All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - Podcast Rankings and reviews

It’s a good podcast with good ideas thrown around and some intellectual heft despite the tech bro vibes. The thing that is becoming disappointing is the increasing punditry— saying one thing one week and the opposite the next. I get that they’re giving “hot takes” in the moment but just have some honesty and hold each other accountable for inconsistencies.

To get specific, they’ve said many times how existing laws are enough to regulate AI and we just need to enforce existing law. But then (Freidberg) is entirely dismissive when existing copyright law has so obviously and blatantly been trampled. Or Chamath speaking so derisively about the Arm IPO one week— that it’s not worth anything near the IPO price and just a bunch of old irrelevant CPU tech and will flop. But then when it pops to the moon on earnings, he’s full of praise for Masa and Softbank as a visionary. Zero mention of his weeks old prediction from anyone! Or Sacks constantly implying that the Federal Reserve is politically biased and will lower interest rates to try and hand the election to Biden but then a couple weeks later when the Federal Reserve does the exact opposite and acts in an evidence based manner to hold interest rates— there’s no mention of such a serious trust-undermining accusation-- instead they just talk more and more about how politically biased the Fed is.

That kind of breezy flip floppery and lack of real analysis undermines their credibility and is the same thing they claim to despise in MSM. I’m not looking for hard core research and journalism from this show but I am looking for them to hold each other accountable just in the interest of advancing good ideas and good conversation. Otherwise— what’s the point?

I get so much new information and fodder for my week from this podcast that I have decided to watch all the past 130-some episodes even if they might be out of date because I enjoy the ideas they individually share, I respect all of them for who they are and it's the best way for me to get the essence of what's going on in our hemisphere.

Entertaining and intellectually honest. Love that the hosts rarely come to unanimous agreement on any topic and the acrimony seen on some debates is hilarious. I wish they posted more than once a week. These four should be the President.

Excellent weekly discussion from individuals that have a deep understanding of the topics they are discussing. A healthy amount of debate makes this podcast very fun. I learn something new and actionable every week.

The All-In Podcast, despite its intellectual hosts, promotes a dangerous form of unchecked capitalism. They seem oblivious to the moral implications of their views, particularly the potential for societal harm caused by unfettered market forces. David Friedberg, despite his claims of impact-driven work, is involved in a venture that could have devastating unintended consequences. His company, @ohalo, utilizes gene editing to revolutionize agriculture. While the promise of increased yields and reduced resource use is enticing, the potential risks are immense. Potential unintended consequences of @ohalo's gene editing technology: Ecological disruption: Introducing genetically modified organisms into the environment could disrupt ecosystems,potentially harming beneficial insects, pollinators, and other wildlife. Loss of biodiversity: A focus on a few high-yielding crops could lead to a loss of crop diversity, making the food supply more vulnerable to pests, diseases, and climate change. Socioeconomic impacts: Small-scale farmers may struggle to compete with large agribusinesses that can afford the new technology, leading to further consolidation in the agricultural sector and potential economic hardship for many. Unknown long-term effects: The long-term effects of consuming genetically modified crops are still unknown,and there are concerns about potential health risks and allergic reactions. Ethical concerns: Some argue that manipulating the genetic makeup of living organisms raises ethical questions about the limits of human intervention in nature. The All-In Podcast's unwavering faith in capitalism, coupled with their disregard for potential negative consequences, is a dangerous combination. Their influence, particularly on impressionable listeners, could promote a worldview that prioritizes profit over people and planet. I urge listeners to approach the All-In Podcast with a critical eye and consider the potential downsides of the technologies and ideas they promote.

As a loyal weekly listener, I’ve always valued the show’s discussions, but I’ve grown increasingly frustrated with David Sacks. His constant interruptions, particularly when he says, “Wait, let me finish,” yet rarely allows others to finish their thoughts, make the show difficult to enjoy. It feels less like a conversation and more like a one-sided debate where he is determined to have the last word. While I appreciate different viewpoints, his habit of constantly talking over guests and relentlessly pushing his arguments drains the energy from the show. It detracts from what could otherwise be a much more engaging discussion.