Analyzing this incident, I see several key points:

First, David Sacks's dual role as a White House advisor and private investor indeed poses a conflict of interest risk. His involvement in shaping AI policies could benefit the companies he invests in, which is worth vigilance.

Secondly, he has used his government position to bring traffic and revenue to his personal podcasts and events, which is also suspicious. Government resources should not be used for personal commercial purposes.

Furthermore, his stance on issues like AI chip exports seems more aligned with Silicon Valley interests rather than national security considerations. This bias needs further examination.

However, we also need to recognize that involving industry experts in policy-making is not inherently wrong. The key is how to balance interests and ensure decision-making independence. Perhaps stricter conflict-of-interest disclosures and recusal mechanisms are required.

Overall, this case highlights the risks that tech elites entering government positions may bring. We should be alert to the "revolving door" effect to prevent policies from being manipulated by specific interest groups. At the same time, we should consider how to better utilize civilian expertise to provide professional perspectives for policymaking.