My wife and I have been sharing the link/QR code during holidays & birthdays in lieu of presents for the girls. We happily grow the investment in their futures instead of a toy they’ll outgrow in a year. contribute.trumpaccount.com/…

Brad Gerstner, a native of Syracuse, Indiana, is contributing $250 into the Trump Accounts program for up to 140,000 young Hoosiers.   In today's @IndyStar, Brad (@altcap) and I write about why Congress created these accounts, his desire to give back to Hoosiers, and how research shows that having assets early in life can put kids on a great path into adulthood.

More than 140,000 Hoosier kids born in 2023 and 2024 will automatically get $250 added to their Trump Accounts. This is thanks to a generous contribution announced today by Brad Gerstner (@altcap), an Indiana native and the architect of the Trump Accounts. It’s especially fitting that a Hoosier is leading the way on these accounts, which give kids a financial stake in America’s future and a head start on the American dream!

Dave Regan, the @SEIU -UHW president and architect of California’s billionaire tax is under two union investigations that substantiated allegations of intimidation, attempted extortion, and a prior physical assault. He is now facing a federal racketeering suit from health clinics. The lawsuit alleged that he “instructed SEIU agents to tell Hispanic home care workers that if they did not vote for SEIU, ICE would be called and the workers would be deported.”  It’s always those who rail about such things that prove to be the most hypocritical. sfchronicle.com/politics/art…

All-In Summit: Brad Gerstner -- Who’s Paying for AI CapEx? -- Semis Eat the Nasdaq -- Not Firing, Just Not Hiring -- The Gigawatt Gap ++ much more! (0:00) Welcome @altcap (1:01) Trump Accounts, Every Child a Capitalist & The CAC Scan (5:07) Can AI revenue pay for the CapEx? (8:53) The Build Out Issue: Gigawatts, TAM, Token Growth, and Margin Expansion (12:30) The risks: AI regulation, the nuclear precedent, power limits, and rising rates

NEW: Brad Gerstner (@altcap) & Jason Chang (@yoweichang) are trying to turn a $100 CAC heart scan into the “mammogram for the heart.” At the All-In Summit, Brad brought his mobile coronary artery calcium CT scanner to screen attendees & make the case for preventing heart attacks at scale. Heart disease kills ~800,000 Americans annually. Brad believes scaling CAC scans to 40M people a year could save 50,000 lives & $20B in government healthcare costs annually. Rob Goldberg joined us to explain why the mission is deeply personal. His brother Dave Goldberg, married to Sheryl Sandberg, died suddenly at 47 from undiagnosed heart disease, leaving behind their two young children. Just five months earlier, he had passed a running EKG. “My brother had passed a running EKG five months before he dropped dead from heart disease, from undiagnosed heart disease.” Dave’s death became the foundation for Sandberg’s book Option B, co-written with Adam Grant, about grief, resilience & rebuilding life after devastating loss. Now Brad Gerstner, Rob Goldberg, Jason Chang & the rest of the besties, & the team behind the Center for Heart Attack Prevention want to prevent more families from experiencing the same thing, pushing for earlier detection, broader access to CAC scans & changes to the standard of care. We go inside the mobile scanner & discuss: › Why Brad calls CAC scanning the “mammogram for the heart” › The Goldberg family’s experience with undiagnosed heart disease › Why cholesterol & traditional testing can miss cardiovascular risk › What CAC scores actually tell you › Difference between a calcium CT scan & an angiogram › Why Brad bought his own mobile scanner › The “buy one, give one” model for expanding access › Brad’s push to bring CAC screening to 40 million Americans a year › How a roughly $100 scan could potentially prevent thousands of premature deaths › Why Brad believes health data gives people the power to take action 𝐓𝐈𝐌𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐌𝐏𝐒 00:00 Brad Gerstner & Rob Goldberg 00:10 CAC Scanner Moonshot 01:53 Rob’s Family Tragedy 04:39 Center Missions and Prevention 05:37 Why Cholesterol Became Standard 10:07 Overcoming Fear and Insurance 12:29 CAC vs Angiogram Guidance 14:43 Where the Trailer Goes Next 16:40 Inside the Scanner Demo 20:48 Why Labs Miss Risk 23:27 Final Call to Action

All-In Summit: Vice President JD Vance 🔥 -- Assessing the Admin So Far -- AI Approach, Dealing with Doomerism -- Going After H-1B Abuse -- Anti-Fraud Plan, Why Entitlements Fraud is Hard to Stop -- Relationship with Israel, Rational Foreign Policy -- Midterms Message (0:00) VP JD Vance joins The Besties! (1:40) Assessing the Trump Admin so far: Border control, re-industrialization, inflation, Iran, government debt, anti-fraud (9:28) AI approach: Dealing with Doomerism, "Frankenstein," and AI negativity (16:23) H-1B abuse and the massive $1T+ of fraud in federal spending (21:48) Relationship with Israel, rational foreign policy (25:19) JD Vance's midterms message

Wild 24 hours for AI and lots of different proposals have been made. TLDR; the only *tangible* new fact is that OpenAI and Anthropic are going to have embedded 3rd party evaluators from unknown organizations with Dario floating METR as a possibility. Having 3rd party evaluators is smart as there is no Section 230 style liability shield for model outputs and showing a “duty of care” will be important in future litigation. Several internet companies might have gone bankrupt without Section 230 so limiting liability really matters. There are minimal investment implications from this single new fact, but I do think that for anyone who wants a “smoother for longer” cycle then most constraints are good: wafers, watts, real rates and spreads. Excessive regulation is a different matter but I don’t think we are anywhere close to this even if the vector changed over the last 24 hours. To summarize the events: Dario made the most maximalist proposal of the weekend: embedded 3rd party evaluators, a national regulatory regime for models beyond a certain capability/ingredient threshold, a broad international regulatory pact between democracies, stricter limits on compute/distillation for China and then a different international regulatory regime that encompasses China. Before there is a national regulatory regime, he wants a Sherman act waiver so that Anthropic can safely coordinate with OpenAI and other frontier labs without antitrust fears. TBF, this latest proposal is much less maximalist than some of his prior proposals like “Policy on the AI Exponential,” where he advocated for an FAA for AI. I believe he is sincere in his beliefs. And despite all the protestations, all of this would also probably be good for his business over the long-term. Sam agreed that embedded 3rd party evaluators were a good idea and stated they would implement them. Again, this is smart as should help limit future liability. Elon said “Dario is right” and later specified that “Dario is right that there should be some oversight. Peer review of AI by competitors is the right way to start this off.” This would be a MPAA like self-regulatory structure for AI with regular calls between the labs plus a process where each new model is evaluated for safety by competitors for a 1-2 week period before being released. That is *wildly* different from Dario’s proposal and in-line with what David Sacks has been proposing. Elon also stated that nothing was going to slow down open-weight models. Demis said that Dario’s essay was a “step in the right direction.” Dario also said that he was also open to Demis’ idea of a FINRA like self-regulatory structure as part of his proposal. David Sacks had a thoughtful post where he said that Dario and Sam should pace unilaterally, called the antitrust waiver a cartel request and denied that METR was truly independent given their ties to Anthropic. Sriram Krishnan, former White House AI advisor, noted that it would be important to have the 3rd party evaluators come from independent organizations that are not affiliated with any lab, which is basically an indirect statement about the relationship between METR and Anthropic which Sacks was explicit about. Clem from Hugging Face said they were open to being a neutral 3rd party evaluator, which is interesting especially if Jensen was consulted before that post. Alexander Wang from Meta noted that alignment would be an increasing focus going forward. An executive order seems likely after all this and the language in this EO is going to be really important. It is possible to democratize and distribute AI broadly and safely without centralizing it in the hands of a few corporations who might each become more powerful than any single government. I do not want a few humans in control of intelligence. I want us all to have our own intelligences that reflect our own values and human variation in all of its richness. Intelligence distribution over intelligence centralization FTW.

This was the natural progression of this narrative The more OAI and Anthropic argue that commercial pressure can push AI companies to move too fast, the harder it is for either to go public. Public markets just add more of that pressure: growth expectations, quarterly reporting, a stock price moving every second imagine telling investors: actually we need to slow growth Whether you think it’s the responsible thing to do or not, it’s also a very tough public company model.