict that it'll be so nice that all future presidents will really want to use it. And it's things that the White House has needed for a long time. They're going to look back and say, 'Why did they give him such a hard time doing this?'
A distraction, too. By the way, the fact that we had a builder in the White House who just enjoys doing it. He's so good at it. I mean, why wouldn't you take advantage of those skills? All-in annual dinner party there. We'll have our All-In gala at the...
Yeah. Anyway, it's going to be a big upgrade. So anyway, he took us on a little tour of that and then he presided over the conversation. First he gave some remarks and he spoke to the whole group and then he started calling on people to give their opinion. And so he always moderates these things.
And then the most challenging, did you have a challenging moment where you kind of went at somebody, a follow-up question? Anything like that?
Well, he just kind of asked people what they think and there's a follow-up. And then we had a breakout session of the six frontier model companies in the Roosevelt Room, I believe. And that's where we kind of hammered out the accord. Although...
When you're hammering out that accord, are you literally there typing it in Google Docs? And who's responsible for this typo? There was a typo in the tweeted version that came...
I don't want to say he was responsible for that, but if that's the only thing people can find to object to, that's not so bad.
Was Satya in Microsoft Word and he just was typing too fast?
Yeah, I don't know. But basically what happened is Zuck and Jensen talked through some of the high-level principles in the main luncheon and then Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, actually had a copy and he read the whole thing and then we discussed it and there was general agreement and accord with it. And then we did the breakout session and there was some wordsmithing, not much though, to be honest, and everyone was just good with it. Now, we had, I mean, the White House had a statement that had been circulated to the groups in advance that was a couple of paragraphs, but frankly, this other statement had more meat on the bone. You know, the original statement had the statement of responsibility and it had the creation of a working group to discuss, you know, safety issues on an ongoing basis and share best practices. But the new part were the internal controls, the external audits, and the committee of the board. And I think it's been publicly reported now, so not really giving anything away, that, you know, Zuckerberg and then Jensen, I think, had kind of come forward with that idea and everyone was good with it.
Any notable moments where somebody was like, 'Hey, I need a comma here,' or 'I want to put an end here,' 'I want to add something to this'? Any notable edits?
I mean, like I said, people were generally good with it and they read it and everyone's like, yeah, you know, Elon...
Which part do you think has the most teeth, will be the most effective at making things more secure? Which...
The external audits. Who's going to do an external audit then, I guess? Is it going to be an Ernst & Young type thing, PricewaterhouseCoopers, or KPMG, or...
In my view, they should be professional auditors, not these NGOs. That's my view.
You're going to see EY in short order, I'd hear, announce something. And Friedberg, when you look at this in terms of the speed and velocity it happened, and you're, I guess, on the president's science and technology council now, maybe you could speak to, you know, how quickly this is all occurring and what the impact might be in terms of America's competitiveness, because you've had concerns. Hey, maybe slowing down here means China catches up. So maybe you could talk a little bit to your prediction, if any, of the alignment here of all of the companies. Also of note, just for the audience, people are like, Sam Altman's not there. His partner Greg was there. So Sam was doing, I guess, the launch of some new products they had, but OpenAI was obviously represented. So maybe you could talk a little bit about what you think the impact this will have on maybe the American public and their view of AI.
I mean, look, I think we always assumed in the sci-fi novels that we would be in an era of having robot wars, and I think we failed to recognize that the software came first and we are actually having the AI wars. And there's a war that I think we're in the middle of right now where there's kind of one side that wants to centralize, control, manage, regulate, whatever the term of the day might be, the technology. And there's another side that I think is cognizant of the reality of the technology, which is that it is effectively ubiquitous. We talked about this in the past due to open-source, open-weight models proliferating, the fact that you can run models on small local machines, that you don't need large clusters to do things, and that we're seeing model after model come out now that are not under the jurisdiction of some centralized system or agency. Therefore, it becomes very hard and practically impossible to actually regulate the development of the software. That's the truth. It is what it is. You may not like it, but it is what it is. And those two sides are going to continue to fight. I think that the risks will rise. And as that happens, I'm going to make two predictions to your question. The first one is that I think we will see a massive rise in defense systems. There is no turning off the open-source, open-weight models or shutting down all the data centers or centralizing command and control. There are 197 countries on Earth. They each have sovereignty. There's energy everywhere. They're all connected to the internet. Data centers will exist all over the world. So the attempt to try and centralize and manage the control of the software, I think, is a fool's errand. But I do think that it's going to mandate, because the risks will rise, an increased amount of defense. And so I think, you know, companies like Palo Alto Networks, I think the investment in this space, what I heard in DC this week with some Fortune 50 CEOs are very worried about cyber defense. That means they're going to start to make this their number one priority to address at the board level. That means the budgets for cyber defense are going to go through the roof. Now let me ask you a question. When you have to do cyber defense in an era of AI, are you going to use old school software or are you going to use AI?
You're going to use AI. And because of that, because cyber defense is going to need to grow, the US is going to need to provide competitive AI for cyber defense. It is a classic arms race scenario. And so the US cannot simply step back and pause and turn off AI. It is already everywhere in the world. Therefore, the risks are rising. Therefore, we need to increase our investment in AI to maintain our cyber defense capabilities both at the enterprise level and at the government level and potentially even at the civilian consumer level. So I think that the cyber defense necessity actually mandates that we continue to build out data centers to support it. The second prediction I'll make is I think 12 to 18 months from now we're going to shift away from this conversation about managing models, regulating models, controlling models, estimating models, scoring models, all this sort of stuff that's going on because, like we mentioned last week, every 11 days we're seeing new models get published now. It is unbelievable. And this week Google released their new model that also seems to be more performant than any other model. And every couple days we're seeing a new one come out. So the model control systems are not going to solve any problems. What I think is going to end up happening, and this is a prediction no one may like, but I do think we're going to end up in a world where governments are going to regulate data center access and usage. They're going to say the data centers are here, but in order to maintain defense capabilities, we are going to decide who gets allocated a certain number of GPUs, a certain amount of inference, a certain number of chips, a certain number of servers. Because at the end of the day, one of the key metrics of cyber defense is going to be how many machines do you have allocated to defend your systems against how many machines are coming after your systems. And it is again a classic arms race scenario assuming model convergence. And even, you know, if models have slight advantages over others, it seems to be the case that we will maintain pacing. And if we're maintaining pacing, then the number of machines allocated to a specific task is going to be a key measure of how well it performs in that task relative to another set of machines doing the same task. You're just going to need to allocate more machines to it. So if you're going to allocate more machines to it, you're going to end up having the government say, 'Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. We need the US financial services system to get X% of the GPUs in America. We need to make sure that Y% go to defense. We need to make sure that Z%...'
You're saying it's all going to get nationalized and allocated top down.
I think that's where the regulators are going to end up having to play a role. You can kind of think about data centers becoming the utility, which is the clouds, the neoclouds. Effectively, the government will end up saying, 'Wait a second, we're not allocating enough to JPMorgan, we're not allocating enough to the financial services system,' and ultimately the number of machines that are being...
The market will take care of that. Yeah, it's an opportunity to sell into the government. Now Google and Amazon Web Services, CoreWeave, whoever, can just sell more servers and the government then can say, 'Hey, it is now national security that we build more data centers and we're going to clear the road for it based on that.'
Yeah. Here's the part that I... blocking a data center if we need it. That would be like blocking tanks being built during World War II, right? I mean...
Yeah. Here's the part I agree with is it's not just about the capability of the model. It's about how much compute you have to run it. And we want to have more compute than our adversaries. And if we continue with this anti-data center crusade, we're going to be at a severe disadvantage. We already know that the precursor for data centers is power generation. And China's doubling their grid every decade, and we've been flat for about 25 years. That's a huge problem. Now I went back and looked throughout the course of the 20th century. The United States was on a pace to double its electrical grid every decade. That's what we did. We actually grew power generation enormously. And those were in the days when America was a great industrial empire and basically dominated the world in manufacturing and industry. We did not have a problem doing this. We found ways to do it. Obviously the power generation plants, the power plants were being built somewhere and they found places to put them where they didn't encounter too much NIMBY opposition. They figured out a way to do it. Think about that. Every decade of the 20th century until starting around the 1970s when it slowed a bit. They were doubling the grid every decade. The '70s it started slowing but the growth continued. And it wasn't until the early 2000s that basically we flatlined. Why is that? Because of deindustrialization, globalization. We shipped all those manufacturing jobs overseas and then people went to work in offices so we didn't need as much power. Efficiency played a little bit of a part in it as well. But we kind of lost that muscle of how do we basically keep doubling our power grid every decade. We have to get that back. And again, this anti-data center witch hunt that I'm seeing going on, it's so misguided. Look, data centers have been around for a long time. Data centers serve the internet. They serve all the mobile applications on your phone. They serve now AI. But they serve all the uses of computers that we use. And to blame them for any specific application just seems totally misguided. If you have concerns about things like surveillance or privacy, by all means, strengthen the privacy laws, right? I'm all in favor of that, but just trying to ban the data center seems insane.
Sacks, what everybody wants to know, you have been pretty critical of the Anthropic Computer Corporation and specifically Dario and the leadership there. He was at the event. You guys met, I think perhaps for the first time. Tell us about Dario's participation there. And did you guys talk a little bit about your criticism of him specifically, of the organization specifically, and all of this doomerism and effective altruism and all this, or did it not come up?
No, I mean, look, I think that Dario was a good sport. It's true. That's the first time I met him in person. I talked to him on the phone before, but look, he was a good sport throughout the event. It was not adversarial or hostile. Obviously, he has his own views and he represented them, but fundamentally everybody got on the same page and signed this.
Did you shake hands with Dario?
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He joked. He said, 'Oh, my nemesis.' You know, he sort of joked.
Yeah. So, that's kind of funny. Yeah.
Did you invite him on the pod? I forgot to invite him on the pod, but he's welcome. You have his phone number and are you going to invite him on the pod? The world wants to know.
If you want me to. But look, I think it's good that he talked to the president and had dinner with the president. I think the president should talk to all the major players in the space. He should hear the full spectrum of views and I trust the president's going to, you know, arrive at the right policy and solution. So I think it's good for him to hear Dario. I mean, look, I think...
Any insight into what happened at that dinner? What was President Trump's view of Dario? He said he's an interesting guy. There were some interesting quotes. And he dragged him from the back of the group in the presser and threw him out front. I saw you were right behind him. Zuck was right behind him. You guys had a little chuckle at the president pushing him forward to...
No, we weren't. We actually, I forgot exactly what... No, no one was making fun of Dario. Just implying that conversations going on, grabbed him from the back and said, 'You have to speak.' I think that was kind of a cute moment. It was an affectionate... I saw it as an affectionate moment that he wanted Dario to be part of the group and speak on behalf of the group.
I saw it as the opposite.
Yeah. He gave him a pat on the back. And look, I think... listen, Dario is a very special person. I didn't, you know, fully appreciate it till we're all in that room together. There's obviously a wide spectrum of views in that room. There's different levels.
Spectrum is a good word. Spectrum.
There's an autism spectrum. There's a spectrum of autism in that way.
You feel, you felt very comfortable, Sacks.
Well, I mean, you guys call me the Rainman, but I mean...
Rainman lighting is really functional.
I don't mean this as an insult, but, you know, Dario is sort of the Dustin Hoffman in that room. And then Tom Brown's like the Tom Cruise character who's trying to like translate him. They weren't wearing the same suit or anything, but...
China, Russia, meet my mutants. Okay, I'm forming like the X-Men here. Okay, these are brainiacs. They're a little bit weird on the margins, but they're getting it done for America.
Chamath, you certainly must have had an interesting time there. Tell us a little bit more of the palace intrigue. What was President Trump's vibe? He seemed he was incredibly engaged and excited. And I just want to say, listen, you don't have to be a fan of President Trump or a Republican to appreciate what happened here. And compare it to when Biden excluded Elon from the EV summit. You need to, as the president of the United States, be bipartisan and include everybody in these things. We're all part of the same team. It's called Team America. And I thought this was a great juxtaposition of that. You had a lot of people who were extremely critical of the administration who were there to make America stronger, to make America win the AI race, the super intelligence race. Most people have said this at this point, so this is sort of beating a dead horse, but he is a generational political athlete. I mean, I don't think we've seen anybody like him. And so he's extremely comfortable around all kinds of people with all kinds of differing views, and he's conscientious. And so when he notices things are not right, he sets them right. He talks to as many people. And I think you have to be really impressed with that.
Like this is an incredible pattern that I hope outlives him, which is this idea that when you have very complicated problems, when you use industry to be a sounding board and then you sit with industry in real time and then you craft these accords in real time, and when that industry represents the entire political spectrum, as you said, Jason, some who are with you and some who are against you and some who are in the middle, that is the right way to govern in my opinion because you have the best chance of doing something that's sustainable and that's realistic. And that comes back to this point that is getting lost, which is whoever wins super intelligence wins. And I think if we just keep that in mind, this is the pattern that hopefully outlives the president, which is that whenever you run into any other thorny issue, and I would say this to whoever is going to be president in '28 and beyond, Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter, get the smartest people from that industry in a room. Make sure that that's filled with both people that support you as well as may not necessarily support you and then hash it out in the room and force a set of realistic principles that everybody can then build a business around. That is very smart politics and governance.
I just wanted to go back to something you said before because I was having this conversation with Phil Deutsch. This is about the data center thing. He made this point to me which I think is really important. When you look at the impact that the Iran war had on the price of oil, the most interesting takeaway was actually how little the price of oil moved during all of these blockages in Hormuz, because what really happened was there was a lot of supply and generation shifting that occurred. Right? We were able to shape in real time, Jason, how to generate energy. And the real takeaway from my perspective is that the generation of electrons is actually the critical thing, not necessarily the generation of energy as we've classically thought about it. Now why that's important is the data center now becomes the critical symbol of national security because the ability to generate electrons and then the ability to make sure that we can compute the resources that we need to run our economy is going to start from those things. And so domestic energy production, I think, also is this hugely important thing that is going to move from a domestic policy issue to a national security issue. And that's why I think the data center thing and sort of why I disagree with Friedberg, I understand where he's coming from because this is why the data center will get so much scrutiny, but I also think the opposite will happen, which is more the Sacks idea of the free market because it is so critical. Similar to how we responded after the Persian Gulf War and how we responded after the global war on terror, what do we do? We doubled and tripled down on natural gas and domestic oil production. Similarly, I think the domestic production of electrons becomes so critical because the data center becomes this national security infrastructure. That's so important.
Yeah. There was this great video from years ago where Milton Friedman was at a law school and he was asked a question by this kid about when do we have a responsibility to act to save someone's life and can the government mandate that I do that and doesn't that take away my freedom in a free society? And the way the kid asked it, Milton Friedman responded by saying, 'Hey, you started out talking about your responsibility in society.' And by the end of it, you were telling me about what government needs to do. And he's like, I would argue that those two things are not the same. And that the point you should take note of is that you don't need government to solve your problems when society is giving you a clear signal of what the right and wrong thing is to do. That people collectively can and will solve their problems, take their actions, choose the right path, do the right things, and businesses can and will respond accordingly when the market is telling them something. When society is telling them something, they don't need the government to be responsible for executing the actions and taking regulation onto its shoulders for them. And I think we saw that this week with Nvidia's launch and OpenAI was very declarative about how they're being more precautionary before they release models. But this morning, Google also launched SynthID. And SynthID is a system for watermarking proteins that are produced with AI. So the sequence, the DNA sequence that codes for the protein will actually now have a watermark in it. And it's being broadly adopted. And the protein itself, the three-dimensional construct of the protein will actually have an embedded watermark in it as well. This is actually a pretty amazing technology that Google developed for creating watermarking and defense systems in AI bio. And I think we are starting to see the market respond actively to what society is saying and not need these government people to come in and take over and in the process put everything at risk.
By the way, I saw that clip. It was going viral as well. I thought it was the young... I don't know why I watched it. Yeah, he was a law school kid. The young guy was articulate. Milton Friedman was unbelievably articulate as always. But, Jake, what was your view? I'm curious what's your view just seeing it happen real time. What were you thinking?
Yeah. Well, I was actually ironically invited to come down to the White House for the first time. My friend Joe Gebbia, who launched America.gov this week, which was a spectacular launch. We're making the American government as efficient as private industry. He's the co-founder of...
Co-founder of Airbnb and an incredible designer. He went to RISD with his partners. And so just shout out to him. If you haven't seen America.gov, it's stunning. I spoke on a panel with Brooke Rollins and Sriram Krishnan at the event. It was an incredible event. The whole cabinet showed up. The president signed the executive order and even guys like Andrew Ross Sorkin gave this like standing monologue on why it was so incredible for America to see this. It was not partisan at all. It was just upgrade America's technology infrastructure for the citizens and it was fantastic.
Yeah. And by the way, and sorry, Jake, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I just want to give a shout out to Joe because he did that work with his own money. People think that this was like some big government investment. Joe...
