John: I'm fine with a backstop, and I wouldn't change anything about the way the government works. And I'm serious about that. I'm not joking. Because I think the alternative is actually worse. I think the alternative, if you go back to 2008 and you say, okay, let's not bail out the banks, I think you just extend the recession. Jordi: Yeah, but if in 2005, the banks were saying, and various players were saying, 'We're going to do a bunch of super risky lending that we're not sure is going to pencil out, and we just want to know that if things get really bad, you'll be there to bail us out, but we're going to make a ton of money in the process.' How would you feel about that? John: There is the problem of it. So my conclusion is, America has a playbook for backstops. I don't think Sarah Friar or anyone at OpenAI is asking to rewrite the playbook, but there's something that feels very moral hazard-y about the CFO of the most important company at the center of a massive economic wave sort of telling everyone how the magic trick works. Why people are latching onto this? I think it's not so much the idea that if there's an economic boom and bust cycle, the government steps in at some point. That's not that big of a problem. But it is a problem if you say, 'I'm openly acknowledging the way the system works and I'm gonna push it to the limit.' That's a little rough.