Sacks
Does his own confidence mean anything?
the same scored calls, split by how hard he was pushing at the mention that set his final stance. If credit rises with strength, his table-pounding carries information and you should weight it. If it's flat or inverted, his confidence is noise — treat a ×3 like a ×1. Cells under 5 calls are provisional and get no weight in the replay.
| he was | calls | credit | right/half/wrong | avg vs SPY | read |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ×3 table-pounding | 88 | 0.41 | 34/4/50 | -21% | worse than coin flip |
| ×2 stated with reasoning | 211 | 0.5 | 83/43/85 | -13% | coin flip |
| ×1 offhand aside | 28 | 0.48 | 10/7/11 | -17% | coin flip |
Which kind of claim to trust
by the tier of the mention that set his final stance — a dated prediction is a different animal from a passing lean, and they don't have to score alike
| tier | calls | credit | right/half/wrong | avg vs SPY |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| annual_prediction | 2 | 0.5 prov. | 1/0/1 | +17% |
| explicit_prediction | 182 | 0.45 | 69/26/87 | -20% |
| positioning | 10 | 0.3 | 3/0/7 | -52% |
| sentiment | 133 | 0.51 | 54/28/51 | -8% |
What he's actually good at
his row of the scoreboard — these are his scored record by category, unlocked at n ≥ 5 resolved calls. Track record only — it does not weight his mentions or move any conviction.
Live book — 31 positions
his latest stance on every ACTIVE idea. Expression = what he is effectively long or short: supporting a bearish idea is a SHORT, opposing one is a LONG.
Where his book points
net push per primary instrument across his live stances — conviction × his agreement × the idea's direction. This is his implied book, not a position he disclosed.
Where he's out on a limb
the differentiated part of his book — nobody else has taken a regular stance, or the rest of the table is on the other side. High information either way: these are the calls that make his record, and the ones with no cross-voice check on them.
Best and worst calls
How he argues
Latest from him
Then the second thing is that the economy is not that bad. I mean, in fact, it's quite good. Just today, we had a new jobs report. It was a very robust jobs report.
The price of Brent crude will drop precipitously. On the day of the election, the price of Brent crude dropped 10%. Is that because something changed in the straight-of-the-move? No. It's because the market started to price in the mere possibility that the war would end sooner. We got a 10% cut in the price of Brent crude. It will go from, it's been as high as 117, it'll go from 110 to 70
I believe that Democrats want to create a surveillance and censorship state that's turbocharged by super intelligence. I mean, that's ultimately the end state. How do you get there? You create a department, a federal department of AI. You require that all the so-called frontier models have to be reviewed and approved by that.
What's going to get legislated is the quid pro quo. The quid pro quo is this. The government gets more power, and the duopoly of closed model companies get more regulatory capture or moats around their business. That's going to be the quid pro quo.
My base case is that the projects that are fully permitted will get done in 2027, but I don't think there's going to be major new projects in this new regime for a long time for the simple reason that there's no political incentive for anyone to grant a new permit or a new project.
But I think by 2028, I would expect that the pipeline will either be closed or significantly reduced and that will have a big economic impact.
J Cal, you're right that if the US doesn't build the data centers, they'll get built in other countries and we'll be paying to import the tokens.
And I think it is a little bit of a refutation to all the people who have been saying over the past year that they're getting commoditized away, that open models are basically are putting them on a hamster wheel where they're basically going to zero on gross margin, or that it's a business that only works because it's heavily subsidized by venture capital. In fact, I think there's a lot of reasons to believe that Anthropic has a pretty big lead. And if you believe that recursive self-improvement has kicked in, as they are claiming it has, then their lead could actually grow.
It could very well be. I mean, I think this is probably going to be the biggest venture outcome of all time, especially given the time in which this was created. I mean, this is only a six-year-old company.
So number one is that this $80 billion loss number that we've heard so much about, that the media has constantly been pumping and harping on as proof that Anthropic was either a fake business or that we were in this sort of whole bubble. That narrative basically just got completely refuted because it turns out that $80 billion loss is a phantom number.
I think the exit here is going to be on par with SpaceX's IPO, but SpaceX has been around for like 20-something years. So this is probably the fastest value creation of any venture-backed company in history.
But I tend to think that Chamath is right, that Democrats want to do anything they can to sabotage the Trump economy.
So you add it all up, and this is a company with over 300 billion of dry powder or it will soon have that. So then you've got all these Anthropic bears who are saying they've made all these CapEx commitments in the future, that they're never going to be able to live up to. Actually, this secures those commitments because they've got the capital now to basically back up all of those compute orders, all the forecasts of CapEx spending till, I don't know, 2030
And the net result is that the total demand just keeps going up. And the total revenue and market size keeps growing. Also, just to reiterate a point that you made earlier in the program, the new applications that are coming all consume a lot more tokens than the ones that we started with, right? Like agents use a lot more tokens than prompting.
And cyber defense is going to use a lot more tokens than just doing a pen test once a year, right? You're going to need continuous monitoring of agents, attack surfaces, all that kind of thing.