David Sacks

Morgan Stanley has again raised its capex forecasts for the five hyperscalers Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, and Oracle. It now expects them to spend about $805bn this year, up from a previous estimate of $765bn. For next year, the forecast has been lifted from $951bn to $1.1TRILLION. To put that into perspective, their 2026 spending alone would be roughly equal to what all non-tech companies in the S&P 500 spent combined in 2025. The expected ~$800bn for 2026 is nearly double 2025 levels and about three times what was spent in 2024.

Narrative violation and great insight from the latest Citadel Securities banger by Frank Flight: "We illustrated back in February that demand for software engineers, the most AI exposed occupation was accelerating higher, which we argued violates the displacement narrative. Indeed the acceleration in software job postings has continued, now up 18% from the inflection point in May last year."

/2 Anthropic, the architect of Claude AI, has publicly committed to “mitigat[ing] extremist content risks.” Our research shows that Anthroic’s approach appears to rely heavily on organizations run, funded, or influenced by key players tied to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

It’s time to demystify Mythos. Mythos is not magic. It’s not a doomsday device. It’s the first of many models that can automate cyber tasks (just like coding). OpenAI’s GPT-5.5-cyber can now do the same. And all the frontier models (including those from China) will be there within approximately 6 months. It’s important to recognize that these models do not create vulnerabilities; they discover them. The bugs are already in the code. Using AI to discover and patch them will actually harden these systems. The leap from pre-AI cyber to post-AI cyber means that there will be a big upgrade cycle. After that, however, the market is likely to reach a new equilibrium between AI-powered cyber-offense and AI-powered cyber-defense. Obviously it’s important that cyber defenders get access before cyber attackers. That process is already underway but needs to happen quickly (see point above about Chinese models). Unlike Mythos, GPT-5.5-cyber appears not to be token constrained so it may be the first cyber model that defenders actually get to use.

OpenAI’s GPT-5.5 is the second model to complete one of our multi-step cyber-attack simulations end-to-end 🧵

🚨BREAKING: I found Cole Allen's archived tweets. He predicted "Kamala wins all swing states," compared Trump's win to “Nazis getting elected,” and moved to Bluesky. The scary part: he retweeted every mainstream Democrat on this platform. Thread below. 👇 What radicalized him were the same talking points repeated every day on the left.

Every new car in the U.S. will be required by law to have tech that puts constant surveillance on the driver by 2027. AI in your car will determine if you're sober and fit to drive, automatically turning off the vehicle if it determines you're a danger on the road.

No, the April 17 Atlantic article by Sarah Fitzpatrick on Kash Patel makes no mention of owner Laurene Powell Jobs, Emerson Collective's years of anonymous SPLC funding (which she confirmed in the 2019 a16z podcast), or her major Democratic donations. No conflict-of-interest disclosure appears.

David Sacks: Nonprofits need to manufacture problems in America to stay in business David Sacks: “Here's the systemic problem with nonprofits and NGOs. Let me just contrast it with business. In business, you set up a company, the company has to make revenue, it has to make profits. And if it doesn't, it's going to go out of business, right? Because it'll lose money. So there's a feedback mechanism from the market. With an NGO, nonprofit, what have you, they raise money. They don't sell things. They fundraise from donors in order to engage in an activity, but what happens over time is the actual activities may stop mattering, and all that really matters is they're able to keep fundraising, right? Because they're just trying to figure out a justification to keep going back to donors to get more and more money out of them. That's what perpetuates the organization.” Chamath: “ Why wouldn't the Southern Poverty Law Center focus on southern poverty? Which is an issue that actually still exists in some shape or form. Why do you call it one thing, focus on racism, and then all of a sudden whip up fake racism?” Sacks: “I do think that at one time in this country, civil rights was a noble cause, a very legitimate cause. We had the legacy of segregation and Jim Crow, and there were groups that were set up to basically change that, and they succeeded. But again, no one in an NGO or a nonprofit ever declares victory. When Obama got elected in 2008, regardless of whether you liked Obama or not, or agreed with his politics, I thought that at that point, most people could see that this was not a racist country. Whatever else you could say, the fact that the highest office in the land was not denied to anybody showed that this country was not holding people back based on their skin color. And instead of just basically packing up shop and saying, ‘Okay, we've achieved our goal,’ the goalposts all got moved. Remember, that's when the whole anti-racism thing started, was around Obama's second term. If they just said at that time, ‘You know what, we're going to move the goalposts from equality of opportunity to equality of results. We're going to basically make everyone equal at the finish line,’ which is to say, identity socialism. People would've said, ‘Eh, no, we're not on board for that.’ So instead, they created this whole new terminology to justify it. And it's taken us years to unpack that and realize what's really going on.”