Skip to content
All-In PodcastAll-In Podcast

Tucker Carlson: Nick Fuentes, Warner Bros, and AI fears

Carlson argues that banning Nick Fuentes only made him stronger; hosts call the Paramount-Netflix bid for Warner Bros a husk deal and debate AI fears.

Jason CalacanishostTucker CarlsonguestDavid FriedberghostChamath PalihapitiyahostGuest questioner (unidentified, likely remote/audience)guest
Dec 13, 20251h 38mWatch on YouTube ↗

EVERY SPOKEN WORD

  1. 0:00 – 4:11

    Tucker joins the besties!

    1. JC

      All right, back with us in place of David Freberg, who's busy this week, is the one, the only, on his fourth appearance here on the All-In Podcast, Mr. Tucker Carlson. How are you, Tucker?

    2. TC

      Thanks for having me.

    3. DS

      Hey, Tucker. Good to see you.

    4. TC

      David?

    5. DS

      (laughs)

    6. TC

      David, how do you have time for... Every time I, every time I turn on my phone, there's, like, David Sacks on something incredibly complex. Like, are you sleeping?

    7. DS

      Usually people attacking me for something.

    8. TC

      But it's not just like, "Oh, your views are this or that-"

    9. DS

      (laughs)

    10. TC

      "... geopolitical conflict." It's like the details of something very complicated, and I'm just like, wow, man, that's a lot. That's a lot to digest.

    11. DS

      Yeah, there's not a very high bar in Washington, as you know.

    12. TC

      (laughs) Oh. You're a giant among pygmies, but still, it's a lot of work.

    13. DS

      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

    14. CP

      King, exactly, exactly.

    15. TC

      Are you still enjoying it?

    16. DS

      Yeah, it's been a lot of fun. But you know President Trump's a lot of fun to work for.

    17. TC

      He's the most fun.

    18. DS

      I mean, the best, right?

    19. CP

      He got a big shout-out yesterday. It was really awesome, actually.

    20. TC

      David did?

    21. CP

      Yeah, huge shout-out.

    22. DS

      Oh, that's right, we were at the White House Christmas party. I think they do, like, 25 of these.

    23. TC

      Yeah, literally.

    24. DS

      Literally, 'cause they got so many thousands of people, but they can only fit a couple hundred people in the White House, and they're doing, like, two a day. And the president comes down and gives a speech, and every speech is different. You know, it's like a Dave Chappelle comedy routine where he never does-

    25. TC

      (laughs)

    26. CP

      (laughs)

    27. DS

      ... the same set. And he does it with so much enthusiasm and gusto, you would think that you were the only, you know-

    28. TC

      Yes.

    29. DS

      ... holiday party crowd-

    30. CP

      He was the only party. Yeah.

  2. 4:11 – 25:40

    Paramount and Netflix's bidding war over Warner Bros Discovery

    1. DS

    2. TC

      No.

    3. JC

      All right, topic number one, Paramount versus Netflix. They're in a bidding war over the future of Warner Brothers and all that amazing IP. The assets, obviously, many of us know Warner Brothers is led by Zaslav, David Zaslav, but he owns currently HBO, DC, and the Warner Brothers collections of films. Also, they have that great studio lot. On the cable side, they own CNN, TNT, Discovery, and, uh, they just saddled that company up with $30 billion of debt, and they had a little bit of a competition for who would buy it, Netflix and Paramount Skydance, run by the Ellison family. Netflix offered $83 billion to purchase just the streaming assets, which would put the number one and the number three player together, and WBD publicly accepted Netflix offer last Friday. This has created a bit of a kerfluffle. Paramount now is coming in with a hostile offer, $108 billion in cash for the entire company. That includes the cable assets. That would be interesting because then David Ellison, son of Larry Ellison, would own not just CBS, which is being run, CBS News, by your favorite Tucker Carlson, uh, Bari Weiss. She would also, I guess, own, uh, and run CNN in this instance, potentially. (laughs)

    4. CP

      (laughs)

    5. JC

      We'll get to that. Uh, the $108 billion offer includes two vehicles, $41 billion in equity financing by the Ellison family, and then a bunch of other folks coming in, including, and we'll get to this, uh, some Middle East, uh, sovereign wealth funds. Polymarket, interestingly, has Paramount as the favorite at 51%, and Netflix has dropped to 36%, even though they say, uh, they have a done deal and-... 14% chance of no deal. I think that might be the free money, the 14% chance of no deal. What's your take on this, Tucker? And just broadly speaking, consolidation in media having pulled the rip cord and left traditional media, and now, yeah, the understanding is you're doing better than ever. You control your destiny, and I think you're making probably as much or more money now than you did when you were working for the man.

    6. TC

      Yeah. I, uh, I actually haven't checked, but I'm not much of a money guy. But I'm fi- I'm fine. I can pay my non-existent mortgage. I'm against monopoly power in general 'cause I think it stifles creativity. I'm not that worried about this because these, uh, you know, these things never move in exactly the direction you imagine. I've been in media my entire life, and none of the big changes I anticipated, in fact, almost all of them I made fun of. I just don't think that we're really threatened by y- y- you know, a conglomerate of CNN and Netflix. And also it's like, okay, you can assemble huge companies. Can you make people consume and believe the product? You know, buying CBS News is like buying RCA Records or something. It, like, just doesn't have any effect, and only people who are not paying attention or pretty cut off think that you're gonna win hearts and minds by being, buying CBS News or CNN. These are, these brands are husks. In fact, all they are is brands at this point, and I just am not at all convinced that this will have a material effect on anyone's attitudes at all. You know, if you started to mess with what YouTube is allowed to air or the ownership of X, you know, then I think you could, could really change the country and the conversations that we're allowed to have. But I don't see any of this as especially meaningful on the society. I mean, is the, is the product gonna get, I don't, I don't know, more subversive (laughs) than it, than it already is? (laughs) I mean, it's just, like Netflix gonna be worse for American society? Probably not. You know, I think this is a business story, not a cultural story.

    7. JC

      Chamath, your thoughts?

    8. DF

      I'll give you two. The first is that whenever you see deals, it's important to look at the amount of money that, that is at risk, and that is the best tell about whether this is important for the future or not. Hundred billion dollar deals are typically about things in the past. What is the future? Billion dollar deals. So for example, when you look at when Facebook bought Instagram for a billion dollars, that turned out to be a huge bet about the future. It was right. When Google bought YouTube for a billion six, that was a huge bet on the future. They were right. When Microsoft invested a billion dollars in OpenAI, that was a huge bet on the future. It was right. But when you look at assets that trade at hundred billion dollar plus valuations, they're so undergirded by debt. All of that debt is only ever bought by looking at the past, meaning how much money have they made, and then it's a best guess about how much money could they make in the future. So these multi-hundred billion dollar assets, to Tucker's point, they don't really matter that much. I don't think it's super anti-competitive. These are financial transactions. The reality in media, so specifically about this deal, so that's a general statement about deal quantum, and you can just judge the importance based on that. People should be spending much more time looking at billion dollar transactions than hundred billion dollar done transactions. That's my takeaway there. But at the very specific thing about this deal, the reality is that the future is unscripted, uncontrolled, user-generated content. You see it on YouTube. It is already the 800-pound gorilla in this space. And then separately, it's now becoming about shorter form video, and you see that with things like Instagram Reels and TikTok. None of that landscape will change based on this deal. If anything, if those trends accelerate, the value of historic IP is going to erode even faster, meaning this generation of kids will have no idea or care about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, about Star Wars, and that may upset those of us who are nostalgically tied to it. So I don't know. I would let the deal happen. I don't think it's particularly that important.

    9. JC

      Sachs, obviously you don't speak for the administration on these issues, but I'm curious to your thoughts on this.

    10. DS

      Yeah, just my personal view on this is that we're gonna get meaningful consolidation in the industry either way because either Netflix and Warners are gonna merge or Paramount and Warners are gonna merge. So either way, you're gonna get consolidation. But that being said, if Netflix is allowed to buy Warners, the antitrust concerns are a lot more serious because Netflix really is the 800-pound gorilla in Hollywood right now. It's the number one streamer by far. It's got the biggest market cap, and they're the party who the rest of Hollywood is freaked out about right now. And so you saw that the Hollywood unions, like the WGA, SAG, they opposed the deal 'cause they're fearing job cuts, lower wages, worsened conditions due to reduced demand for talent, and then the, the content creators and distributors are worried about this too because Netflix is known for making tougher deals, I think, than the traditional studios. I've got a friend who's a showrunner in Hollywood, and he's done projects with both Netflix and with the studios, traditional studios, and he says the big difference is Netflix will pay you pretty well, but you don't get any equity in your show. Like, whatever you get is sort of agreed to at the beginning, and that's it. So you're not really an entrepreneur when you do a show for them. But when you then work for a studio, you actually get a backend. Now, there's all sorts of, you know, Hollywood accounting associated with that, but he kind of misses the days that are going away where he got to be a little bit of an entrepreneur and have real upside in his shows. And if Netflix now is allowed to acquire Warner Brothers, then that's just another nail in, in that whole coffin. And so I think it is a big change, and if the antitrust regulators look at this, I do think that Paramount has a better chance. The other big factor is just that...Paramount's offering more. They upped the-

    11. DF

      Hm.

    12. DS

      ... bid. It's 108 billion versus around 80, uh, or it was like $30 a share versus 27. And they're also buying the whole company, whereas Netflix just wants Warner's-

    13. DF

      Yeah.

    14. DS

      ... studio assets and streaming assets like HBO, as opposed to the cable assets, which are considered a little bit of a (beep) hole. So, I think if you're a shareholder in Warners, you probably wanna sell the whole thing. You don't wanna just be stuck with the bad assets. So-

    15. DF

      Yeah.

    16. DS

      ... I'm a little surprised actually that the Warners board went with Netflix when they had Paramount as an option, assuming this Paramount offer was on the table, because it seems like a better deal, and it's probably a little bit more likely to get through the regulators. So, I guess I'm a little bit surprised they chose Netflix. But I guess Netflix is, the more bonafide party, right? It's $400 billion market cap, and maybe they thought that they're more able to execute this transaction.

    17. DF

      Yeah. I have only three points on this. Number one, it really depends on how you frame competitors in this space. Here's your paid streaming platforms, Netflix, Disney, and HBO. Disney's done an amazing job after starting a decade after Netflix with streaming of really getting a lot of subscribers. And consolidating one and three here, obviously, puts Disney way behind. But if you start looking at TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, these properties have the majority of the audience. They dwarf the audience of these paid services. And young people are not interested in movies anymore. They want, obviously, TikToks and YouTube. If you look at the revenue, it's a slightly different-

    18. DS

      D- Can I just ask you a question about that chart before you move on?

    19. DF

      Yeah.

    20. DS

      Just how do you compare or do you adjust for time watched or minutes? Because how do you-

    21. DF

      I, I didn't in this, um, but-

    22. DS

      Yeah.

    23. DF

      ... yeah, that would, that would be-

    24. DS

      'Cause the big difference between watching a TikTok and watching, you know, a movie-

    25. DF

      Yeah.

    26. DS

      ... on Netflix in terms of attention span.

    27. DF

      Nobody watches movies.

    28. DS

      I mean, I'm not disagreeing with you about the... Look, there's no question-

    29. DF

      Nobody watches movies.

    30. DS

      ... the cultural significance has moved away from Hollywood towards user-generated content on these online platforms. But I'm just curious if you adjusted for that.

  3. 25:40 – 49:13

    What's behind the rise of Nick Fuentes and America First?

    1. JC

      All right, speaking of successful (laughs) and taking over the dialogue, we gotta talk about Nick Fuentes, who you just had on your podcast, Tucker. You platformed him. I'm being facetious here-

    2. TC

      (laughs) I platformed him.

    3. JC

      ... you platformed him.

    4. TC

      I created him.

    5. JC

      Basically. It was an interesting discussion. For those of you who don't know Nick Fuentes and have been living under a rock, he's a 27-year-old white nationalist with a very popular show on Rumble, about 500,000 subscribers, which isn't actually that big when you think about it. His followers call themselves Groypers, and he's gained hundreds of thousands over the past six months. He's on quite a heater, and, uh, he's got a bunch of controversial opinions. I'll just give you the quotes. This has nothing to do with my opinion on him. He was asked by Piers Morgan if he described himself as a racist, and he said, "Totally. I think everybody, if we're being honest, is racist. The only people that aren't racist, or pretend not to be, are white people to their detriment." On women, Piers asked Nick if he was gay. Nick said, "No, but I will say women are very difficult to be around." Piers, uh, then asked, "And do you think they should have the right to vote?" Nick said, "I do not. Absolutely not." On Israel, Fuentes is very critical and what he calls organized jewelry in America. So now you interviewed him. Couple of different ways to take this, but you did a good job of telling his origin story. He was part of PragerU, he's got this really activated base. Why is he resonating at this moment in time? And maybe you could explain to the audience MAGA versus America First, America Only, which I think you're part of America First, but you, you, you tell us 'cause I, I think these are just terms right now. They're not like political parties or anything.

    6. TC

      Well, there's a struggle over what those terms mean. It's very ugly and probably necessary 'cause you need to define terms. Like that's the first thing you do, I would say, when you think through what you should be doing with your life, for example. So, um, as for Fuentes, his origin story is a little more precise, and I'll keep it short, but he tweeted something as a freshman at BU critical of, pretty mildly critical of the Congress for doing the bidding of this foreign country, Israel. And somehow Ben Shapiro saw that and attacked him and tried to get him kicked out of his Republican club and made sure he didn't get an internship with some conservative organization. And I'm not attacking Ben Shapiro, but that kind of tells you what attempts to shut people down, to shut conversations down result in. They don't go away, they just fester in the darkness and they can sometimes become really ugly. So what Fuentes is among other... Well, first of all, Fuentes is saying a lot of true things, that's why he's popular. He's funny, uh, he's smart, but-

    7. JC

      He's a good broadcaster.

    8. TC

      ... really-

    9. JC

      Yeah.

    10. TC

      He's a great broadcaster, but-

    11. JC

      Yeah.

    12. TC

      ... Fuentes on some macro level is troubling because he... his platform is an expression of something that has kind of taken over all political discourse, which is identity politics, tribalism. And I'm just opposed to that, I... period, and always will be. And I, I just think that we're governed by universal principles or we're governed by the mafia. Those are our choices. And so you... you know, uh, the... our principles have to apply to every human being or certainly every American citizen, period, or they're not principles. Um, they're just a justification, uh, for tyranny. So Fuentes, you know, has a different kind of identity politics, but there are all kinds of different identity politics. We, we lived under it during the Biden years. We've lived under it most of my life, actually, in one form or another. And so if anything, Fuentes reminds us that we have to come up with some kind of principle that every American can ascribe to, something called national identity that is not a dirty phrase that's actually necessary to keep the country from disintegrating, which it is. So like what does every American, all 350 million have in common with every other? And that's the conversation we need to have. And in its absence, then we get a lot of people popping up and being like, "Well, all white people over here and all Black people or Jewish people or whatever." That's not gonna work. That will end in violence. Everyone knows that. And so now is probably a pretty good time to figure out what we all have in common. I didn't platform him. I int- first of all, platform is not a verb. And anyone who says it is a verb-

    13. JC

      (laughs)

    14. TC

      ... is probably opposed to my core interests, I would say, and bad language.

    15. JC

      You had a conversation with him.

    16. TC

      Yeah, I interviewed him like I interview everybody-

    17. JC

      Yeah.

    18. TC

      ... you know, and my general belief is you should let people say what they think and others can decide whether they mean it or not, whether they're being false or sincere and, and what they think of what the person is saying. But that's, that's my job. I'm not ashamed of it, despite a lot of efforts to make me ashamed of it.... I do disagree with Fuentes on the question of universal principles. I think it's immor- well, first of all, it's against my religion to hate any group, and I told him that. But I didn't do a lot of other posturing designed to make me seem like, you know, the good person. Piers, unfortunately, fell into that trap as an older man. You know, sc- well, "Isn't it? You are bad!" And it's like, okay, I don't even disagree with some of that, but you don't elevate yourself. You look like an out of touch buffoon, and that's exactly the trap that was awaiting Piers Morgan. And if you watch that interview, and if you watch the reaction to it, that did not diminish Nick Fuentes in any way. It enhanced Nick Fuentes. What diminishes Nick Fuentes is asking him straightforward questions, particularly about women. Not, "Have you had sex with anybody?" But, like, "Why are you so mad at women?"

    19. DF

      Mm-hmm.

    20. TC

      And that... You know, letting people talk a lot reveals who they are. That's just true. Sorry.

    21. DF

      If you were to s- give the top two or three reasons why he's resonating with, it seems like, young men, and this Amer- this burgeoning American First movement, which I guess would be good for you to define right now as best you can, uh, y- recognizing you're not the leader of it. But you have said, I think, uh, you... This, uh, concept is, you know, uh, resonates with you. So maybe why is Tu- what, why is Fuentes resonating, and what is America First versus MAGA like, wh- explain that to the audience.

    22. TC

      Well, just in, in reverse order, I mean, I would argue that the, the premise of MAGA is America First, but I wouldn't say that America First is a movement. I would say it's the only legitimate reason to run a government, and it's very simple. The, the government of your democratic republic ought to act in broad terms on behalf of its own citizens. I mean, it's, it's not more complicated than that. There's nothing sinister about it. In fact, anything other than that is sinister, because it's illegitimate. For what other reason would you run a, a democratic republic?

    23. DF

      Ten treasonous.

    24. TC

      The- there isn't one, actually. So, of course, this has to be in America. You can think of a new name for it, if that name makes you uncomfortable, but the idea has to be the reason we have a government, or else we have to get rid of the government, because there's no other justification for having a government. Okay, so A. B, why is he popular? 'Cause he says that. But I would say more broadly, because he's defiant. There's a kind of, "Up yours, buddy. I can't say that? Okay, watch this, I will." He's hilarious. He seems steadfast and strong. I, I don't think he i-... He's not even married, so, like-

    25. DF

      Hm.

    26. TC

      ... if you're afraid of girls, I think you're a wuss. That's my personal view, but there is a... But in his defiance, people see something really appealing. Why wouldn't they?

    27. DF

      Hm.

    28. TC

      You know, in a... These are kids who've grown up in a world of hectoring and telling them they're bad, because of how they were born, and Nick Fuentes is just raising the middle finger to the people saying that and saying, "Up yours." And who wouldn't love that? Of course people love that.

    29. DF

      The s-

    30. TC

      Duh.

  4. 49:13 – 1:37:05

    Understanding the Anti-AI sentiment

    1. TC

      it.

    2. DF

      I have an AI question for Tucker. I'm increasingly surprised by the number of people on the right who I would describe as ardent free market, low regulation to no regulation folks, who are very anti-AI. And I'm just curious, where do you think that comes from, and what do you think?

    3. TC

      It comes from, so far as I can tell, the perception that the risks outweigh the benefits. So, the risk would include, you know, massive job loss, chaos, where nobody sort of knows if anything is real and the fabric of reality itself begins to tear. You know, of- of course, (laughs) the massive energy draw and the huge and expensive infrastructure changes that will require the disruption that will inevitably cause... So, like, the downsides are super obvious, not even to mention the potential this gets g- completely away from us and eats us or something, okay? As weighed against the potential benefits, which are what? And I- I don't doubt that there are some, you know, coming to faster, you know, diagnostic conclusions and medicine, you know, or- organ- you know, getting rid of tedious tasks that no one wants to do, elimination of clerical work, et cetera. I guess those are upsides. But I- it's disproportionate. The- in the view of most people, I think, who aren't experts in this, not daily involved in it, the risks far outweigh not just the upsides, but the announced upsides. So typically, when we roll out a new product, we tell the people we hope to buy it, like, "This is gonna be amazing. It's gonna blow you away. Everything about your life will be better once you get the iPhone 27," or whatever. There's been none of that with AI. Like, none. The announcement has been, "Holy (beep) , this is gonna change everything." Stop. How exactly? "Well, it just is." Uh, I mean, I- I don't know, who's in charge of the marketing for this? (laughs)

    4. GR

      (laughs) I don't know, me?

    5. JC

      Seriously?

    6. DF

      Sam Altman.

    7. GR

      (laughs)

    8. TC

      Sam Altman and David Sacks, go.

    9. JC

      Uh, David, I think this, uh, is a good-

    10. DF

      Okay, hold on. Can I just, can I just follow up on this?

    11. TC

      Sure.

    12. DF

      Okay, so Tucker, here's just a thought exercise, and just tell me how this factors into that opinion, if it should at all. So, let's say in a world, in 10 years, where you have these super intelligent computers and systems and models, okay? In my thinking, what that does is it reorders the geopolitics of all countries in the world where you're in one of three buckets. In bucket number one, you're an exporter of that intelligence, and I think right now, steady state, it's gonna be China and America, right? China will have one version of exported intelligence, and we will have one version of exported intelligence. Then there'll be these strategic partner countries, of which I suspect there's less than 10, who are the enablers, the facilitators, they have specialized skills that wrap either the Chinese version or the American version, with energy, with money, with knowhow, et cetera. And then I think there's everybody else, and it almost creates this thing where if you are an importer of intelligence in the future, you theoretically are at risk of becoming essentially a vassal state. And so, if you think about it at that level, isn't AI something that is almost existential that we must win?

    13. TC

      I mean, for sure. I mean, at- at that level, for sure, and I would just point out that, like, almost every single state in the world is already a vassal state, so like, no change there. But, uh, yeah, I mean, you don't wanna be on the wrong side of it, that's clear. Is it containable to nation states? Uh, that's not clear, to be honest, to me at all. But whatever, I get the argument. I'm just saying, at the consumer level, no one has explained why we should be excited about this. And if I, you know, I'm a gold buyer, an ammo buyer, and freeze-dried food buyer, as I already told you, so it doesn't kind of affect me as an investment matter. But like just, I- I think it would be... So, I- I don't have a... kind of any reason to say this.

    14. DF

      Yeah, the div- you're saying the dividend of AI is not clear? Like, it's like, the positive-

    15. TC

      To the average person-

    16. DF

      To the average person.

    17. JC

      You are 100% correct, Tucker, on this. We have done a terrible job as an industry communicating this-

    18. TC

      But what's the answer?

    19. JC

      ... but the answer is-

    20. TC

      What's the answer, like how is this great for me?

    21. JC

      ... I can totally give you the answer. It- it'll-

    22. TC

      Yeah.

    23. JC

      ... wind up being great for you because the prices of goods and services will get much lower, you'll live much longer, and I, listen, I'm not saying this is mine, but this is what the industry should be saying. The price of education is gonna go down 80 or 90%. You're gonna have customized, adaptable education versus, you know, paying for $50,000 a year degrees. You're gonna be able to learn anything in half the time at 90% less. All of these deliveries coming to your home are gonna be delivered at half the price twice as fast because it's gonna be in a drone or it's gonna be in a self-driving car. And we're gonna make breakthroughs in healthcare that will reduce suffering, and you will not die of cancer, you're gonna live to 120. We will have job displacement, but we believe the lower cost of living and the greater services that are gonna be available to you in healthcare and education will make up for that. And if it doesn't, we're gonna put in ways to pace out the job displacement. In China, they're doing this. In China, they're proposing, and Sachs and President Trump, the amazing President Trump, will be doing an AI national edict soon, I believe, or an executive order. But in China, in Wuhan paradoxically, they are talking about giving out licenses to self-driving cars-... in a paced rollout so that young men don't lose their jobs en masse, which is what we're about to see in America. And if we don't take this into account, and the great czar will speak in a moment, that's when this will become, I think, the worst nightmare that you're talking about, the dystopian version of this. We need to figure out healthcare, homes, and education, and make those free, close to free, and do a Manhattan Project on creating 10 new cities with 10 million new homes and free healthcare for everybody and free education for trade schools, et cetera. That's what solves the problem. That's what nobody's doing. Sax, your chance to jump in here.

    24. DS

      Well, there's a lot of things going on here. But I think one of them is that humans are really attracted to either utopian or dystopian narratives. I think liberals are probably more attracted to utopian narratives, and conservatives are attracted to dystopian ones. And I think the future is gonna be more in the messy middle. I don't think it's gonna be to either one of those extremes. And I agree that the industry has not done a good job. They've created a lot of fear. The whole AGI narrative didn't help, because you had a lot of people in the industry saying, "We're gonna get to AGI in two or three years." Those timeframes have all been pushed back, by the way.

    25. DF

      Or eliminated. You don't even hear that term anymore.

    26. DS

      Or eliminated. People were saying a few years ago that we'd have AGI by now. Now, no one is saying that. They're basically pushing it back 10 years plus.

    27. DF

      And by the way, that... just on that, that was exactly a function of the immaturity of our industry. So, to what Tucker said, it is true.

    28. DS

      Well, it's the utopian mindset, right?

    29. DF

      Yeah.

    30. DS

      What they saw as utopian, I think a lot of people reacted and said, "Wait a second, that sounds pretty dystopian to me."

Episode duration: 1:38:30

Install uListen for AI-powered chat & search across the full episode — Get Full Transcript

Transcript of episode cY5UFw2AIZo

Get more out of YouTube videos.

High quality summaries for YouTube videos. Accurate transcripts to search & find moments. Powered by ChatGPT & Claude AI.

Add to Chrome