NA

Naval Ravikant

one-off guest ×0.5 · 7 ideas engaged · 1 episodes · E215 → E215
ChamathJasonSacksFriedbergAaron LevieBen ShapiroBill GurleyBrad GerstnerCyan BanisterElon MuskGavin BakerJoe LonsdaleKeith RaboisRyan PetersenThomas LaffontTravis Kalanick
⚠ One-off guest — not scored — only besties and guests heard across 2+ episodes earn scoreboard credit, so this voice has no track record and no skill weight. Their mentions still move conviction, at ×0.5.
0
live positions
+0
lifetime conviction force · 0 ideas born
2.29
avg strength · 2 dissents

Live book — 0 positions

Nothing live. Every idea he's touched has already resolved.

How he argues

STANCE MIX
support 5
oppose 2
TIER MIX
explicit_prediction 7

Latest from him

support ×3 explicit_prediction 🛢️ Targeted tariffs act as a reverse subsidy that makes US critical-minerals supply chains investable E215 · 2025-02-15 ▶ 1:11:50
But when it comes to tariffs and when it comes to trade, we act like network effects don't exist. The classic Ricardian comparative advantage dogma says that, you should produce what you're best at, I produce what I'm best at and we trade. ... So you have to understand that certain industries have hysteresis, or they have network effects, or they have economies of scale. And these are all the interesting ones. These are all the high-margin businesses. So in those, if somebody is subsidizing or they're raising tariffs against you to protect your industries and let them develop, you do have to do something. You can't just completely back down.
support ×2 explicit_prediction 📈 Legacy defense primes (Boeing, Lockheed, RTX) lose 2025 E215 · 2025-02-15 ▶ 1:18:39
If you look at it today, probably the largest defense contractor in the world is DJI. They got all the drones. ... If we have a kinetic conflict right now and we don't have good drone supply chain internally in the US, we're probably going to lose because those things are autonomous bullets. That's the future of all warfare. We're buying F-35s and the Chinese are building swarms of narrowzones.
oppose ×2 explicit_prediction 📈 AI eats middle management before the entry level E215 · 2025-02-15 ▶ 52:38
AI is a productivity tool. It increases the productivity of a worker. It allows them to do more creative work and less repetitive work. As such, it makes them more valuable. Yes, there is some retraining involved, but not a lot. ... But I think David is absolutely right. I think we will see job creation by AI that will be as fast or faster than job destruction.
oppose ×3 explicit_prediction 🏛️ US compute export controls keep China off the AI frontier from 2025 E215 · 2025-02-15 ▶ 1:07:19
The point I would agree with is that it's going to happen anyway. And that's what DeepSeek proved. You can turn off the flow of chips to them, and you can turn off the flow of talent. What do they do? They just get more efficient, and they exported it back to us. They sent us back the best open source model when our guys were staying closed source for safety reasons.
support ×2 explicit_prediction 🤖 DeepSeek proves frontier-model costs are collapsing E215 · 2025-02-15 ▶ 1:07:19
What do they do? They just get more efficient, and they exported it back to us. They sent us back the best open source model when our guys were staying closed source for safety reasons.
support ×2 explicit_prediction 🏛️ AI's training data gets a copyright bill - citations, links and licences E215 · 2025-02-15 ▶ 1:24:20
I'm going to go out even thinner limb and say I largely agree with you. I think it's a bit rich to crawl the open web, hoover up all the data, offer direct substitution for a lot of use cases, because now you start and end with the AI model. It's not even like you link out like Google did. And then you just close off the models for safety reasons. I think if you trained on the open web, your model should be open source.
support ×2 explicit_prediction 🏛️ OpenAI's nonprofit-to-for-profit conversion becomes a tax and litigation overhang E215 · 2025-02-15 ▶ 1:34:12
But even equity, they could give equity to the people building it, but they could still leave it in the control of the non-profit. I just don't understand this conversion. I mean, there was a board coup, right? The board tried to fire Sam, and Sam took over the board. Now it's his hand-picked board, so it also looks like self-dealing, right? And yeah, they'll get an independent valuation, but we all know that game. You hire a valuation expert who's going to say what you're going to say, and they'll check the box.