Scarlett Johansson vs OpenAI, Nvidia's trillion-dollar problem, the "vibecession," plastic in our balls

Available reporting shows that the Scarlett Johansson–OpenAI dispute over the ChatGPT "Sky" voice ended with OpenAI taking down the voice and issuing explanations/apologies, not with any transfer of ownership or equity to Johansson. Articles describing the incident through 2024–2025 say she hired lawyers, sent letters, and that OpenAI "reluctantly agreed" to remove Sky, but explicitly note she has not filed a lawsuit and mention no settlement involving equity or economic participation in OpenAI.(cnbc.com)

On Sam Altman’s side, OpenAI’s unusual structure and later restructuring into a public benefit corporation have been heavily covered. Reuters’ report on the October 2025 restructuring states that Microsoft holds 27% and the OpenAI Foundation 26%, and that Altman will not receive equity in the restructured company.(reuters.com) Business Insider (October 2025) further notes that although a 7% stake for Altman was at one point discussed, it "has not materialized" and he still has no direct equity in OpenAI.(businessinsider.com) TechCrunch and related coverage clarify that any exposure he had was a negligible indirect interest via venture funds (YC/Sequoia), not a personal direct ownership stake in OpenAI, and that even that exposure has been reduced or sold.(techcrunch.com)

Crucially, across major business and technology outlets and detailed discussions of OpenAI’s cap table and governance, there is no indication at all that Scarlett Johansson has any equity or economic ownership stake in OpenAI, let alone one granted as part of a legal settlement. Profiles and later pieces that revisit the controversy simply say she forced OpenAI to withdraw the Sky voice; none mention her as an investor or shareholder.(nypost.com)

Given that (1) Johansson appears to have 0% ownership, with no reported equity or profit participation arising from the dispute, and (2) Altman has no direct equity stake in OpenAI and only ever had at most a tiny, indirect fund exposure, Johansson does not "end up owning more of this company than Sam Altman" in any meaningful, reported sense. At best, both have zero direct equity; zero is not greater than zero. Therefore, on the evidence available by November 30, 2025, Sacks’s prediction is wrong.

The prediction’s time window is 5–10 years from May 2024, i.e., roughly May 2029–May 2034. As of the current date (November 30, 2025), only about 1.5 years have passed, so it’s too early to know whether OpenAI will ultimately resemble a U.S. “three‑letter” agency more than a Google‑style open campus.

There is evidence that OpenAI has recently moved toward a more classified‑style security posture:

• Multiple reports describe OpenAI overhauling security after concerns about foreign espionage and alleged model copying by the Chinese startup DeepSeek, including stricter controls on sensitive information, enhanced staff vetting, and isolated computing environments. (ft.com)
• OpenAI has implemented “information tenting”, where access to projects is compartmentalized and employees must verify whether colleagues are “in the tent” before discussing work, which is reminiscent of need‑to‑know compartmentalization used in intelligence agencies. (ft.com)
• The company reportedly now uses biometric access controls (e.g., fingerprint scans) for certain areas, keeps key systems offline/air‑gapped, and applies a deny‑by‑default policy for internet connections—again, measures commonly associated with high‑security government environments. (allaboutai.com)
• OpenAI has also hired a CISO from Palantir and added retired U.S. Army General (and former NSA director) Paul Nakasone to its board to advise on cybersecurity and defenses, further signaling a shift toward national‑security‑style governance. (ft.com)

These developments are directionally consistent with Chamath’s claim that OpenAI would evolve to look more like a three‑letter agency in terms of security and protocols. However, the prediction is explicitly about OpenAI’s state 5–10 years out, not about short‑term movement in that direction. Culture, governance, and security posture could still change significantly before 2029–2034.

Because the deadline has not yet arrived and there is no definitive evidence about OpenAI’s eventual resemblance to an intelligence agency versus a Googleplex‑style campus, the correct verdict as of now is “inconclusive (too early)”, though early trends mildly support the prediction.

As of November 30, 2025, the Scarlett Johansson vs. OpenAI dispute over the ChatGPT “Sky” voice has not been litigated to a substantive court outcome, nor has it produced specific legislation clearly traceable to a Johansson–OpenAI case.

What has happened:

• In May 2024 Johansson publicly accused OpenAI of using a voice “eerily similar” to hers, said she had hired legal counsel, and that her lawyers sent letters to Sam Altman and OpenAI demanding details on how the Sky voice was created. OpenAI then paused/removed the Sky voice and apologized, while denying that it was intended to imitate her. (cnbc.com)
• Multiple later reports explicitly note that Johansson has not filed a lawsuit against OpenAI; her action has remained at the demand‑letter/PR‑pressure stage rather than becoming a docketed case (e.g., no “Johansson v. OpenAI” in reported litigation). (techtimes.com)
• AI‑related fair‑use and likeness law has evolved since 2024, but via other cases and policy moves (e.g., Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta on fair use for AI training; proposed or enacted likeness/AI‑disclosure legislation in the U.S. and U.K.), none of which arise from a litigated Johansson–OpenAI lawsuit. Some of these decisions are actually relatively favorable to AI firms on fair use for training data. (apnews.com)

The prediction, as normalized, was conditional: if the Johansson–OpenAI dispute were litigated to a substantive outcome, it would produce more restrictive, unfavorable fair‑use standards for AI/content companies. Because that antecedent (“is litigated to a substantive legal outcome”) has not occurred yet, we have no way to observe whether the predicted consequence about bad precedents would have followed.

It is also still possible (though increasingly less likely with time) that Johansson could file suit in the future, which might then influence precedent or legislation. Until such a case actually exists and is resolved, the prediction cannot be definitively scored as right or wrong.

Given that the key triggering event has not happened, the correct classification is inconclusive rather than right or wrong.

Available reporting through late 2025 shows no evidence that the Scarlett Johansson–OpenAI "Sky" voice dispute ever became a filed lawsuit or ended in an out‑of‑court settlement.

Instead, Johansson hired legal counsel, sent two letters to Sam Altman and OpenAI demanding details on how the Sky voice was created, and OpenAI then "reluctantly agreed" to take down the Sky voice and apologized publicly. News coverage at the time and since describes this sequence—letters followed by OpenAI pausing/removing the voice—but does not report any settlement agreement.(fortune.com) Legal and policy analyses from TechTimes and the American Bar Association in late 2024 explicitly note that Johansson had not filed a lawsuit and speak only in hypothetical terms about what would happen "if the actress decides to sue OpenAI."(techtimes.com) A Georgetown Law explainer likewise frames the dispute as a potential right‑of‑publicity case, not as an existing one.(georgetown.edu)

Later 2025 profiles and interviews describe Johansson as having taken "legal action" in the sense of threatening action and pushing for legislation, and they emphasize that OpenAI dropped the Sky voice following this pressure, but they still do not mention any lawsuit or settlement being reached.(instyle.com) Nor is there any reported court decision involving Johansson and OpenAI, let alone one that changes U.S. fair‑use precedent; experts consistently describe the main theory here as right of publicity rather than copyright fair use.(americanbar.org)

So while it is true that no new fair‑use case law emerged from this incident, the central part of the prediction—that this specific Johansson vs. OpenAI dispute would be resolved via an out‑of‑court settlement after a case was brought—did not occur. The controversy effectively cooled after OpenAI withdrew the Sky voice under legal threat, with no lawsuit filed and no settlement reported, making the prediction wrong overall.

Evidence since the May 2024 superalignment departures matches the core of Friedberg’s prediction: former OpenAI safety/superalignment staff have been formally questioned by government oversight bodies, and that has produced new public information about OpenAI’s frontier models and safety processes.

Key points:

1. Former superalignment member testified before the U.S. Senate.
   In September 2024, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law held a hearing at which former OpenAI employees testified about AGI risks. One of them, William Saunders, is a former OpenAI researcher who spent three years on the superalignment team before resigning in early 2024 over safety concerns.(techtarget.com) This matches the scenario Friedberg described—government overseers bringing in members of “this team” to ask detailed questions.

2. His testimony revealed previously non‑public internal safety and model details.
   In that Senate hearing, Saunders described:

   • That AGI might be feasible in as little as three years, explicitly tying this to OpenAI’s recent frontier model (GPT‑o1).
   • That OpenAI had not prioritized internal security, and there were extended periods where vulnerabilities allowed employees to bypass access controls and steal its most advanced models, including GPT‑4.
   • That OpenAI had “repeatedly prioritized speed of deployment over rigor,” leaving serious safety gaps.(techtarget.com)
     These details about internal access‑control weaknesses, theft risk for GPT‑4–level systems, and the way safety reviews were traded off against deployment were not part of OpenAI’s prior public messaging; they emerged through sworn testimony in an official oversight setting.

3. Regulatory / oversight pressure also surfaced internal policies that discouraged safety whistleblowing.
   In July 2024, lawyers for a group of OpenAI whistleblowers sent a detailed letter and formal complaint to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleging that OpenAI’s employment, severance, and NDA practices illegally restricted employees from warning regulators about grave safety risks. The letter describes specific contract clauses (waiving federal whistleblower compensation, requiring company permission before talking to regulators, threats of “severe sanctions”) and notes that the SEC has responded to the complaint.(washingtonpost.com) That complaint and the surrounding coverage publicly exposed internal legal and safety‑governance practices that had not been disclosed before—and they exist precisely in the context of regulator oversight.

4. All of this unfolded soon after the May 2024 superalignment resignations, within the 1–2 year window.
   Ilya Sutskever and Jan Leike announced their departures and the effective disbanding of OpenAI’s superalignment team in mid‑May 2024.(ndtv.com) The SEC whistleblower complaint (July 2024) and the Senate testimony by Saunders (September 2024) both occurred within months of those departures and well inside Friedberg’s 1–2 year horizon.

5. Nuance: leaders vs. team members.
   So far, there’s no public record that regulators have formally interviewed Sutskever or Leike themselves in hearings or regulatory reports. The clearest on‑the‑record interactions involve other members of the superalignment/safety ecosystem (e.g., Saunders, plus ex‑OpenAI governance staff like Daniel Kokotajlo in related advocacy and testimony).(openaifiles.org) Still, the spirit of Friedberg’s prediction was that once “this team” left, regulators/oversight would pull them in, ask hard questions about the state of the tech and safety, and “some things are going to start to come out.” That’s exactly what happened with Saunders’ Senate testimony and the SEC‑focused whistleblower actions.

Because government oversight bodies have indeed brought in former OpenAI superalignment/safety staff, and those proceedings have surfaced new, previously non‑public information about OpenAI’s cutting‑edge models and safety/security processes, within the predicted timeframe, the prediction is best classified as right (even if the most visible testimony so far has come from team members rather than the two most senior leaders).

By late 2025, the core claim of the prediction has clearly materialized: venture and growth investors centered in the U.S./Silicon Valley have sharply increased capital allocations to semiconductor and AI‑hardware startups compared with the pre‑2023 period.

Key evidence:

• Large jump in U.S. chip‑startup funding: Crunchbase data shows U.S. semiconductor startups raised nearly $3B in 2024, up from $1.3B in 2023—a 123% increase and the strongest year since the 2021 peak of $3.2B.(ainad.net) That is a substantial reallocation of VC money toward chips, even as overall global semiconductor VC dollars fell.
• AI chips and hardware as a major VC focus: A market summary of AI‑chip funding reports that U.S. chip startups saw nearly $3B in 2024 (again, +123% vs 2023) and notes that semiconductor and AI hardware companies alone took in about $3B across 75 companies in Q4 2024.(quickmarketpitch.com) This is precisely the kind of sustained, broad‑based investment surge Chamath described.
• Multiple very large late‑stage rounds into AI‑chip and infrastructure startups: Examples since 2024 include Groq’s ~$640M Series D, Tenstorrent’s ~$693M Series D, Enfabrica’s $115M Series C, Etched’s $120M Series A, and EnCharge AI’s $100M Series B, all building AI accelerators or related hardware.(quickmarketpitch.com) In 2025, Cerebras Systems raised a $1.1B Series G for its wafer‑scale AI chips, while firms like Rebellions, Rivos, Celestial AI, and Axelera AI each raised rounds in the $200M+ class for next‑gen AI accelerators and photonics‑based chip interconnects.(techstartups.com) These are exactly the kind of big growth‑stage bets that earlier Silicon Valley investors were often reluctant to make in semis.
• Mainstream VC and growth investors leading these deals: Many of the above rounds are led or heavily participated in by major venture and growth investors such as Fidelity, BlackRock, Tiger Global, Spark Capital, and others—classic Silicon Valley and global growth‑equity players now writing large checks into chip and hardware companies.(foundlanes.com) That behavior is consistent with being “pulled into” the space rather than staying software‑only.
• Dedicated capital pools for frontier hardware: Funds like America’s Frontier Fund are raising hundreds of millions of dollars, in part with U.S. government backing, specifically to back frontier technologies including semiconductors and AI hardware, reflecting institutional recognition that this is now a core investment area rather than a niche.(businessinsider.com)

The prediction’s nominal horizon extends to roughly 2027, but its falsifiable content is that, compared with a historically more hesitant stance toward chips and hardware, Silicon Valley venture and growth investors would significantly increase investment in semiconductor and related AI‑infrastructure startups. By 2023–2025 we already observe exactly that: dollar volumes more than doubling in the U.S., a wave of large late‑stage hardware rounds, and top‑tier VCs heavily involved. Later developments may change magnitudes, but they cannot undo the fact that this surge has already occurred. Therefore, the prediction is best classified as right.

It’s too early to decisively judge this prediction, because Chamath’s wording clearly refers to a multi‑year dynamic ("at some point…Nvidia loses share even though revenues keep compounding") and only about 1.5 years have elapsed since the May 24, 2024 episode.

As of late 2025 evidence shows:

• Nvidia still dominates AI compute: Most industry estimates put Nvidia’s share of the data‑center AI accelerator market well above 70%–80%, especially for training large models, with H100/B100 class GPUs remaining the standard in major hyperscalers and AI labs. Competing accelerators (AMD Instinct MI300 series, Google TPUs, AWS Trainium/Inferentia, custom ASICs from startups) are growing, but from a much smaller base, and no clear, sustained loss of overall share by Nvidia is yet established.
• Nvidia’s AI revenue continues to grow sharply: Nvidia’s data‑center segment (dominated by AI GPUs) has reported very large year‑over‑year revenue increases in 2024 and 2025, and the company continues to guide for strong AI‑driven growth going forward.

Because:

1. The prediction’s horizon is “within the next several years,” which has not yet expired.
2. The condition that would falsify it (Nvidia never losing share while revenues compound) cannot yet be checked.
3. Current data does not show a clear, sustained share decline, but it also doesn’t rule out such a decline emerging over the remaining years of the forecast window.

…the correct classification as of November 30, 2025 is “inconclusive (too early)”, not “right” or “wrong.”

Public information since 2023 shows that Nvidia did move beyond just selling GPUs/servers into offering its own large-scale cloud-style compute service for AI, rented directly to customers:

• Nvidia launched DGX Cloud in 2023 as its first cloud service, explicitly designed to rent out GPU servers directly to large enterprises (e.g., SAP, Genentech) for AI development, rather than only selling chips or boxes. (theinformation.com)
• DGX Cloud is marketed by Nvidia as a fully managed AI supercomputing / AI‑training‑as‑a‑service platform that provides enterprises with scalable access to Nvidia DGX infrastructure and NVIDIA AI Enterprise software over the cloud. (nvidia.com)
• The service is hosted on infrastructure in data centers of major cloud providers (AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, Oracle), but it is sold and branded as Nvidia’s own DGX Cloud service; AWS and Nvidia explicitly describe AWS as hosting NVIDIA DGX Cloud, not merely reselling hardware. (techpowerup.com)
• Reporting characterizes this as Nvidia “entering cloud computing” and “muscling into the GPU cloud market”, noting that DGX Cloud competes with established hyperscalers for AI training workloads and has even “rankled” AWS because it gives customers a Nvidia‑run alternative to simply renting GPUs from AWS itself. (theinformation.com)

Caveat: Chamath’s colorful language about Nvidia building its own physical plants isn’t literally how this has played out—Nvidia relies on partner data centers rather than operating a standalone hyperscaler network. But the core prediction that Nvidia would get pulled into directly offering cloud AI compute that competes with the big hyperscalers has clearly come true, and it was in fact already true (via DGX Cloud) by the time of the May 2024 episode, with Nvidia doubling down on that strategy afterward.

Evidence since mid‑2024 shows the beginnings of exactly the trend Friedberg described, both on the demand side (health and chemical concerns about plastics in food) and the supply side (food‑related businesses rolling out low‑/no‑plastic and bioplastic options and marketing them as safer or premium).

1. Rising concern about plastic chemicals in food and explicit focus on phthalates
   Consumer Reports’ widely covered testing found phthalates and bisphenols in nearly all sampled U.S. supermarket foods and fast foods, often at high levels, and highlighted associated health risks, sparking substantial media coverage and consumer guidance on reducing exposure. (food-safety.com) In early 2025, Minnesota introduced bill SF 188 to require packaged‑food manufacturers to test for phthalates and report results, explicitly framing phthalates in food contact materials as a serious health issue. (foodandwine.com) Environmental and public‑health groups also sued the U.S. FDA in 2025 over its refusal to restrict phthalates in plastic food packaging, again centering the chemicals’ reproductive and developmental risks. (theguardian.com) Parallel articles and consultancy pieces describe phthalates in plastic packaging as a major public‑health risk, reinforcing both regulatory and consumer pressure. (condor-consultancy.com) Separately, industry analysis notes a strong shift toward plasticizer‑free and phthalate‑free food wraps, citing surveys where U.S. consumers explicitly seek “non‑toxic” and phthalate‑free food wrap and forecasts of double‑digit growth for plasticizer‑free films through 2025. (ecoartfullife.com) This is exactly the kind of rising attention to “low phthalate” food contact that Friedberg anticipated.

2. Food and packaging companies actively marketing “low/no plastic” and plastic‑free solutions as premium or value‑add
   Major retailers and brands have introduced packaging changes for food products that are explicitly marketed as plastic‑free or low‑plastic. Examples include: Aldi’s Everyday Essentials porridge oats in the UK, relaunched in 2024 with 100% paper, plastic‑free packaging and promoted as part of the chain’s move away from plastic; (trendhunter.com) Sainsbury’s shift to pulp‑paper trays for salmon and trout that cut plastic by ~70%, positioned as reducing reliance on plastic and improving recyclability; (cleanthesky.com) and Stora Enso’s Trayforma BarrPeel board for vacuum‑packed meats and cheese, specifically described as fresh‑food packaging with low plastic content (about 90% fiber) to reduce fossil‑based materials and meet consumer demand for sustainable options. (packaging-journal.de) Packaging suppliers now routinely promote “low‑plastic solutions” for food (e.g., Pyroll’s paper laminates marketed as natural, responsible, and explicitly labeled ‘low‑plastic solutions – smaller carbon footprint’). (pyroll.com) India‑based FMCG major ITC has adopted a three‑pillar “No plastic, Better Plastic, Less Plastic” framework and launched flour and biscuit packs with 100% paper outers and bio‑based coatings, emphasizing biodegradable, fiber‑based packaging for food as an eco‑friendly, premium alternative to conventional plastic laminates. (packagingsouthasia.com) These are concrete examples of food‑industry players “showing up with solutions” and using low‑/no‑plastic packaging as a selling point.

3. Bioplastic and alternative materials in food‑related applications are clearly in a commercial ‘wave’ phase
   Multiple independent market reports show that bioplastic and sustainable plastic packaging are now a fast‑growing, multi‑billion‑dollar segment, with food and beverages as the dominant end use. A global sustainable plastic packaging report values that market at roughly $86.6B in 2024, projecting $122.4B by 2029, explicitly noting widespread use of biodegradable materials like PLA in food containers and flexible packaging. (businesswire.com) Dedicated bioplastic‑packaging studies estimate 2024–2025 market sizes on the order of $10–20B with CAGRs in the mid‑teens to >20%, and consistently report that food and beverages are the leading or fastest‑growing application segment. (grandviewresearch.com) Packaging‑industry coverage notes that a large share of global bioplastics volume (around 40–45%) is used in packaging, much of it for food, as brands react to environmental and regulatory pressures. (knowledge-sourcing.com) On the product side, there are numerous concrete launches: biodegradable PHA‑ and wood‑fiber strawberry punnets intended to replace hundreds of millions of plastic clamshells; (theaustralian.com.au) Papacks’ fully fiber, plastic‑free bottles being commercialized for beverages in North America; (foodnavigator-usa.com) and extensive adoption of compostable cutlery and serviceware in quick‑service chains, with case studies showing large chains replacing plastic utensils with compostable alternatives and seeing higher customer satisfaction. (digitaljournal.com) An industry article on compostable cutlery cites a 2025 Technomic study finding that 81% of consumers are more likely to repurchase from brands using compostable packaging and 62% will pay a premium for visibly eco‑conscious options, confirming that these materials are being positioned as higher‑value, health‑ and environment‑conscious choices rather than commodity plastics. (digitaljournal.com)

4. Explicit marketing around health / “safer than traditional plastics”
   Some food‑related packaging offerings now explicitly emphasize the absence of problematic chemicals as a differentiator, not just environmental benefits. Asia Pulp & Paper’s Foopak Bio Natura food‑service line is marketed in the U.S. as plastic‑free, compostable and recyclable and “free from harmful chemicals found in traditional plastic packaging,” in response to survey data showing 83% of Americans increasingly worried about single‑use plastics’ harms to ecosystems and human health, with 68% willing to pay more for sustainable products. (packworld.com) Consumer‑facing guidance and product round‑ups increasingly highlight plastic‑free, BPA‑free and phthalate‑free food storage and lunch containers as “non‑toxic” or “healthier” options, reflecting and reinforcing the health framing Friedberg anticipated, even if much of this is in food‑adjacent products (wraps, containers, lunch boxes) rather than the food itself. (nakedpantry.co)

5. Magnitude and caveats
   It is still true that bioplastics remain a small fraction of overall plastic volume (on the order of a few million tonnes vs. hundreds of millions of tonnes of fossil‑based plastics worldwide), and most mainstream packaged foods do not yet carry explicit front‑of‑pack labels such as “low phthalate” in the way that “organic” or “non‑GMO” labels exist. (ft.com) But Friedberg’s prediction was about the start of a wave in the mid‑2020s: food companies paying attention to plastic/chemical concerns, positioning low‑/no‑plastic or bioplastic options as premium responses, and a broader commercial push of bioplastic alternatives in food‑related applications. On those terms, the evidence by late 2025—regulatory and media focus on phthalates, measurable consumer willingness to pay more for safer/sustainable packaging, rapidly growing bioplastic packaging markets led by food and beverage, and many concrete low‑/no‑plastic and bioplastic packaging launches framed as healthier or more responsible—supports that this wave has indeed begun.

Given that the timeframe he mentioned (“starting in the mid‑2020s”) is exactly where we are, and the observable industry and market trends match his described pattern, the prediction is best classified as right, acknowledging that the shift is underway rather than complete.

Multiple independent sources confirm that the All-In Summit 2024 was held as an in-person, three-day event at Royce Hall, UCLA in Los Angeles from September 8–10, 2024, with a large paid audience. The All-In podcast’s own Wikipedia entry notes that the 2024 summit "returned to Royce Hall from September 8 to 10" and drew about 1,950 attendees. (en.wikipedia.org) Hotel and event listings (e.g., BAE Ventures and several Marriott-affiliated event pages) also describe All-In Summit 2024 as a physical event at Royce Hall on September 8–10, 2024. (baeventures.com)

Since the summit did in fact occur in Los Angeles on those dates with in-person attendees and was not canceled or made fully virtual, Jason’s prediction was accurate.

Available data indicate that the All‑In Podcast YouTube channel has not yet reached 1,000,000 subscribers, so the condition that would trigger the Vegas celebration has not been met.

Key points:

• Third‑party analytics for the official All‑In YouTube channel (@allin) show about 972,000 subscribers as of November 23, 2025, below the 1M threshold. These stats also include a recent subscriber‑growth table and do not show any point at which the channel exceeded 1M. (speakrj.com)
• Another independent YouTube analytics site similarly reports the channel in the hundreds of thousands of subscribers (e.g., 886k at an earlier snapshot), again well under 1M. (hk.youtubers.me)
• In multiple episode outros and a June 28, 2024 500K subscriber livestream, Jason and the other hosts describe the million‑subscriber party in Las Vegas as a future event, contingent on hitting 1M subscribers ("we're going to do a party in Vegas… when we hit a million subscribers"; "we're going to throw a million subscriber party," to be held in Las Vegas/Wynn). (podcasts.happyscribe.com)
• While recent episodes note that some shows are recorded live from Las Vegas (e.g., from The Venetian), they are not described in public materials as a "million subscriber" celebration, and they occurred while the channel was still under 1M subscribers. (muckrack.com)

Because the triggering condition (reaching 1,000,000 YouTube subscribers) has not yet occurred, we cannot evaluate whether the promised celebratory in‑person Vegas party will happen within a reasonable period after that milestone. The prediction therefore remains unresolved rather than right or wrong, making the outcome inconclusive (too early).

Rationale: The prediction was that before the All-In Summit scheduled for September 8–10, 2024 in Los Angeles, the organizers would announce and offer some number of scholarship tickets for attendees.

• The 2024 All-In Summit was indeed held in Los Angeles from September 8–10, 2024, at Royce Hall, UCLA. (en.wikipedia.org)
• In the July 19–20, 2024 episode titled Trump assassination attempt, Secret Service failure, Inside the RNC, VC liquidity problem, the hosts explicitly say that All-In Summit scholarship applications are now open at summit.allinpodcast.co, describing a very limited number of scholarship tickets held for the summit ("like we did the last two years"), with some scholarships sponsored by Athletic Brewing Company. (podcasts.happyscribe.com)
• A Reddit user posted on July 24, 2024 that they "got in on scholarship" for the All-In Summit, which corroborates that scholarship tickets were in fact offered and granted ahead of the September dates. (reddit.com)

Because scholarship tickets were announced and offered in July 2024, well before the September 8–10, 2024 summit, Jason’s prediction that scholarships would be coming soon and available before the event is fulfilled.