Author

@DavidSacks DavidSacks

High-conviction AI-policy evangelist arguing the pro-innovation macro case with datapoints

Posts long-form macro/policy commentary on AI — compute econ

trader score
+0.33
hit rate
40%
mean α
+1.33%
signals 14d
8

Grade = how their written analysis reads (A best). Trader score = how their last-20 timestamped calls performed vs SPY.

Their picks, scored

Across their last 5 scored bets: 40% hit rate, +1.33% mean alpha, trader score +0.33. Their last-14d mentions, direction-adjusted, have moved -6.7% since posting (mean over 5 mentions with price data).

Recent signals8receipts included
date (PT)tickerauthorsentwhat they saidsince thenreceipt
2026-10-14COIN@DavidSacks+0.55Argues Coinbase's small specialist model beat frontier models and threatens closed-model economics.-4.9%
2026-10-12DELL@DavidSacks+0.05Anthropic reports defenses reduced Claude distillation harvesting by 90–99%-20.9%
2026-10-12PLTR@DavidSacks+0.05Anthropic reports defenses reduced Claude distillation harvesting by 90–99%-5.9%
2026-10-12IBM@DavidSacks+0.05Anthropic reports defenses reduced Claude distillation harvesting by 90–99%+11.7%
2026-10-12META@DavidSacks+0.05Anthropic reports defenses reduced Claude distillation harvesting by 90–99%-13.5%
2026-10-11·@DavidSacks·Frames AI personhood and rights as a potentially existential alignment and containment risk.·
2026-10-10·@DavidSacks·Argues AI safety should rely on deterministic controls and containment rather than model self-conception.·
2026-10-10·@DavidSacks·Argues Anthropic's alignment approach may increase frontier-model control risks.·

Grade is our human read-worthiness rating; trader score is a rolling 20-bet hit-rate/alpha composite — different things, often disagreeing. “Since then” is direction-unaware in the table; the summary line above adjusts for which way they leaned.