A

Introducing the Problem Solvers, a new series from Anthropic about the startup founders who are going further with Claude, like Max Unistrand, co founder and CEO at Legora, a collaborative AI workspace for lawyers.

B

Our system gets better with every new model released, and we certainly saw this when we started embedding more and more of the Anthropic models into Ligora. This exchange of ideas, what's working, what's not working, where do we need to push further? That has been incredible.

A

Watch the series at cloud.com/problem solvers.

B

Well, Kasey, I had a very confusing experience this week.

C

Yeah.

B

Because I ordered a new ice cream scoop. This ice cream scoop is the. The one I have used for many years. But one of the drawbacks about it is if you put it in the dishwasher, it gets totally ruined. So put it in the dishwasher.

C

Major design fluff for an ice cream scoop. A device that is going to want to be washed at regular intervals.

D

Yes.

B

You have to hand wash this thing. So I get a new one. It comes in a bo and there's a little sticker on the ice cream scoop that says this product contains AI.

C

Oh, no. And not artificial ice cream.

B

I'm thinking, what? I have been using this same ice cream scoop for, like, for, like, 10 years, and all of a sudden it is upgraded to AI. Like, what is the AI? I did not order this. Like, is it connecting to, you know, to chatgpt to, like, tell it what, what flavor ice cream I'm doing? What is going on here?

C

I really am bracing myself because the, the number of things in my life that very simple and now require something called a firmware update is out of control. And so if I, if my ice cream scoop needed a firmware update, I'd be very upset.

B

It also, like, doesn't ship with a charger or anything. It doesn't have any ports on it. So I'm like, how the hell does this ice cream scoop have AI? And I stare at this just like, bewildered for like, five minutes. And then I realize it's talking about aluminum. It's using the chemical symbol for aluminum. This product contains aluminum. And then I felt stupid. I'm Kevin Roos, a tech columnist at the New York Times.

C

I'm Casey Noon from Platformer, and this is Hard fork. This week, OpenAI has a great new model and a big new legal problem. Then Stanford economist Eric Brynjolfsson is here to discuss a new warning from hundreds of economists and researchers about the growing risk of AI job loss and finally, some hatgbt starring Lorde. You're giving her the green light.

B

Is that a Lord joke?

C

Kevin, would you listen to one gay pop song?

B

Well, Casey, lot is happening in AI this week. Specifically. I feel like it's been a very big open AI news week.

C

Yeah. And I feel like it's actually been a minute since we checked in on them. And so I was glad that there was like such a series of events that I felt like, okay, yeah, we can actually return to this company now.

B

So before we do this, of course we should make our AI disclosures. I work for the New York Times, which is pursuing OpenAI along with Microsoft and Perplexity.

C

And my fiance works at Anthropic.

B

So let's just get a few things ticked off here. The first thing was a personnel shift. Fiji. Simo, the former CEO of Applications, I believe was her title at OpenAI.

C

That was her initial title. It was later changed to CEO of AGI deployment.

B

Okay, so she is leaving the company. She was on an extended medical leave due to some health problems she had had. She is now officially sort of stepping back from that role and her roles will be divided up among other executives. Case, what did you make of this?

C

I mean, very sad story. Obviously, anytime somebody has to leave a job for like reasons other than they wanted to, it is sad. Sima was there for less than a year and I think was able to accomplish some of what she wanted and did play a role in pushing the company to streamline some of its offerings and cut back on some of the projects that in my view were distractions, such as the sora, you know, AI video generator. But I think she had much bigger ambitions there that she didn't get to realize. And you know, in terms of OpenAI going forward, it is yet more executive turmoil at a company that has had a lot of that over the past year.

B

And speaking of turmoil, we should also talk about this lawsuit that Apple filed last week against OpenAI, alleging that they stole some trade secrets. Kasey, tell us the story of this lawsuit.

C

This came out on Friday. Apple filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and IO, which was the sort of jony I've co founded company that they bought for more than 6 billion doll. The suit also names two current OpenAI employees, Chang Lu and Tang Tan, who incidentally are former Apple employees who now work at OpenAI. They write in this filing quote at every level, from members of its technical staff to its chief hardware officer. That's Tang Tan. And in coordination with business partners, OpenAI has been stealing Apple's trade secrets and confidential information. As a natural result, OpenAI's nascent hardware business now rests on the shakiest of foundations, rotten to its core by its illegal reliance on misappropriated trade secrets. So that was the kind of, you know, quote that you saw in a lot of stories about this particular case. But the details are really pretty wild.

B

Yeah, let's talk about some of those details. It was, it was a long filing. There was a lot of juicy stuff in there. The thing that I think got the most attention was this allegation by Apple that Tang Tan, this OpenAI chief hardware officer, had directed job candidates who are applying for jobs at OpenAI to bring physical hardware components, blueprints and prototypes into job interviews for what the filing calls show and tell sessions.

C

And like, you think it's hard enough to get a job in this economy? And then your recruiter says, hey, when you come in, make sure to bring two forms of ID and then your resume. And also an unreleased Apple product that you sort of secret out of the lab. Like what?

B

That's.

C

That's such a big ask.

B

Yeah.

C

You know, how are you supposed to

B

deal to get a job in this climate?

C

I mean, my goodness.

B

So then there's also these allegations about Chang Lu, the former senior system electrical engineer at Apple. Apple says in its filing that he kept a work laptop after leaving the company. He then apparently exploited an unknown security vulnerability to access confidential information and bragged about this to a colleague. I'll just read his apparent quote from the filing. Lol. I found out I can access the network storage. So funny.

C

You know, and I just, I'm glad you read that in full because here's what I want people to know. If you say LOL in a message, you should not add. So funny. Right. Because those two phrases are doing the same thing. Yes.

B

Omit. Needless words.

D

Yeah.

B

So there's a lot more allegations in the filing. One of the things it says is that OpenAI allegedly approached one of Apple's manufacturing partners and tricked them into showing them some sort of secret metal treatment finishing process that Apple uses.

C

Yeah. If you've ever picked up an iPhone, you know that it has a very beautiful metal finish. And the allegation here is that OpenAI was like, wanted to know how that happened. So they just went to the supplier and they're like, just show us what you do for Apple. It's cool. They told us it's cool.

B

Tim Cook said we have permission to, to do this.

C

Yeah. Tim Cook said, I would love for Sam Altman to know how to do this. Just go ahead and show them. And then they show these are the allegations.

B

Yes.

C

Yeah.

B

But Casey, what did you make of this filing as you looked through all of the juicy details?

C

So I'm of two minds here because it is true that Apple in general treats everything that has ever happened in the city of Cupertino as an Apple trade secret. Yes, Right. They defend their intellectual property extremely vigorously. And so I would not be surprised if as this case unfolds, you know, a judge or a jury might push back on some of the claims here and says, you know what, it's actually not illegal for Tang Tan to mention the code name of an unreleased Apple product to a prospective candidate.

B

Right.

C

Okay. That said, with some of the particular allegations against the lol. So funny person, the allegation that they were like coaching job candidates to bring unreleased products into job interviews, that does just seem transparently wrong to me. And so my real question as this case on bul now Kevin, is basically how high up the chain did this go? You know, some bloggers have noted that the case goes out of its way. Not to mention Johnny I've who's like a foundational figure at this company. If there was actually some sort of, you know, scheme to do this, it seems extremely unlikely that Jony I've would be unaware of it. And yet he's not in the filing. Neither is Sam Altman. Right. So these are some of the questions that I have. But I do think, you know, if Apple is successful here could have some, you know, very tough consequences for OpenAI. What would you make of it?

B

Yeah, I mean I think these guys knowing nothing else about this case other than the filing, I'm sure there will be, you know, counter filings and explanations from OpenAI about why this all wasn't as bad as it looks on paper. But like to me these guys seem guilty as hell. That said, it is not clear that OpenAI is actually building anything that makes use of Apple's trade secrets. We got a report this week from Mark Gurman over at Bloomberg who is sort of the closest and most plugged in app Apple reporter who reported on OpenAI's first hardware product. The thing that Jony I've has been working on with them being some sort of a mobile screen free home smart speaker. That doesn't sound to me like anything that Apple has built or maybe is planning on building.

C

Well, I mean they have that HomePod right? You know, like what Gurman described as I read it was basically a next generation like Amazon Echo, which many companies now have their own versions of, including Apple with the HomePod. And so a screen free speaker that connects to AI like Apple does have one of those. And I would not be surprised if they said that whatever OpenAI is building somehow builds off of their efforts here.

B

Yeah, I mean I am not particularly bullish on the OpenAI hardware push in general, but I think this made me even more skeptical that they are going to come out with some category breaking, you know, definitive technology here. I could be wrong of course, but you know, asking employees, job candidates to bring in prototypes from their Apple secret work does not seem to me like a company that, that has a real vision for what it is doing on its own.

C

You know what I thought was funny about this was that a little over a year ago at the first Hard Fork Live, I asked Sam Altman about their hardware project and I said is it just Alexa? And he said it's not just Alexa. Like you know, give us some time, like we're thinking we're going to do something better than Alexa. And I read the Gurman report this week and I thought sounds a lot like Alexa. So you know, we'll see. I mean the AI in it is going to be better, you know, but is it, is it really more than that anyways?

B

Yeah, I mean I think this is very much in keeping with Apple's sort of historical posture for secrecy. You know, you remember when the, when the iPhone, I think it was the iPhone4 was sort of leaked, there were law enforcement investigations like this. This company takes its trade secrets very seriously. At the same time, Apple is also struggling in AI, I think it's fair to say that. And so this to me feels very much like the kind of lawsuit that who is not in the lead or close to the lead would file.

C

Yeah, I think that that is reasonable. You know, in addition to the, you know, alleged inspection of unreleased devices over the past couple of years, OpenAI has hired more than 400 people away from Apple. So even at a big company like Apple, that is the kind of recruiting effort that you notice and I'm sure that has been extremely frustrating to the folks over at Apple as they try to build their own next generation devices. So I think that they're was clearly a wound there. And, and I think it is fair to read this lawsuit in part as Apple lashing back.

B

Yeah, I mean this is a bigger conversation than we, than we have time for today. But I'm always just fascinated by how leaky and sort of porous the boundaries between these AI companies are, I mean one of the sort of hidden factors in this AI race is I think the fact that in California you can't really enforce a non compete. So people are always moving jobs from open AI to anthropic, from Google DeepMind to OpenAI. Like people are just bouncing around all of the time and they're taking their secrets with them. Right? Like you can't take intellectual property, you can't like literally take the code for your model. But all this stuff like exists in their head. And so part of the reason that you would hire someone from Apple if you're OpenAI is like they have this stuff in their head and it's just a matter of like, oh, they can't literally bring the designs or the prototype or the IP over. That's illegal. But just knowing how to build something is not a protected class of IP.

C

Right. And I'm sure that OpenAI will make that argument as this case moves forward. Kevin, what has OpenAI said in the meantime about these allegations?

B

So a spokesperson for OpenAI posted on X quote, we have no interest in other companies trade secrets. We remain focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere. How did that strike you?

C

That struck me as what we call a non denial denial. It struck me as we're just learning about this and we need to put out a statement, but we can't say anything because we don't know anything. So what is a series of words that journalists would reprint that would sort of buy us a few more days? That's kind of how that struck me.

B

There's an art form to this stuff. Okay. Another thing that is happening at OpenAI this week is that people are starting to play around with soul. This new model GPT 5.6 that was not available for a period of time under request from the White House and the federal government, but that people are now using and experimenting with. I have not spent much time with SOL so far, but people I know who I trust on this stuff have said it's really good, it's a very capable model.

C

Yeah, it absolutely is. It is a notable step up from 5.5. I've been doing some vibe coding projects recently. I've had the GPT 5.6 SOL kind of critique them, suggest changes and I've been really pleased with the feedback. So I think if you are a ChatGPT user and you're on one of the paid plans, you're going to be really excited that you have GPT soul.

B

Is this a thing you do to like you Know, get back at your fiance when you're having arguments at home, you just like casually stroll in and you're like, hey, been doing some really cool Vibe coding with GPT 5.6.

C

Yes. I mean, I think he understands that, you know, it's in the nature of my job to always be testing all of the models.

B

Yeah, you're not a monogamist when it comes to AI models?

C

No, I'm extremely poly and I think he appreciates that.

B

So a couple things that have come out of this new model release. One is that it is really changed the plans of Anthropic, as we talked about on the show, they had announced that, you know, starting on some arbitrary day in early July, they were going to revoke access to Fable for people using their cloud subscription plans. This is their most powerful model. Basically, you'd still be able to use it through the API, but you're going to have to pay for it on a per token basis. You're not just going to like get some Fable access included in your bundle of a subscription. And they then extended that deadline by a few days to give people a few more days to play with Fable. Then they have extended it again. And my read on this is like, this is in direct response to the fact that OpenAI has a, by all accounts, very good model out right now, and they are afraid that if they cut off access to Fable, people are going to switch to using ChatGPT or Codex.

C

Absolutely. Mean, you think about what their original plan was, which is, you know, we'll put out Fable. And this happened, you know, several weeks before 5.6 eventually came out. And I assume that their thinking was people will have a few weeks to see how good Fable is. And so then whenever some other company launches a new model, it won't matter because people are already going to be addicted to Fable. Instead, they had a big fight with the US government, and by the time they finally got Fable out the door, there were essentially only a few days between that and 5.6 arriving. And so my belief now is that they are trying to essentially get people hooked on Fable and eventually push them toward paying per token. But, you know, 5.6 is out now and people are going to be able to maybe try that for a lot cheaper. So.

B

Right. And the companies, we should say, have been getting a little catty, a little.

C

I've seen episodes of Drag Race that were more polite than what's been happening on Twitter over the past few days, Kevin.

B

Yeah, so let's just talk about that a little bit Because I think it's interesting, but also I think potentially very important. So Anthropic posted a new ad for Claude that. That is sort of a longer ad. It's kind of a sort of montage. It's talking about hard questions. It starts with this very bizarre sequence of images of one is like a building on fire and one is with a cemetery, like a row of headstones. It looks to be like a military cemetery.

C

It's Arlington National Cemetery, where my grandfather is buried. Kevin, what is it doing in this ad?

B

And so the sort of voiceover on the ad is talking about, how can it, you know, who's getting to. Who's going to hit the brakes if we need to slow down this technology. Can AI be trusted? Like, these are the kinds of hard questions, you know, the. The ad eventually gets to a more hopeful and positive message. But it starts with this kind of like, very doomy picture of the world on fire, literally as a result of this technology. And Sam Altman did not like this ad. Many other people did not like this ad.

C

I mean, I'll say I think this ad is a disaster.

B

Like, I really do too.

C

Like, it's. It's an extremely confusing set of messages. And I think it's like, it is unlikely to me that the average person would take away a positive message about Anthropic or AI from this ad.

B

Oh, I don't know. I want to sort of like meekly defend the ad by saying that I think it's good if AI companies are honest about the fears that they have. I think it would be very bad if they just all turned into, like, sunny, optimistic marketing companies. Sure.

C

But is the right format for that? Like, brand marketing? You know, like, I understand you think this might go really, really badly and you're trying to prepare the world for that, but I think like, a serious video with your leaders talking about that or like a thoughtful blog post are a better avenue for that than like video posted on X of burning building. You know what I mean?

B

I take that point. I just, like, I don't want to have the message that comes out of this be like, AI companies should just lie to us, and if they're scared about AI, they should just not tell us that and they should just put out ads about how great this stuff is.

C

Well, here to me is, I'm not going to call it a lie, but here's what I find confusing. So at the end of this ad, which just essentially I believe has, like, sound clips of average people asking their questions about AI or discussing their wishes for AI. At the very end of it, Anthropic shows its tagline, which is keep thinking. And when Anthropic tells me keep thinking, I feel like I'm reading one of those blog posts where they tell senior citizens to keep doing crossword puzzles to keep their mind active. You know what I mean? It's like, if you're building super intelligence that is going to do all of the thinking, what exactly do you want me to do the thinking for? Do you know what I mean? So I just think the entire brand message is getting very, very confused, and it is making people feel bad. And I think Anthropic needs to think about that.

B

Yeah, I think that's right. But let's get back to the open AI of it, because that was actually where this started to heat up. So Sam Altman posted on Monday. He reposts the ad and says, I thought this was satire. Kept looking for the handle to be spelled C1 odd AI. Like basically a sort of scam account or something. And then he sort of mocks the hard questions tagline of the ad. He says, hard questions are great, but only if we deem you worthy enough not to silently downgrade you or even get access at all. Of course, referring to Anthropic's on again, off again fable rollout and some decisions they had made about sort of like silently downgrading people to a lesser model if it detected they were working on certain types of things.

C

Yeah. So here is my impression of what is happening is the folks at OpenAI understand that they are now seen as an underdog and they're thrilled about it. Like, think about the past year or two that they have had where they were the sort of carrying the banner of American AI. And every misstep that they made was under a microscope. And now fast forward to today. Anthropic is seen as. As being in the lead. And so it's now all of anthropic mistakes that are sort of getting magnified. And that lets OpenAI come in and throw some blows and look like a scrappy challenger again. And it's just much more fun to play the scrappy challenger than the sort of, you know, solemn standard bearer of American AI.

B

Yeah, I buy that. I don't think they're thrilled about being in second place, at least as the public perceives it. I think there's a lot of paranoia and fear over there that they are, you know, losing talented researchers to Anthropic, that they are sort of losing what they call the mandate of heaven to Anthropic by not having the absolute best models on the market.

C

Wait, what is the mandate of heaven? Oh, my God.

B

You haven't seen this meme?

C

No.

B

So this is a thing that, like, insane people on social media post about where they're like, oh, you know, the new Gemini is really good. Maybe Google has the mandate of heaven. It's just sort of like, like, sort

C

of like God has chosen you to invent AGI.

B

Yes.

C

Okay, wonderful.

B

It's very dumb. Anyone who says the mandate of heaven in sincerity should be checked into a mental. But anyway, I think there's a lot of paranoia. They really like these companies. I don't know if the public understands this, but these companies hate each other. This is more than a Coke and Pepsi thing. What's funny is I was researching this for my book and I learned that technically, these companies may still have a non disparagement agreement with each other. So when Dario and the Anthropic folks were leaving OpenAI in late 2020, they sort of signed this non disparagement agreement that says, like, we won't badmouth you and you won't badmouth us, and, like, we'll all sort of keep things, you know, placid on the surface. And that has never been rescinded, to my knowledge.

C

Yeah.

B

And so technically they still have a document on the books that says we're not supposed to trash each other in public.

C

From the outside reading sort of how they talk about each other, I would assume that they had a disparagement agreement.

B

Yes. Which only. Disparagement agreement.

C

The minute we leave here, it's on, bro. It's on like Donkey Kong.

B

Yes. So these companies absolutely hate each other. They are bickering over the. These sort of terms of these models being accessible to subscribers. I think they are going to start sort of doing some kind of price war with each other. That's my expectation is like, you know, anthropic will kind of reduce the price of tokens, and then OpenAI will reduce it below that and it'll sort of be, I think, good for consumers in a very sort of narrow, you know, consumer interest perspective. Because competition among frontier AI labs is good, I would argue.

C

Yeah, it's definitely good for consumers. I think that there are elements of the, you know, AI race itself that are scary, but perhaps that's a different conversation.

B

No, I think that's. That's where I want to go with this because I think, like, this feud between OpenAI and Anthropic, which does not seem to be subsiding and in fact seems to be getting worse. I think it is very dangerous. I do not like this way that these labs are conducting their relations with each other. I do not like how much the people at OpenAI hate anthropic and are motivated by wanting to crush them. I do not like how much the people at Anthropic hate OpenAI and want to crush them. I think that we are heading into a period where there may be real and dangerous risks associated with these very powerful systems. And these companies should be open to collaboration and solving this problem together. And coordination between labs, I think, is going to become increasingly important. And you can't do that if you're constantly fighting each other.

C

I completely agree. You know, Demis Hassabis, who runs DeepMind, put out a piece this week where he talked about an idea for a kind of government regulator that would, you know, create a process around when a frontier lab could release a new model, maybe solve some of the issues that we've seen in recent months. And one of the things that he talks about is it would be great if the labs at some point could successfully collaborate around a slowdown in the development of AI. And now maybe that's something that the government will just, you know, decree. But in the absence of the. That you want to see exactly what you're talking about, Kevin, which is like the leaders of these companies being able to pick up the phone and call each other and think about, like, what is good for the rest of the world and not just what is going to get a bunch of retweets.

B

Yeah. I just desperately need Dario and Sam and Demis to like, all get together, take a little mdma, work it out. Find some compassion.

A

Yeah.

B

Find some common ground. You know, put the beef aside. We're all in this together.

C

What I found is sometimes business leaders will forget that we are all individual facets of the same universal consciousness. And that's when they get themselves into trouble. When we come back, the loudest warning yet on AI and jobs.

A

Anthropics. Claude is the AI for problem solvers who build things faster, fix things better, and create things that haven't existed before. Like Keiju, CTO and co founder of genspark, who dreamed up an all in one AI workspace.

C

We do AI spreadsheets, AI slides, AI

D

documents, all kinds of work for normal white collar workers.

B

We are a very small startup and working with trusted partners is really, really important.

A

Watch the series@claude.com problem solvers. That's claude.com problem solvers.

E

I'm Dani Blum, a journalist at the New York Times. I spend a lot of my time reporting on GLP1 medications. People call them weight loss drugs. They are doing so much more in the and there's a lot of hope pinned on them. I am spending part of truly every single workday making sure that I am up to date on the latest science. I really want to make sure that I am talking to the leading researchers, keeping an eye on trial results and that I'm talking to people who are on these medications to learn more from them. To translate the really messy and murky and shifting science into a way that people can understand. It's really important to have have evidence based answers to some of the questions that people have, especially about something as vital as a medication they're taking. That's what you get when you subscribe to the New York Times. If you already subscribe, thanks. If you'd like to go to mytimes.com subscribe.

C

All right, Kevin, let's turn our attention to the question of AI and jobs. This is something that I have been fascinated by myself over the past few months. I've been speaking to several economists and and tech leaders about the short, medium and long term risk of an AI getting so good that all of a sudden employers are going to feel like they don't need people anymore, like they can just spend tokens. And there's frankly still a lot of skepticism on this point. And so that is why I was fascinated to see a new letter come out this week that had been signed by a group of nearly 200 economists and researchers initially, and they were warning about the impact that AI could have on the economy.

B

Yeah, I saw this too. This was a statement. It was short, just three short points. It was titled we must act now. And basically, I mean, we can probably just read the whole thing.

C

Read the whole thing.

B

It's not that long. And it says, Point one, AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years. Point two, this could drive an unprecedented transformation of our economy, larger than the Industrial Revolution, but unfolding over a vastly shorter time frame. It could bring risks, including large scale job displacement as well as opportunities such as major gains in living standards standards. Point three, economists, policymakers and technology leaders must act now to understand the economics of transformative AI and to build the incentives, guardrails and institutions needed to steer AI in a direction that complements humans and benefits society. So the statement itself, I think is pretty anodyne. It's basically like we should take AI really seriously, because it could do all these things, it could do some good things, it could do some bad things, and we should pay attention to it. I think what was more interesting was the list of signatures. Former Hard Fork guests, Anton Korenick from the University of Virginia and Anthropic was on there as well as I think some more skeptical economists who have previously been kind of dismissive of the idea that AI could cause large scale job transformation.

C

At least in the short term.

B

Yes, at least in the short term. It includes several Nobel laureates, including Daron Acemoglu, sort of a well known skeptic of the short term AI job loss hypothesis, David Autour at mit, lots of other, just sort of like well known economies economists and thinkers who are coming together to make this statement. And I thought this was really interesting.

C

Yeah, and so this week we wanted to talk to a person who helped to put this statement together. That person is Eric Brynjolfsson. He is a Stanford economist who helped organize the statement. And he is somebody who takes these threats really, really seriously.

B

Yeah, I've known Eric for years. He's a great economist and he's been writing about the danger that AI poses to, to jobs and the economy for a very long time. Like longer than most economists, longer than ChatGPT has existed, he's been writing about this stuff. He's a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human Centered AI and the director of the Stanford Digital Economy Lab. He's been studying AI's impacts on human workers and firms for a very long time.

C

So to meet the demand for the questions that we have for him, we now support apply Eric Benjolfsson.

B

Eric Brynjolfsson, welcome to Hard Fork.

D

It's a pleasure to be talking to you again, Kevin.

B

So you have been writing and talking and thinking about the transformative potential of AI on the economy for a very long time, longer than almost any economist I know. And I'm curious what inspired you to organize this letter, this we must act now statement from, from a bunch of your peers and colleagues?

D

Well, this is something that's been brewing for a long time. You're right. I've been thinking about a long time. I taught my first course about artificial intelligence back in 1987, before most of your listeners were probably born. I've just been very convinced about what was happening. But you know, the nature of exponential curves is they grow, you know, slowly at first and then suddenly and, and now, especially this year, we're in that suddenly part of the curve. Curve. The technology is going so Fast. But our economic understanding is nowhere close to keeping up. And so I'm doing what we can to try to change that.

C

So the letter is titled We Must Act Now. I would say it doesn't really specify an action. So tell us about what your goals are with this letter and what you think. The policy makers who read it and all the sort of esteemed signatories. What should they do?

F

Do?

D

Well, there's two main purposes. First is, is that there's been a sea change, and we're hoping to catalyze that sea change in attitudes about how seriously we take AI. As recently as a year or two ago, and certainly before that, most of the economists I talked to really were not very AI pilled. They thought, hey, it's not a big deal. I remember one Secretary of Treasury saying to me, oh, do you think that maybe, you know, there'd be a couple of tenths of a percent of change in productivity over the coming years? So he was sort of like imagining sort of a. A very small technological impact. And I personally think it's going to be huge. And I wanted more people to take it seriously and realize that I think this is the most important thing. Economists should be working on. Whatever other projects they're working on, they should look at it through a lens of AI. Part of what we're calling for is a better understanding. More economists thinking hard about this question, more research going into it. That said, there was the beginning of a direction that Daron Acemoglu and I and others have been talking about for a while, which is this idea of complementing humans rather than substituting for them. Now, fleshing out exactly how to do that is a bigger question. But at least if we could get a couple hundred economists and a lot of Nobel Prize winners and other AI researchers around the world to agree on that direction, that's a good start.

C

Let me hit you with some of the objections that I have heard when I've talked to other tech leaders or economists about the idea that AI might take a lot of jobs. I myself am totally prepared to believe that there could be a real disruption here, but I do hear some skepticism. So one thing I hear is that job losses almost never have any one cause, and it's basically impossible to pinpoint when you're looking at the data.

D

Well, it's certainly true. There's lots of things going on in the economy. AI is not the only thing. It's one of the most important and increasingly the most important thing. You know, we wrote this paper, Canaries in the Coal mine that you may be familiar with are going to have a new version of it out in a few days, probably in time for you're. You're airing this podcast where we look at some of the alternatives as well. We look at what's going on with interest rates, we look at remote work, we look at the tech over hiring, we look at changes in education. All of those are important and we find that all of them make a difference. But even when you put them in individually or all at the same time into these regressions to try to parse out what's happening, AI continues to be an important factor. And it's not just destroying jobs. AI is also creating jobs, as a lot of people will tell you. And it's the job of us people like me, like economists, to try to sort that out and see which parts are important as early as possible and as fine grained as possible. Just because it's not easy doesn't mean we shouldn't try to sort it out.

B

Yeah, I mean, I confess that I have been wrong about the economic expectations I had for what would happen when AI systems got more powerful. I think if you had time traveled back to 2020 and showed me like Claude Fable or GPT 5.6 and then you asked me me like this technology will exist in 2026, what is the headline unemployment rate? I probably would have said like 10 or 20%. And what we see instead is that employment rates today are basically the same as they were a few years ago. Headline unemployment is hovering around 4%. So are you as surprised as I am that this technology becoming so powerful has not created more unemployment?

D

No, not at all. So I've, I've written many papers on this idea of the productivity J curve and on the way that AI complements changes. You may have heard, I'll retell the story about how when electricity was first introduced, it took about 20 to 30 years before it fundamentally changed the way work was in American factories. At first there was little or no productivity change. There's little or no employment change because people were just kind of paving the cow paths. They were redoing the same things they used to do. But now with electric motors and nothing fundamentally changed. It took a lot of reinvention of those factories and ultimately the whole economy to unleash a big change. And that reinvention meant eliminating millions of jobs. It meant creating millions of jobs. All of that in the case of electricity, like I said, took 20 to 30 years. I don't expect it to take 20 to 30 years. This time around. But it's not the kind of thing that happens in 20 to 30 months either. It's something that plays out over, over a period of years. I think we're in the early stages of that transformation. Um, I have no doubt there's going to be a lot of disruption, a lot of jobs destroyed. There's also going to be a lot of jobs created. We're just in the earliest stages of that right now, but it's going to get bigger.

C

You mentioned the Stanford Canaries Dashboard, which I've been following with great interest. It showed that early career jobs shrank 2.7% year over year, while mid career jobs grew 1.6% year over year. Is there growing consensus among economists that this is AI driven? Impact. Impact. And how should we respond to those numbers?

D

I can't speak for the economics profession as a whole. I mean I, I believe the numbers, I've spent a lot of time looking at them. I think over time it'll become more and more obvious, maybe one of the most convincing things. In addition, I mentioned we tested all these other hypotheses and, and they didn't knock out the AI result. But the other thing just to you know, we first published a version of this back in August of 2025 and we saw, you know, basically the same pattern and people said, oh, it's a blip, it's due to, you know, interest rates or whatever, whatever. It's just grown over time. You can go to the canaries, you can go to the Dashboard, AI Economic Indicators at Stanford. And what you'll see is that these trends have just been continuing to grow over time. It's not something that's just due to Covid or something else.

B

I want to ask one more question, Eric, about this letter, this statement. Obviously the coalition that signed the letter, like hugely impressive group of economists and thinkers, tech executives, a real who's who of the field. But, but there were some people who didn't like this letter and didn't sign it. Either they thought it was too vague or it didn't make enough concrete policy recommendations. But I wanted to single out one reaction from Noah Smith, who's an economics writer and blogger. He wrote that he didn't sign this statement because among other reasons, he was just very skeptical of this line about trying to steer AI in a direction that complements humans and benefits society. He basically, basically wrote like, this is not possible. We don't know that we can steer this technology toward being complementary. He writes, how the heck are business people and inventors supposed to steer AI toward being complementary to human workers. They obviously couldn't predict the labor market effects of the last round of AI, at least in the short term. So why should anyone believe that technologists have the ability to purposefully invent different forms of AI with different labor market effects? What's your response to that?

D

Well, I love Noah. He's super smart. He's a friend of mine. We hang out in the Bay Area from time to time. I'm so glad he engaged with the letter. And I'm also glad that not everybody just reflexively agreed with it. I think we had just the right amount of Frisch in there. A few people disagreeing just to make it interesting. It would have been boring if everybody just said, yeah, yeah, this is obvious. That said, Noah's wrong about this. You know, we have lots of examples in history of technology being directed in different ways. One of the ideas behind carbon tax taxes is that, you know, you want to do that. And there's research that shows that, you know, countries that impose more taxes. Engine technology evolved in different ways. For computers specifically, there's long been two strains. You know, Alan Turing talked about the Turing Test imitating replacing humans. There's another stream, Doug Engelbart and others who talked about AI amplifying people. And one of the things I do, I spend a lot of time talking to CEOs. Let me tell you a very concrete story. I met with a cfo, and she told me that she wanted to use AI and get higher ROI for it. And I said, that's great. That's what you should be doing. And then she said, and therefore, what we're doing is requiring measuring in every department how much headcount reduction they have thanks to AI. And I said, whoa, hold it just a minute there. That's one way to measure AI is replacing workers. And, you know, and sometimes that's a good thing. But there's so many other things you can be doing. You're a cfo, you're being paid millions of dollars. Dollars. I didn't actually say that to her, but that was what I was thinking. You should be more creative. Like, let's look at the upside. What kinds of new products and services? What kind of better customer service? What kind of, you know, reduced employee turnover? There are all these other metrics that a good manager can look at that will increase the upside. And if they think that way, if they change their mentality, believe me, they're going to steer the technology. You're going to have outcomes that involve people More that complement people more rather than just replace them.

B

Yeah, I'm just a little more cynical about that than maybe you are. I want to believe that you're right and that these enlightened corporate leaders will say, well, you know, we really don't want the technology to replace humans because humans are so valuable and there's all these ways that they can be, you know, be complemented by.

C

We're a family here at the Olive Garden.

B

Yeah, right. But like.

D

Well, let me just say this. You know, there's three reasons for doing this. Okay. One is that I do think it's the right thing for society, but let's just set that one aside for now. The second reason is that I think it's in their enlightened self interest that they should. That the more defense I could teach at business schools, corporate strategy, the better strategy, the more defensible strategy is creating new products and services and barriers to entry, not just cutting costs. And then the third thing I'll say is it's true there are a lot of tax and other incentives right. Right now that skew companies disproportionately towards investing in capital versus labor. For instance, marginal tax rates on capital are lower than marginal tax rates on labor. And so if you have a strategy that replaces a lot of workers with machines, you end up paying lower taxes. That's a flaw, I think, in the tax system. That's something we can fix and create better incentives for managers to cheat them more evenly. And then last but not least, I do think there are a lot of people who will embrace this because it is the right, right thing for the world. And I think their workforce is going to like working at that company if it's a company that does right by them.

C

You told Ben Castleman at the New York Times that economists need more reliable data. What are some of the problems with the data that we have right now and what would you like to see more of?

D

This is something I'm super focused on right now. Sadly, as we're going to one of the most turbulent periods in all of economic history, we are destroying our instrument panel. The government is cutting back on data collection, eviscerating some of the statistical agencies. I feel for those people as they're trying to do it, this is the time, if anything, we should be doubling and investing more in visibility. It's a really high ROI activity. It just costs a tiny bit of the budget and will help us make better decisions not only as policymakers, but also as managers. That said, there's only so much I can do about the federal budget. What I can do is at the Digital Economy Lab, create the AI Economic Indicators, partner with private organizations, stations. We're incredibly lucky that there's a bunch of real time data that's being just collected by companies anyways, you know, Ramp, Revelio, adp and so we can tap into these data sources and get some kinds of visibility. They're not always collected for the purpose of being representative, so you have to do some work to kind of normalize them and measure them. But by creating an infrastructure to get more visibility, we can do more. And we're creating a new, a new taxonomy of the kinds of tasks that are being done in the economy. There's something called ONET that lists all the tasks that workers do in the American economy and we're creating an updated version of that. I think, you know, over the coming months and years we'll be able to get much more real time visibility in a much more fine grained way of what's happening in the economy. And that will allow us to sense and respond to what's doing. I mean, it can only do so much about predicting what's going to happen next, but it's sometimes easier to at least measure it quickly and then allow people to respond to that.

B

Eric, I want to get your take on a policy idea that's been making a lot of waves in recent weeks, which is this idea of a, some sort of a sovereign wealth fund that would be sort of paid for by the AI companies. Like every American would get a stake effectively in the frontier AI companies and you would kind of use that to capture some of the value and redistribute it to American citizens? From an economist's perspective, do you like that idea or is there some other way that we should be getting Americans some share of the proceeds from this booming industry?

D

It's not my first choice, but I think we need sort of an all of the above solution. So I'd like to see us thinking more about ways that we implement those kinds of ways of sharing the gains. My concerns with just a payout in a sovereign wealth fund is like who decides who gets the money and who doesn't? And if you don't agree with it, what leverage do you have? If you don't pay a farmer, they're not going to give you their food, or you don't pay a factory worker, they're not going to give you the effort that they put into it. But if you're just getting a dole, you don't really have any leverage to step back. I mean, you hope you can work through your representatives, but I think it's a less stable equilibrium to just have people getting a check that way. That said, as I said at the beginning, we should explore a variety of approaches.

C

Yeah. My understanding about how the new Dole would work is that if you had some sort of issue issue with it, you would tweet at David Sachs and if your tweet got enough retweets, then he would respond to you. So I agree.

D

That could work.

C

Yeah, we could probably come up with a better system. Let me throw a couple other ideas up on the board that are getting kicked around in this space. Eric, what do you think about like wage insurance if you know you have to take another job because your job goes away and you're forced to work a lower paying one?

D

Yeah. Wage insurance is another thing. Economists have been talking about this for decades that there's more potential. It's kind of a missing mark market there. Just like you have housing insurance and fire insurance and health insurance. It's tricky because of moral hazard, as you call it, that like, okay, you know, you still want to have incentives for people to work, but we could have better tools to understand which jobs are being affected and how much of that is due to exogenous forces and how many aren't. I'm all for exploring that a little bit further. Again, I don't think it's going to solve the problem, but it could be one piece of piece of the puzzle.

C

What about government incentives to hire young workers?

D

I think some of that actually makes sense as well. And the reason for that is that you don't get, you know, mid career workers unless they first start as, as young workers. So there's kind of a market failure there that needs to be stepped into. Historically, education training have been to some extent public goods where there's value that goes beyond the people who are paying for, for them. And that's why in almost every country, government and nonprofits have had a role in trying to support them. The United States has been for many, for many centuries, the number one in the world at making investments in education training. For, you know, the 1800s, we were way ahead of Europe or other country, other places in the world at investing in primary education and secondary education and college education. It's not true anymore, but, but when we did that was a big reason why the United States not only had the highest productivity, but also one of the biggest middle classes in the world.

B

Eric, I know we're almost out of time. But I wanted to ask one final question, Eric. Your field, economics, has been going through some pretty radical changes. And the one that I see the most is just that a lot of your colleagues in academia are going to take jobs at AI Labs. It seems like every week I'm, I read on the Internet that some esteemed economist is taking a leave or leav their tenured position at some university to go work for a Frontier AI company. Are you worried that that is going to hollow out the ranks of academic economics departments? And what is your poaching price for any AI Frontier lab that is interested in hiring you?

D

I've been resisting so far, but I do see like my colleagues, yeah, in the offices next door, my friends, my students, a lot of them have gone to, to take jobs at Frontier Labs. And I got to say, by and large, you know, these Frontier jobs, they're doing great work and they get access to amazing people data and so that's exciting. At the same time, I think there's a role for people that, you know, don't have a boss who, who you know is looking to make profits for the Frontier Labs. And you know, even if the reality is that they're unbiased, there's going to be a perception that they're speaking for that company. And we need people who, who aren't as affected by that. I'm not saying academia is completely unaffected either. So, you know, I do hope people will, will stay a good. A lot of smart people will stay in academia and continue to do what I'm doing. I've sat down very hard. I've had offers from Frontier Labs and, and I've thought about it and for me, the, the marginal utility of more money isn't that high. So I, I just sort of like what I'm doing right now. Stanford's been great to me and I like just being able to have a perch where I can, I can do the research that I'm doing.

B

Um, so what I, what I'm hearing you say, Eric, is that it would take some kind of like meta superintelligence lab style offer like maybe $1 billion to get you out of your chair and go work for a Frontier Lab.

D

I don't know, I, maybe there's something wrong with me, but I feel like, like what am I going to do? Get a bigger house, more cars? I don't know. I mean, you know, so, so I kind of, I feel like I have the greatest job. You know, don't tell my dean or he'll cut my salary. But, but I feel like I'm, I've like, basically, basically very happy with what I'm doing. Whatever amount of money I had, I would be doing basically what I'm doing right now. So I'm lucky in that not everybody's lucky enough to have a job like that. Maybe you guys do. You guys look like you're having fun and hopefully we'll be entering a world in the future where more and more people can just be doing what they really enjoy doing, like I do. And, and money won't be the main reason that they pick one job versus the other.

C

Oh, wouldn't that be nice? I like it. Well, well, we really do appreciate the work that you do. It's great to have, you know, strong independent research and about this that we can, you know, rely on as we do our work. So thank you very much, Eric.

B

Thanks, Eric.

D

Thank you. Such fun talking to you guys.

B

When we come back, there's cheating at Brown University and other stories from this week's installment of Hat GPT.

A

The Problem Solvers is a series from Anthropic about the startup founders building new things faster. With Claude like Scott Woo, co founder and CEO of Cognition, we build Devon,

C

the first AI software engineer, and a suite of tools around that.

B

By getting to work with Anthropic, we're able to go and deliver customers the exact capabilities that they're for looking, looking for. This is a world where building software is just as easy as telling your

C

computer what to do.

A

To hear more from startup founders like Scott, go to Claude.comProble Solvers.

F

This is Maurice Shama, host of the Last 12 Weeks, a new podcast from Serial Productions, the Marshall Project and the New York Times. A couple of years back, I got an email from a defense lawyer who wanted me to write about his client. The client, David Wood, was on death row in Texas, had been there for more than 30 years. The lawyer was writing because David Wood had lost all of his appeals. He was set to be executed. The lawyer's plan to stop the execution was to try and prove something that nobody had successfully done in three decades, that one of Texas most notorious serial killers was actually innocent. It wasn't that the lawyers didn't have a case to make.

D

I know two people fabricated touch testimony to get a guy executed.

F

It's just that they had so little time to make it the last 12 weeks. Listen, wherever you get your podcasts.

B

Well, Casey, so much news this week that we can't talk about it all in depth, but we can do a round of hatchy pt.

C

That's right. Hat GPT. Of course, our segment where we toss the week's news into a hat, pull out items one by one and discuss them until one of us gets bored and says, stop generating.

B

Okay, Kasey, we got a bunch of stuff in the hat this week. You go first.

C

All right, let's see. Kevin, this first story comes to us from the Times and our friend Mike Isaac. OpenAI is showing Kalshee's World cup odds in ChatGPT.

B

Kevin.

C

As part of a deal between the two companies, ChatGPT started displaying the Kalshi odds of victory in response to user queries about various World cup matches. For example, in the case of France and Spain, there was a graphic showing that the prediction market had assigned the French a 60% chance of winning, which was a very important information to have before France would go on to lose 2 0. So I think this is a perfect story because now, now there is something in ChatGPT that can help you lose money in a way that does not involve your monthly subscription payment to OpenAI.

B

It's beautiful. I am. I am circling a theory that actually has to do with this particular story, which is that the two most important forces operating in the world today are, one, AI capabilities and two, gambling addiction.

F

Yes.

B

This combines them both into a sort of, like, societal Voltron that is probably going to become unstoppable.

C

Yeah, and this one is a really funny one because, of course, like, prediction markets are so closely associated with the rationalists who were a driving force in, like, bringing about this current AI moment, you know, so it sort of looks like, you know, maybe a feature in ChatGPT that is, like, steeped in the cultural traditions of the place that birthed it. But on the other hand, it is just gambling. And I, as a, you know, like, paying subscriber to chatbots, it does offend me that I have to see gambling advertisements in my responses now.

B

Yeah, I just. I just think this is going to be sort of everywhere unless there's some sort of regulatory response, like, I expect to, like, open a box of cereal and it should just give me some Kalshee odds for something like in a year or two. I just think there's going to be no surface for our attention that does not in some way have a gambling ad attached to it.

C

All right, stop generating.

B

Okay, next, out of the hat. New York enacts nation's first statewide moratorium on data centers. Governor Kathy Hle, former hard for guest, signed an executive order recently pausing the construction of the largest data centers for One year while the state assesses their effects on the environment and energy use. This is a temporary pause on hyperscale data centers which use 50 or more megawatts of power to operate. And President Trump responded to this on True Social, calling it a terrible, horrible decision and saying the radical left Democrats must not be allowed to cause us to lose data centers, AI and all this incredible new technology to China and other countries. Casey, what do you make of the statewide moratorium in New York?

C

So I, I, I have to say I'm quite sympathetic here. The state legislature had passed a moratorium that would have been even more restrictive than this. And so my belief here is that the governor wanted to find a kind of middle path and throw a SOP who are worried about data centers in their communities without sort of going as far as some of the legislature did.

B

It was sort of a less a torium.

C

Yes, it really was very good.

B

Thank you.

C

And so look, I think it is reasonable to say that there are a lot of questions about the impact of these data centers and we want to investigate it now. You know, my hope is that during the next year they do what they're saying here and they get a handle on what is the actual impact to like the average rate payout. Right. And can we address some of these environmental concerns that are out there meaningfully? You know, we've talked on the show in the past about, well, maybe some of the, you know, water use claims are, are overstated here and I do believe that. But I'm reading other stuff about data centers contributing to like an urban heat island effect, for example, or like, like, like sort of like polluting the water supply. So these are just the sorts of things that I think it's reasonable to say we want to look into this before we have another 10 of these things go up in the state. What do you think?

B

I am sympathetic to wanting to have more information. I just hope that the information that makes it to the legislature and to the governor's office will be good, high quality information. I think there's been a lot of like, shoddy information out there about the, especially the environmental effects of data centers, the water use. Like a lot of that data seems pretty suspect to me. So I just hope that there is like a good, robust inquiry into like, what is the actual effect on these. And I think, think the short term effect is that if you are a tech company that was planning to build a data center in New York, first of all, you probably weren't planning to build a data center in New York. Because I think that's this. You know, it's generally known among the big AI companies and the hyperscalers that if you're going to build something, you want to build it in either Texas or some other red state that is likely to look more favorably on your project. But I think that is going to continue to happen where these data centers will open in largely red states where, you know, there are fewer Democrats to oppose them. I think this is unfortunately becoming quite a polarized issue. And it will remain to be seen whether those states that want the data centers end up getting a bunch of tax revenue from that, that makes their citizens lives better, or whether it is just a blight and the they will regret having let these things in.

C

Yeah, I mean, I don't know. I think that this, this issue is maybe a little bit less polarized than some people might think. There was just a massive data center fight in Utah, a very red state. You know, we've seen, you know, members of city councils, like, lose their positions over endorsing data centers. So this is not just a pure, like, Democrats hate data centers and Republicans love them. Like, Republicans do not love data centers either. And so I think the message to companies that want to build them is like, you have to make a really solid pitch. And that includes convincing people that this thing is not going to drive up their electricity prices and that it's not going to be horrible for the environment.

B

Do you know what they call it when they put a temporary ban on data center construction in utilities Utah?

D

What's that?

B

A mormentorium. Stop generating that Joke is for Whitney.

C

Shout out.

B

Okay, Casey, you're up.

C

All right, this is a thick one here. Kev had been wanting to ask you about this as a Brown University graduate. So this one comes to us from inside Higher ed. A Brown University economics professor, Roberto Serrano, had given his students a take home midterm exam in the spring. And students scored a whopping 96% on that midterm, which is way higher than normal. He said the average grade is usually between 65 and 80%. And so then it came time to do the final exam, which he gave in person. And the final exam score, Kevin, was 48.6%, an all time low for the course. There were many funny things in the data that he released, but my very favorite piece of data was that there was one student who scored 55% on the midterm and improved to 59% on the final. This is the most honest person at Brown University. And if you're listening we salute you.

B

We salute you. This was an amazing story that I was very interested in. For, you know, obvious reasons. I. I attended Brown University. I actually, actually spent a couple weeks in Professor Roberto Serrano's econ class before I dropped it because it was too hard. And I'm sure that I would have been one of these students who has sort of, you know, cheated on the midterm using chat, GPT or some other AI system and then absolutely bombed the final. It's worth saying, like, the reason that he gave the take home midterm was particularly generous. Like they had just had a school shooting on the campus of Brown.

C

Terrible.

B

So he says, you know, in the wake of that, like, do your take home exam, no time limit, like I think a very generous and compassionate move by a professor and how do his students repay him? But by cheating on Mass. I mean, there is no other explanation for how everyone would score an average of 96% on the midterm and then 48.6% on the in person final. The score distribution chart that was made to accompany this article was hilarious.

C

Truly it was.

B

It was just like, oh, everyone has had either had severe brain damage in the time between the midterm and the final, or everyone was cheating using AI.

C

Yeah, my takeaway here is that cheating is bad and you shouldn't cheat so

B

well, there's that too.

C

All right, stop generating.

B

All right, next out of the hat. Oh, this is a good one. Minimax CEO vows to forego salary until achieving AGI this one comes to us from the information Junji Yan, the founder and CEO of Chinese AI developer Minimax, told employees in an internal memo that he will forego his salary until the company achieves artificial general intelligence. The article also notes that Minimax's share price has not been doing so hot. It's down 80% from its peak, and the company's current flagship model has failed to gain traction in the market. But a bold move to say until AGI don't pay me, it really is.

C

And you know, Kevin, I believe it was last year that you wrote an article saying that AGI was imminent, which raises the question from me, are you prepared to forego your salary until AGI is achieved?

B

You know, I think AGI has already been achieved for my salary purposes, so I'm not going to let that factor into my negotiations. What about you?

C

I'm going to continue to be paid for my work. Thank you, sir. All right, stop generating.

B

All right.

C

Oh, I enjoyed this one. Lord has spoken up against what she called effed up AI glasses, Kevin. And she didn't say effed, if you know what I mean. Last week, the great singer Lorde was performing at the Mad Cool festival in Madrid and had this to say about smart glasses. Increasingly in our world, it gets harder and harder to know what is real. You don't know if someone is wearing sunglasses or if they're wearing those. Effed up effing. Can I just say, for the record, f the glasses don't get the glasses. Not sexy. She did not mention them by name, but Ray Ban was a festival sponsor and a number of outlets have pointed to the Ray Ban metagal glasses as her likely target. Kevin, what did you think of Lord's comment about the meta Ray Bans?

B

Well, I don't like it for this reason. I own a pair of meta Ray

E

Bans

B

and now I am worried that this backlash is going to result in me getting, like, punched in the face as I walk down the street with my ray bands on. Now I'm. I use them predominantly to take photos of my kid, but I have noticed that in the past several weeks, people have started to notice that I am wearing these things and they don't, like, you know, they don't punch me, they don't turn the other way. Like, they're mostly curious. But I think this is starting to become like a social, you know, Scarlet Letter a little bit.

C

Yes.

B

And I worry about its effect on my life.

C

Well, look, I don't want anyone to physically harm you because you're wearing these, but I have noticed that some folks online have have started to call the Ray Bans pervert glasses. And that does make me laugh. And the reason that they're being. They're being called that is because it has been possible to disable the light on the glasses that indicates that they are recording and continue to record. And, you know, you can go into these subreddits for these glasses and people are sort of exchanging tips on how to do this. So look, they did go back recently and change it so that you cannot apparently record if your glasses have been tampered with. But I don't think it is at all unreasonable to want to be able to walk down the street and not worry that strangers are recording you. And so I think that, you know, this statement was Lord's best single in at least two albums.

B

I just think, like, maybe I'm gonna have to start wearing, like a little placard on my, you know, around my neck that just says, like, these are for taking photos of, of my kid. Like, don't worry, I'm not creeping on you.

C

You know, I mean, look, here's the.

B

Here's. Then again, that would be like a real, like, you know, my not creeping on you sign is answering a lot of questions already raised by my not creeping sign.

C

It really would. I mean, look, this is just a classic case of, you know, Meta's own actions coming back to bite it. You know, like, people do not trust this company, and so now they have a hardware product and people don't trust that either.

B

It's very important to me that Apple release smart glasses with a camera in them, because I think as soon as that happens, a, they will just privacy more seriously. And Meta does. And also be like, it's not going to be stigmatized in the same way. You know, it'll, it'll, It'll just hit different coming from Apple.

C

Meta did like, ship code that had facial recognition technology in it and then freaked out once people noticed this and wrote about it and was like, how dare you? We would never implement something like this. And then they had to unship all the code. So again, this is truly just a mess that they made for themselves.

B

Yeah. And if anyone at OpenAI in the hardware division is looking at Apple prototype smart glasses, I would just encourage you to steal those and make that and not whatever smart speaker you're making.

C

Here's what we know. If you bring it to your job interview at OpenAI, they will look very favorably upon you.

B

Stop generating.

C

Okay. New polling from Pew Research about the share of people getting health and wellness information from influencers and podcasters is out. Kevin. At 57% of women ages 18 to 29 say they've gotten health and wellness information from social media influencers or podcasts. And for men 18 to 29, the number was 47%. So anything to say about this finding?

B

Yeah, I think people should absolutely be getting their health advice from podcasters. I can't think of any group more qualified to opine on healthcare in this country. And my advice for this week's health installment is don't eat the bagged lettuce at Taco Bell. Yeah, you know, there's this diarrhea superbug going around.

C

We wanted to make a statement to all of our listeners who have been affected by the explos diarrhea parasite. We see you and we are rooting for you. You are strong and you're gonna get through this. And hopefully if you're on the toilet right now, you're listening to our show and we're helping you take Your mind off of things. The good news is it doesn't seem like the parasite lasts longer than a month. So, yeah, here's what I'll say. I. I don't actually watch a lot of this, like, you know, sort of health influencer content, but I think I know roughly what it sounds like and I would like to do my impressions of what I think it sounds like.

F

Okay?

C

Now this is the, this is the content that you hear if you're a woman. Okay. You're probably not eating enough green beans. They're calling it green bean theory, and here's why celebrities are obsessed with it. Okay, so that's for a minute. And now this is what you get if you're a man. Okay. Could you win a fight with a horse? Maybe not today, but by the end of this video, you'll know 15 technical techniques to do it. Here's the workout. That's my impression of influencer content.

B

I love it.

C

Thank you.

B

Stop generating. Okay, last one, last one.

C

Meta removes AI feature on Instagram after days of backlash. Lot of Meta backlash this week. Last week, by the way. This comes from Eli Tan at the Times. Last week, Meta paused a new AI feature on Instagram that allows users to generate images based on people's public accounts, citing widespread criticism. The feature, which Meta unveiled on Tuesday, automatically opted in any Instagram user with a public account. As a result, countless people's likenesses were used in AI images without their consent. Users complained about privacy and copyright concerns. Meta walked it back and put out a statement saying, we've heard the feedback, essentially. Now, Kevin, why do you think people got so mad about an opt out feature that let anyone remix their face into anything using AI? Why did people get such a bee in their bonnet about, you know, we're

B

just a bunch of babies in this country. We just, you know, we're just jumpy and protective and we don't like progress. No, this is obviously a bad idea. If you paid one minute of attention to the launch of Sora when OpenAI sort of allowed you to put your friends or celebrities in cameos like that, also got a bunch of backlash. I assume that Meta knew that and went away with this anyway. And here's, here's what I've learned from my years of covering this company. Yeah, when they say, we've heard the feedback and we are pausing this feature, what they mean is we are waiting for something else to happen that is a bigger scandal by another company so that the attention on us dies down and we can ship the feature.

C

I think that's absolutely right. I've thought about this, and maybe it's like a post AGI job for me. I'd like to start a nonprofit foundation. And what it will do is it will introduce people who work at Meta to people who do not work at Meta and just sort of help them understand what it's like to be a person in the world. Like, what are their wants, their desires, their values, you know, what builds trust with it. And I think if we could get those two groups in conversation, Kevin, we could change the world.

B

It's like an exchange student program.

C

Yes, yes.

B

Like if you are, you know, an engineer at Meta, like, you have to go, like, work in an auto body shop in Kansas for a month and the auto body mechanic in Kansas comes to Menlo park and works at Meta.

C

Absolutely. This is a good idea.

B

Yeah. It has legs. If you're one of the Metaverse avatars, very good.

C

If you're one of the, you know, once the, the sort of AI IPOs happen and you got a lot of money to throw around, you want to start a nonprofit, get in.

F

Dutch.

B

Love it.

C

Okay, stop generating. All right, close the hat. And that was hatchbt.

B

That's all the news.

C

All the news.

A

Startup founders around the world are using Anthropic's Claude to solve problems, build faster, and create things that have never existed before.

B

By getting to work with Anthropic, we've

C

been able to help bring folks to

B

a new era of software engineering.

C

We are a very small startup, so Anthropic model actually changed everything about how we've worked together as a team.

B

The very cool thing for us is the that with each new model, new capabilities are unlocked.

A

To watch the full series go to claude.com problemsolvers that's claude.com problemsolvers it's your

D

day to play it's your morning to

E

make the most of it's your way

B

to love it's your climate to consider

E

it's your answer to what should I watch? It's your money to save it's your

B

song to analyze line by line it's

D

your 10 ways to find a little

B

calm it's your world to understand

D

the New York Times. Find out more@nytimes.com yourworld.

C

Artwork is produced by Whitney Jones and Rachel Cohn. Were edited by Veren Pavic. We're fact checked by Caitlin Love. Today's show was engineered by by Alyssa Moxley. Original music by Elisa Ba itu, Diane Wong, Rowan Nimisto and Dan Pell. Video production by Sawyer Roque. Jake Nichol and Chris Shot. You can watch this whole episode on YouTube@YouTube.com hardfork Special thanks to Paula Schumann, Wee Wing Tam, Brooke Minters and Thalia Haddad. You can email us@hardforkytimes.com with your favorite Lord single, SA.