Podcasts about ilya sutskever

O Império da IA, com Karen HaoEm 2019 — tempos mais simples! — a jornalista Karen Hao foi fazer o primeiro “perfil” jornalístico da sua carreira, aquelas reportagens em que um jornalista passa dias acompanhando uma pessoa ou empresa, uma coisa meio biografia, meio retrato congelado no tempo.A tal empresa era uma startup do Vale do Silício, ainda pequena e desconhecida dos meros mortais como eu e você, mas que hoje é a mais valiosa da história: a OpenAI, também conhecida como “a criadora do ChatGPT”.A Karen Hao vendeu o projeto do perfil para o MIT Technology Review porque a OpenAI parecia, naquela época, uma startup diferente. O “open” no nome nasceu da visão de que inteligência artificial é um assunto tão importante para o futuro da humanidade que precisava ser explorado de um jeito aberto, compartilhando conhecimento com todo mundo, e mais preocupado em proteger esse tal futuro do que em só gerar lucro.Hoje, aqui direto de 2026, a gente já sabe que não foi exatamente isso que aconteceu. Com o tempo, a OpenAI se transformou numa empresa oficialmente voltada para o lucro como qualquer outra e chegou a ser processada por Elon Musk — um dos apoiadores iniciais do projeto — por quebrar essa promessa de ser ‘open'. Em maio, o Elno perdeu a causa, e a OpenAI agora se prepara para lançar as ações na bolsa e, pelos números atuais, já largar valendo mais de 1 trilhão de dólares.Mesmo em 2019, a Karen Hao sentiu que todo esse papo de “open” não era bem assim: segredos e competitividade em todas as conversas que ela ouvia na empresa. Publicou o tal perfil contando isso e o pessoal da OpenAI… não gostou muito. Achou que ela ia só falar bem deles, e a empresa cortou contato com ela por três anos.O Boa Noite Internet é uma publicação apoiada por pessoas como você, nosso público. Para receber novos posts e apoiar meu trabalho, considere tornar-se um assinante gratuito ou pago.Até que, em maio do ano passado, ela lançou nos EUA o livro O império da IA: Por dentro da corrida irresponsável pela dominação total, que segue contando a história da OpenAI — e abre com a bizarra saída do Sam Altman, demitido do cargo de CEO por “nem sempre falar a verdade” ao conselho da empresa, para voltar quatro dias depois nos braços dos funcionários.Mas esse livro não é exatamente uma biografia da OpenAI. Para mim, é mais um retrato de todo o sistema empresarial em que vivemos hoje — inteligência artificial ou não. O importante é que ele acabou de sair no Brasil pela Editora Rocco, que me procurou para saber se eu queria entrevistá-la aqui no programa, aproveitando que ela veio participar do Esquenta do Congresso Internacional de Jornalismo Investigativo da Associação Brasileira de Jornalismo Investigativo. O congresso, aliás, acontece dia 30 de julho — vai lá no site da Abraji saber mais, quem sabe comprar seu ingresso.Mas enfim, claro que eu queria conversar com ela. Obrigado, Abraji, obrigado, pessoal da Rocco, pelo presente. Quem me conhece sabe que IA agora é um assunto muuuito importante no meu trabalho. Eu fico aqui tentando navegar o meio do caminho entre o fim do mundo exterminador do futuro e a utopia vendida por muita gente. Não acredito em nenhum dos dois cenários, falei disso com a Karen antes e durante a conversa. Mas no final da entrevista a gente volta para falar não só disso, como também de como o IA em Curso, minha comunidade de letramento contínuo em IA, se conecta com tudo. Com promoção? Pode ser. Quem ficar até o fim, verá.A entrevista foi gravada em inglês — a Karen também fala mandarim, mas não fala brazilian —, então vai funcionar assim. Se ouvir no áudio, vai ser a versão original, do mesmo jeito que foi com o Ted Chiang ano passado, para você botar o seu cursinho para trabalhar. Aqui no site boanoiteinternet.com.br você está acompanhando a transcrição completa traduzida, se quiser ler enquanto ouve. E no YouTube tem uma versão legendada. Assim, você entra na conversa do jeito que preferir.Combinado? Então, bora lá entender O Império da IA com Karen Hao, no Boa Noite Internet.Cris: Karen Hao, bem-vinda ao Boa Noite Internet.Karen Hao: Obrigada pelo convite.Cris: Que bom ter você aqui. Espero que o Brasil esteja te tratando bem durante a Copa do Mundo — a gente veio falar sobre isso. Hoje é dia de falar de futebol, de Copa do Mundo, quais são as chances de cada país. Mas a primeira coisa que você precisa saber sobre essa conversa é que eu não sou jornalista. Não sei fazer isso. Peço desculpas antecipadas à sua profissão e ao seu ofício.Além disso, você foi enganada. Eu não estou aqui pra te entrevistar. Isso aqui é uma sessão de terapia. Você vai me ajudar a superar meus traumas.Porque eu sou da… do que eu chamo de “geração esquecida” — sou geração X, nasci nos anos 70. Esquecida porque, nessa guerra de gerações, as pessoas esquecem que a gente existe, e isso é incrível, porque a gente causou muito estrago no planeta. O Elon Musk é geração X, então é só isso que você precisa saber sobre a minha turma. Gente como ele, ou como Marc Andreessen… eu cresci lendo e assistindo à ficção científica que dizia que tecnologia é a melhor coisa do mundo, que ciência e engenheiros são incríveis e vão nos levar pra um lugar incrível.Sou uma daquelas pessoas que, quando a internet surgiu, falou: a paz mundial está logo ali. O conhecimento a um clique de distância, o futuro vai ser incrível. E aqui estamos nós. Então, quando usei o GPT pela primeira vez, e depois o ChatGPT, fiquei super empolgado. Foi a primeira vez, desde a internet, que eu fiquei realmente empolgado.Tenho até uma certa fama de ser mal-humorado com tecnologia: Bitcoin é lavagem de dinheiro, Clubhouse não presta — e as pessoas, ah, Clubhouse é a próxima grande coisa. Mas quando a IA chegou, eu falei: isso é importante. Só que eu já não era mais aquela criança dos anos 70. Tinha crescido, tinha visto o que aconteceu com a internet, tinha trabalhado numa big tech. E estava em desespero com o sistema em que a IA estava sendo construída.Dito tudo isso, o seu livro, aqui, já nas livrarias, recebe provavelmente o melhor elogio que eu posso dar: é otimista. Não é uma lista de reclamações e gente má fazendo coisas más. Claro, você fala muito sobre a OpenAI — ela é o fio condutor da história, especialmente aqueles quatro dias em que o Sam Altman saiu e voltou. E é muito divertido de ler. Mas você toma o cuidado de ser otimista.E uma das coisas que você menciona é como as pessoas na OpenAI, e em todas essas empresas, dizem: “isso é inevitável, a gente tem que fazer”. Quero falar sobre isso. Mas a gente tem que começar pela pergunta que você provavelmente ouve em todo podcast, a do título — Império da IA. Por que império?E acho que essa pergunta é ainda mais relevante no Brasil, país do sul global, colonizado. Por que império da IA?Karen Hao: Antes de mais nada, obrigada por dizer que o livro é otimista. Muita gente não reconhece isso, mas é verdade. Eu escrevo com um profundo otimismo de que os danos que a gente vê podem mudar. Não faria o trabalho que faço se não achasse que as coisas vão mudar.Sobre por que eu uso a expressão império, ou império da IA: a forma como empresas como a OpenAI operam é impressionantemente parecida com a dos impérios antigos. Eu traço quatro paralelos no livro. O primeiro é que elas reivindicam recursos que não são delas — os dados das pessoas, a propriedade intelectual de artistas, criadores como você, jornalistas.Segundo, elas exploram uma quantidade extraordinária de mão de obra. Isso vale tanto para os trabalhadores da cadeia de produção de IA, mal pagos e maltratados, que ainda assim geram uma riqueza extraordinária para essas empresas, quanto para os trabalhadores cujos empregos são automatizados e cujos direitos são corroídos pela implantação dessas tecnologias em diferentes setores.A terceira característica é que impérios controlam os fluxos de informação na sociedade. Essas empresas censuram a pesquisa fundamental sobre essas tecnologias, o que limita nossa capacidade de entender as verdadeiras limitações e capacidades dos modelos que desenvolvem. E estão criando uma tecnologia de informação que tentam transformar no portal único pelo qual qualquer pessoa se relaciona com o mundo.Esse portal impregna as ideologias do Vale do Silício, seus sistemas de valores, sua língua, e projeta a hegemonia do inglês. Isso influencia boa parte do conhecimento que a gente vai produzir daqui pra frente, porque cientistas e educadores usam essas plataformas e acabam perpetuando essas mesmas ideologias e valores.E o quarto e último paralelo é que impérios sempre se agarram a uma narrativa existencial ou moral sobre por que precisam existir. Essas empresas fazem a mesma coisa. Dizem que são o “império do bem”, numa missão civilizatória de trazer progresso e modernidade pra toda a humanidade, competindo contra um “império do mal” que ameaça mandar a humanidade pro inferno.Quando você conversa com algumas pessoas dentro dessas empresas, ou que as lideram, elas dizem: se você nos deixar construir uma inteligência artificial geral, que elas de alguma forma moldam como um deus, a gente vai acabar numa espécie de utopia, um paraíso onde a mudança climática é resolvida, o câncer é curado, a pobreza é aliviada.Mas, se os caras maus conseguirem isso antes, a gente pode acabar com todos os humanos mortos — um risco de extinção pra todos nós.Cris: E eles vêm dizendo isso há quase dez anos, e ainda usam como ferramenta. A gente está num país que foi influenciado por três impérios ao longo da história: Portugal, Inglaterra e agora os Estados Unidos. Então a gente olha pra essas empresas de um jeito meio cínico: sim, sim, já conhecemos essa história.Mas, ao mesmo tempo, ano passado, o Pew Research Center fez uma pesquisa sobre como o mundo enxerga a IA, e o sul global é bem mais otimista do que o norte. Uma das razões é a ideia de democratizar — não só informação, mas: ah, finalmente eu posso montar uma startup, sair desse lugar de exploração e criar o unicórnio de um bilhão de dólares. Os números são grandes na China. Países em desenvolvimento veem muito mais benefício do que risco na IA.China, 83%. Tailândia, 77%. Holanda, 36%. Canadá, 40%. Será que a gente está deixando passar alguma coisa? A gente está certo? Isso está democratizando mesmo? Até que ponto?Karen Hao: Provavelmente tem duas razões. Uma é que muitos dos danos que a indústria de IA causa à maioria global são bem escondidos. Ela se esforça muito pra esconder como polui o ambiente dessas comunidades, como explora e devasta a mão de obra, deixando traumas psicológicos — como documento no livro.E, recentemente, li um artigo de opinião no New York Times que trazia um bom ponto: muitas economias desenvolvidas estão especialmente atentas ao potencial da IA de desmontar oportunidades de emprego de tempo integral. A gente começa a ver isso cada vez mais. Já na maioria global, muito mais gente vive em economias informais, e aí a ideia de que a IA vai tomar um emprego de tempo integral não pesa tanto.Então os danos mais visíveis — a erosão do emprego formal de tempo integral — pesam mais no norte global, ou pelo menos é lá que as pessoas se sentem mais ansiosas. E os danos invisíveis, que atingem o sul global, ninguém percebe tanto, justamente porque são invisíveis. É meio por isso que tanta gente sente essa divisão que aparece na pesquisa do Pew.Cris: Eu tenho acompanhado as notícias sobre IA no Brasil, e toda semana tem um novo data center sendo construído em alguma cidade. Isso é vendido como uma coisa boa: que ótimo investimento, gera emprego. E me fez pensar de novo — a gente passou por três impérios, mas algumas famílias no Brasil, e aposto que em outros lugares também, estão no poder há 500 anos ao longo da história do país.Então, ao mesmo tempo, a gente pensa: é, estamos sendo explorados, é a mesma coisa. Eu já não tenho emprego, então deixa eu usar essa tecnologia pra melhorar minha vida. Mas as pessoas que realmente tomam as decisões, de novo, nos últimos 500 anos, se perguntaram: como a gente ajuda esse pessoal a explorar nosso país de um jeito que nos mantenha no poder e nos dê muito dinheiro?Mas também foi verdade que, sei lá, a Volkswagen abre uma fábrica no Brasil e aquilo gera emprego, contrata gente pro chão de fábrica e pros escritórios. Como é que isso é diferente com a IA?Karen Hao: De certa forma, não é diferente. Existe um fenômeno parecido: a indústria de IA terceiriza muitos dos trabalhos que ela não quer dentro dos centros de poder, e joga isso pra comunidades empobrecidas, do mesmo jeito que outras multinacionais fizeram por décadas.Mas também é diferente, porque a escala dos impactos trabalhistas e ambientais da IA é completamente outra, muito maior que a da indústria automobilística ou da moda. E a velocidade é outra, porque são tecnologias digitais que atravessam fronteiras muito rápido.E é diferente porque a maioria das pessoas não percebe que a IA, mesmo sendo tecnologia digital, tem uma cadeia de suprimentos muito física e intensiva em mão de obra manual.Quando você compra roupa, café, um carro, é mais óbvio que existem materiais que precisam ser extraídos e depois manuseados por pessoas pra criar aquele produto. Já com a IA, a maioria aceita a narrativa que o Vale do Silício projeta: a de que isso vem da “nuvem”, desses espaços etéreos que parecem nem existir no planeta. E a verdade é exatamente o oposto.Ela depende de uma quantidade extraordinária de extração mineral. Depende da construção de infraestruturas enormes — data centers, instalações de supercomputação espalhadas pelo mundo. E depende de muita, muita mão de obra manual: trabalhadores de dados que limpam, preparam e moderam o conteúdo dos sistemas de IA que chegam até você quando usa o ChatGPT.É isso que a torna tão diferente. E há também uma ideologia completamente diferente sustentando a expansão da IA. Quando você conversa com executivos da moda, eles não vão dizer: se você não comprar nossa roupa, vai pro inferno.Já a indústria de IA diz: se você não nos deixar capturar cada vez mais terra, mais recursos e mais mão de obra pra produzir essas tecnologias, vamos ter uma destruição civilizacional. Isso é, ao mesmo tempo, retórica política usada como arma pra moldar o debate público e a cabeça de quem formula políticas, e também está enraizado num sistema de crenças — algumas pessoas dentro dessas empresas realmente acreditam que, se uma AGI fosse construída, e construída nas mãos erradas, isso levaria mesmo a esse tipo de destruição.E é isso que move a sede cada vez maior da indústria por mais capital, mais recursos e mais terra.Cris: Eu quero falar sobre AGI, mas antes: ano passado, a OpenAI estava sendo processada no Reino Unido por violação de direitos autorais, basicamente todos os livros do mundo digitalizados e usados pra treinar modelos. E um dos executivos disse ao júri: bem, se a gente não puder fazer isso, fecha as portas. Me chocou que muita gente reagiu com um “ah, tá, o que a gente pode fazer? Eles vão fechar as portas”.Em parte porque a gente já está acostumado com essa narrativa. Outro dia, numa conferência, um ex-CEO dizia: a gente teve que usar embalagem de plástico porque é mais barata que papel, senão prejudicaria nosso resultado. E a plateia reagia: ah, então é só fechar as portas — a sociedade não pode arcar com isso.Mas isso também, como você disse, se conecta à ideia de uma grande missão, uma missão de salvar o mundo, que a gente precisa cumprir antes que seja tarde, senão estamos condenados. OpenAI está literalmente no nome — só que em português não é tão direto: é “inteligência artificial aberta”.Foi criada a partir de um sonho, um projeto que era pra ser uma coisa pro bem comum. Em 2019, num tempo bem distante, antes da pandemia, você cobriu a OpenAI, foi até o escritório deles, ficou lá dentro. O que você viu? E, mais importante, como essa missão mudou? O Elon Musk os processou outro dia justamente por mudarem a missão. Isso alguma vez foi verdade? Em algum momento eles pensaram mesmo “ah, a gente vai salvar o mundo”?Como essa narrativa de ser aberta funciona com a OpenAI?Karen Hao: Quando comecei a cobrir a OpenAI, levei a sério o que eles diziam — que tinham sido recrutados com a missão de beneficiar toda a humanidade. E aí, quando me infiltrei na empresa, fui ficando bem mais cética, porque via como eles operavam de um jeito completamente diferente, portas adentro, do que diziam em público.Diziam que iam publicar todas as pesquisas e abrir o código de tudo, e na prática eram uma das organizações mais secretas que já cobri. Eram muitas discrepâncias, e, na época, presumi que tinha havido algum tipo de corrupção que os levou a abandonar a missão original. Depois de cobrir a empresa por mais alguns anos e de trabalhar neste livro, mudei de ideia até sobre a missão original.Não acho mais que ela era um esforço sincero e generoso de beneficiar a humanidade. A missão foi criada pra dar à empresa — na época, uma organização sem fins lucrativos — uma margem de manobra extraordinária pra depois levantar muito capital, acumular muito talento e perseguir a força motriz de verdade por trás de tudo aquilo: se tornar a força dominante no desenvolvimento de IA.E penso assim agora porque, quando você olha pras narrativas de cada nova empresa de IA no começo — a Anthropic, a xAI, a Safe Superintelligence do Ilya Sutskever, a Thinking Machines Lab da Mira Murati —, todas usam a mesma narrativa da OpenAI: nós somos os mocinhos, eles são os bandidos.É por isso que precisamos criar uma nova empresa que avance a IA do nosso jeito, não do deles. E você começa a perceber, por esse padrão, que eles repetem a mesma coisa em parte porque acreditam nela até certo ponto, mas também porque ela funciona muito bem com a imprensa, com o público, com quem formula políticas.No livro, eu reproduzo os e-mails internos que Elon Musk, Sam Altman e Greg Brockman trocavam nos primeiros dias da OpenAI. Eles tinham plena consciência de que estavam criando uma missão que soasse bem para o público. E o propósito de verdade, que também deixaram registrado nesses e-mails, era vencer o Google. Viam o Google como a força dominante em IA e queriam ser eles essa força.Não gostavam de ver o Google na frente, então inventaram justificativas: o Google é uma empresa com fins lucrativos, então nós vamos ser sem fins lucrativos. Mas, no fundo, acho que era puro ego: tem que ser a gente, não eles, a gente quer ser quem lidera isso.E aí passaram um tempão moldando essa missão pública, que acabou sendo super útil pra recrutar o primeiro grupo de pesquisadores e turbinar o avanço deles.Cris: Então agora é um bom momento pra falar de AGI, a inteligência artificial geral. Muita gente pergunta: o que é AGI? O que “geral” quer dizer? E a impressão que peguei lendo seu livro é que, por design, isso nunca fica claro de verdade, porque é um alvo móvel. Essas empresas um dia vão dizer “chegamos, alcançamos a AGI”? Ou o plano é sempre “não, não, ainda não chegamos, me dá mais dinheiro, me dá mais poder”?Qual é o papel da AGI na narrativa dessas empresas?Karen Hao: Já que a gente está falando de ficção científica, eu costumo usar a analogia de que o mundo da IA é meio como Duna. Em Duna, o personagem principal, Paul Atreides, entende, ao chegar no planeta Arrakis, que o povo de lá foi semeado com um mito: o de que um dia viria um Messias pra libertá-los. Ele sabe que é um mito, mas decide entrar nele e agir como se fosse o Messias pra controlar melhor aquele povo.E, vivendo, respirando e encarnando esse mito dia após dia, ele começa a perder a noção de que é um mito. Passa a se perguntar se o mito era mesmo verdadeiro ou se foi ele quem o tornou verdadeiro. É essa confusão entre mito e realidade — ele vive num espaço intermediário, sem ter mais certeza do que é verdade e do que é ficção.E trago isso pra responder sobre a AGI porque a AGI é, ao mesmo tempo, um mito e algo que os líderes e os trabalhadores dessas empresas vivem, respiram e encarnam dia após dia, a ponto de perderem a noção do que é mito e do que é realidade. É a ideia de um sistema de IA teórico que um dia igualaria as capacidades humanas. Só que a gente nem tem consenso científico sobre o que é inteligência humana.Por isso, de certa forma, por design, é um termo bem maleável, que deixa essas empresas fazerem o que quiserem. Elas definem e redefinem a AGI conforme a necessidade, movem a trave pra onde quiserem. E, ao mesmo tempo, isso é sustentado por uma crença genuína de certas pessoas lá dentro, por causa dessa confusão entre mito e realidade. Pelas minhas contas, a OpenAI já usou pelo menos quatro definições diferentes de AGI.A primeira está no site deles: “sistemas altamente autônomos que superam humanos na maioria dos trabalhos economicamente valiosos”. É uma definição de automação do trabalho — eles dizem, de forma explícita, que estão atrás dos empregos mais bem pagos. A segunda apareceu no contrato com a Microsoft, por um tempo a maior investidora deles: ali, a AGI virou um sistema que geraria 100 bilhões de dólares em receita.Ou seja, uma definição feita pra incentivar a Microsoft a investir. Já o Sam Altman disse ao Congresso que AGI é um sistema que cura o câncer e resolve a mudança climática — uma definição de benefício social, muito útil quando você quer que os reguladores não te regulem.E, por fim, quando falam com o consumidor, dizem que vai ser o melhor assistente digital que você já teve — porque, claro, estão tentando vender o produto.E aí você percebe duas coisas. Primeiro, que é um conjunto de definições completamente incoerente. Segundo, que eles trocam de definição conforme o público que querem convencer. Mas também tem gente nessas empresas que acredita de verdade que está construindo uma tecnologia capaz de dar conta das quatro coisas.Então é uma realidade bem confusa e complicada: o que a AGI de fato é, e pra que ela serve, para essas empresas, para a agenda delas e também para as crenças delas.Cris: Como ex-funcionário da Meta — entrei em 2013 —, a missão era unir o mundo e torná-lo mais aberto e conectado. É uma missão incrível. E tem uma coisa que eu sempre digo, porque muito amigo meu vem falar comigo, “ah, esse cara da OpenAI, ou a própria Meta, são maus”. Eu conheci muita gente na empresa. Nunca conheci uma pessoa mal-intencionada.Todo mundo, independente da missão, era gente boa tentando entregar o melhor produto possível, pra dar poder a quem tem um pequeno negócio, por exemplo. Tenho amigos pessoais que construíram a empresa deles em cima da publicidade do Facebook e do Instagram. E esse é justamente o problema, porque ainda assim é uma corporação muito má, pelo que ela causa ao mundo pra bater as metas de negócio.Ou seja, você não precisa de um vilão tipo Lex Luthor pra causar um estrago desse tamanho no mundo. E adorei a referência a Duna. Duna é engraçado: é o livro que eu mais reli na vida que não foi escrito pelo Tolkien. Li o primeiro Duna umas três vezes, e toda vez é como se fosse um livro diferente. Na primeira, eu era adolescente, e era só o Paul Atreides, o cara durão.Na segunda, eu morava no Canadá e li com olhos de estrangeiro, pensando em colonização. E na terceira vez foi quando os filmes do Denis Villeneuve saíram, e aí era: ah, o Bene Gesserit criou esse mito, isso é meio pós-moderno. Narrativamente, fico me perguntando o que vai significar pra mim se eu ler uma quarta vez.Karen Hao: Eu ia te perguntar isso. Quando você disse que cresceu numa época cheia de ficção científica falando das maravilhas da tecnologia, fiquei curiosa: que histórias você estava lendo? Porque muita coisa que saiu nos anos 70 e 80 dizia exatamente o oposto. E muita gente já apontou que os executivos de tecnologia de hoje, que vivem citando essas histórias, interpretam elas justamente ao contrário da intenção original.Cris: Concordo plenamente. Mas, respondendo: foi basicamente Isaac Asimov e Arthur C. Clarke. E é por isso mesmo — os executivos de tecnologia, e o Elon Musk mais que todos, leem esses livros como receita, não como aviso. O livro de que eu mais me lembro, nem lembro o título, era um do Asimov em que ele descreve o elevador espacial que aparece na série da Apple TV, Fundação.E o enredo é: eu sou esse engenheiro brilhante, quero construir essa coisa no Sri Lanka, mas o governo trava tudo com regulação — eu sou um gênio e a regulação é a vilã. Hoje eu leio e penso: ah, sei. Mas, quando garoto, era só “olha, um elevador espacial, que genial, a gente nem precisa de foguete”. E aí você começa a entender. E aí eu parei de ler esses caras.E passei a ler gente com uma visão completamente diferente: o Ted Chiang, que entrevistei ano passado, a N.K. Jemisin, o Cory Doctorow, de quem sou muito fã. E talvez eles sejam mais explícitos, pra gente burra como eu entender: “não, bobo, a analogia é essa”. Mas Duna era incrível — vermes gigantes de areia, o tal garoto durão, e aquela coisa do “eu não aceito o meu destino”.Tenho esse grande destino, mas não quero ele. Do resto da série eu já não gosto tanto. Mas o mais importante de tudo: Duna gerou o melhor GIF de filme de todos os tempos, o “Lisan al Gaib” do Javier Bardem — que eu devia ter colocado durante a sua explicação, aquele “uau, ele está cumprindo a profecia, agindo como o profeta”.Mas, de novo, falando de vilões: você mencionou que essas empresas se colocam como o bem contra o mal, feito impérios antigos. Só que elas também jogam a carta da China, né? “Se a gente não fizer, a Rússia faz primeiro.” Só que a Rússia começou uma guerra e está ocupada demais. “Mas a China chega lá, e é por isso que a gente tem que ser fechado.” É por isso que Mythos e Fable e agora o GPT-5.6 foram proibidos pelo governo. Isso tem fundamento?Quero saber se é possível a China competir — quero mesmo essa resposta — mas também porque, desde toda essa conversa do Fable-Mythos, países como Índia e Brasil vêm dizendo que precisam de um modelo soberano. Dá pra fazer, ou a OpenAI, a Anthropic e o Google estão tão à frente que já não dá?Karen Hao: Sobre a China: você está certíssimo, o Vale do Silício usou por anos a carta do “e a China?” pra escapar de qualquer responsabilização de verdade. Fizeram muito isso na era das redes sociais.A Meta fez muito isso, com o Mark Zuckerberg dizendo ao governo dos EUA: vocês não podem nos regular, senão a gente perde. Mas, se a gente ganhar, vai ter um efeito liberalizante no mundo e nas democracias em todo lugar. E, infelizmente, o que a gente viu foi que jogar essa carta repetidamente produziu exatamente o efeito contrário do que o Vale do Silício prometeu.Uma das empresas de rede social dominantes dessa era é a ByteDance. Ou seja, mesmo sem regulação das redes sociais nos EUA, existe uma empresa chinesa de rede social bem dominante. E as redes sociais estadunidenses acabaram tendo um efeito antiliberal no mundo — é bastante consensual que enfraqueceram democracias em todo lugar. E aí, na era da IA, elas seguiram jogando a mesma carta.Mas o que eu sempre aponto é que a gente definitivamente não devia acreditar nelas. Já existe evidência significativa de que tudo o que elas dizem está, de novo, se provando o oposto. Elas disseram: não regulem a gente como empresas de IA, regulem a China, via controles de exportação — um mecanismo do governo dos EUA com alcance extraterritorial.Só que as empresas chinesas agora estão produzindo modelos de IA de código aberto extremamente eficientes, que viraram super populares no próprio Vale do Silício. Existe um monte de startup de lá que prefere usar modelo chinês a OpenAI, Anthropic ou Google.Então, nesse sentido, é um conjunto de evidências bem decisivo, acho, pra mostrar que a gente devia simplesmente responsabilizar essas empresas, não importa o que digam sobre “ah, vamos perder pra China”. No fim das contas, é só retórica política. Não é um argumento real que elas consigam sustentar pra escapar da responsabilização.Responsabilizá-las vai fortalecer a democracia pelo mundo, vai trazer mais direitos humanos, trabalhistas e de privacidade de dados pras pessoas — é sempre o contrário do que elas dizem que aconteceria. E, sobre a sua pergunta em torno da IA soberana: acho a ideia realmente importante, mas acho também que muitos países estão meio confusos sobre o que querem dizer com isso.Muitos governos, hoje, pensam a IA soberana pela pergunta: a gente consegue construir o nosso próprio ChatGPT? O nosso próprio grande modelo de linguagem, o nosso sistema de IA generativa? Estão olhando só pro modelo que o Vale do Silício já definiu e tentando descobrir como recriar aquilo.E o que eu digo pra quem formula políticas é: defina pra que a IA serve no seu país, no seu contexto. Quais são, no fim das contas, os objetivos do seu país? Os objetivos do seu povo? E também os nossos objetivos coletivos, entre países?Porque a gente tem, por exemplo, os Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável da ONU. Já definimos coletivamente que há coisas que precisamos resolver juntos: superar a crise climática, reduzir a pobreza, melhorar a educação.E, enquanto o Vale do Silício adora dizer que está fazendo tudo isso, na prática não está. Mas a gente poderia — poderia desenvolver, de forma colaborativa, sistemas de IA que realmente avançassem em cada um desses objetivos coletivos que já acordamos.E cada país também devia fazer o exercício: quais objetivos você quer alcançar, e que tipos de sistema de IA você poderia desenhar pra chegar lá — sistemas que talvez não se pareçam em nada com um grande modelo de linguagem. Se os países fizessem isso, acho que descobririam que a maioria dos sistemas de que precisam exigiria muito menos recursos.Ou seja, contextos como o Brasil, a Índia e outros, quando não precisam competir construindo essas infraestruturas de computação gigantescas e gastando centenas de bilhões de dólares, na verdade já têm, localmente, todos os recursos necessários pra desenvolver um sistema de IA soberano.Cris: Quando ouvi falar do seu livro pela primeira vez, uma amiga me disse que você não poupa ninguém — fala mal do Sam Altman, mas também do Dario Amodei. E as pessoas costumam escolher um lado. Eu sou time Claude, odeio o ChatGPT, essas coisas. Então cheguei no livro pensando: ah, é mais um livro dizendo que a IA é terrível, que a gente não devia usar IA.Mas, conforme fui lendo, e ouvindo outras entrevistas suas, me pareceu que o seu problema é justamente o que você acabou de descrever: a forma como essa tecnologia é feita. E, em especial, a palavra escala — a ideia de que a solução é a escala. O que você quer dizer com isso?Karen Hao: Eu costumo usar a analogia de que “IA” é como a palavra “transporte”: na verdade se refere a uma coleção de tecnologias que vão da bicicleta ao foguete. São tipos bem, bem diferentes de tecnologia, que exigem insumos diferentes pra se desenvolver e depois têm impactos diferentes na sociedade.E você está certo: sou especificamente crítica ao que chamo de “foguetes da IA”, os sistemas que os impérios da IA estão desenvolvendo, aqueles que exigem uma quantidade enorme de exploração de mão de obra e extração ambiental.E sou bem otimista com o que chamo de “bicicletas da IA”: sistemas especializados, eficientes, com bom custo-benefício, governáveis pelas pessoas, cujo desenvolvimento pode ser participativo. Países como o Brasil, o Chile, a Índia, qualquer contexto, têm recursos pra desenvolver e se autodefinir, em vez de simplesmente herdar um sistema criado pelos dois únicos centros do mundo capazes de gastar uma quantidade extraordinária de capital: o Vale do Silício e o ecossistema tecnológico chinês.E o motivo pelo qual eu acho tão corrosivo o que os impérios da IA estão desenvolvendo é exatamente o que você disse: a forma como eles fazem isso, por um mecanismo de força bruta pra avançar as capacidades da IA em escala. Eles vão simplesmente empurrando cada vez mais dados de treinamento nesses modelos, e isso exige corroer a privacidade das pessoas, tomar a propriedade intelectual delas e, ainda por cima, baixa a qualidade dos dados que entram nos modelos — o que leva aos danos de exploração de mão de obra, porque aí você tem que dar conta da moderação de conteúdo.E aí você tem pessoas psicologicamente traumatizadas por serem expostas a todo aquele conteúdo horrível que se tenta “lavar” através desses modelos.E aí vem o problema dessas infraestruturas de computação enormes, com impactos ambientais que aumentam a conta de luz das comunidades que as hospedam e agravam a crise de custo de vida. Elas precisam ser alimentadas por fontes fósseis, que jogam mais carbono na atmosfera e mais poluição no ar dessas comunidades.Então todos os problemas que eu identifico, no que têm de corrosivo, derivam inteiramente da abordagem deles pro desenvolvimento de IA. Por que não descartar a abordagem, em vez de descartar a tecnologia? Redefinir e redesenhar de que tipos de sistema de IA a gente precisa de verdade, com uma cadeia de suprimentos fundamentalmente diferente. E isso não é exclusivo da IA.A gente já viu muitas outras indústrias que começaram com uma cadeia de suprimentos bem ruim. A moda, por exemplo: muita degradação ambiental, muita exploração de mão de obra.Com muita organização, protesto, ação de consumidores, regulação governamental e cooperação entre governos, a gente conseguiu criar mercados novos pra moda sustentável e ética, cadeias de suprimentos novas e inovações pra fazer roupa mais saudável pras pessoas e pro planeta.E é basicamente isso que eu defendo: transformar a indústria de IA do mesmo jeito que transformamos a moda, e as cadeias de suprimento de alimentos. Assim a gente fica com os benefícios da tecnologia, ajuda ela a avançar os objetivos que importam pra gente, sem jogar uma fração enorme da população mundial numa condição atrasada e numa qualidade de vida pior.Cris: O Brasil está agora, no Congresso, discutindo a escala de seis dias por semana. A regra atual é: você trabalha seis dias e descansa um. E muitas empresas, o comércio principalmente, dizem “vamos fechar as portas”, e os trabalhadores respondem “isso é problema seu, não meu”. É mais ou menos a mesma narrativa dessas empresas de IA: se eu não usar a sua água, a Idade das Trevas está chegando.Falando em Idade das Trevas, e falando em bicicleta: a sua analogia me lembrou uma coisa. Eu gosto de jogo de zumbi, de mundo aberto, e em nenhum deles tem bicicleta. Num desses jogos, instalei um plugin que deixava andar de bicicleta — você acha uma e sai pedalando. E aí entendi por que não tem bicicleta: desbalanceia tudo. Parte da graça do jogo é você precisar achar um carro, e daí pneu, gasolina, comida pra carregar. De bicicleta, você vai a qualquer lugar.E eu pensei: ah, é. Meio que estraguei o jogo pra mim, porque agora tenho uma bicicleta, é incrível. Enfim, em termos práticos: no fim do ano passado, uns meses atrás, a revista Wired publicou um artigo pedindo pra jornalistas de tecnologia contarem como usam IA no trabalho. E cada um usava de um jeito. Você usa IA no seu trabalho? Como?Karen Hao: Eu não uso nenhum sistema de IA generativa no trabalho — nem ChatGPT, nem Gemini, nem Claude. Por três motivos. O primeiro é uma postura ética, depois de tanto investigar essas empresas. O segundo é privacidade de dados: eu investigo essas empresas.Não quero que elas conheçam todo o meu raciocínio enquanto eu apuro o livro, literalmente investigando elas. E o terceiro é que, no meu caso específico, a força do meu trabalho está na capacidade de construir relações fortes com as fontes, pela empatia, e de contar histórias envolventes, pela narrativa. E os grandes modelos de linguagem simplesmente não são a ferramenta certa pra nenhuma das duas coisas.Não vão melhorar a minha empatia nem a minha escrita. Então eu não perco nada com essa postura ética: simplesmente corto essas ferramentas e sigo fazendo o meu trabalho muito bem. Pra outros jornalistas pode ser diferente, e pra quem está em outras áreas o cálculo pode ser outro.Mas eu incentivo as pessoas a pensarem primeiro: quais são as suas forças no trabalho? Quais são os seus objetivos? E aí ir de trás pra frente pra descobrir se a IA é a ferramenta certa, qual tipo de IA é a ferramenta certa, e qual fornecedor você quer de fato usar, apoiar, votar com os pés. Agora, eu uso, sim, IA preditiva.Aquelas ferramentas de IA especializadas, as “bicicletas da IA”, digamos. No livro, tinha um detalhe que eu queria muito ilustrar: como a OpenAI deu um salto quando passou de organização sem fins lucrativos a um empreendimento bancado pela Microsoft. Percebi que as cadeiras do escritório ficaram bem mais caras. Então fotografei as cadeiras de um escritório e as do outro.E joguei tudo na busca reversa de imagens do Google, que é um sistema de IA especializado — não é baseado em grandes modelos de linguagem, não é IA generativa. Assim descobri quanto essas cadeiras costumam custar. No primeiro escritório, cerca de 2 mil dólares por cadeira. No segundo, eram cadeiras de um designer brasileiro famoso, uns 10 mil dólares cada.Coloquei esse detalhe no livro pra ilustrar o tipo de riqueza e de concentração de recursos de que a gente está falando. Esses são alguns dos jeitos como eu uso IA, ainda que de forma bem limitada, sempre pontual, quando acho que vai ajudar. E, claro, uso ferramentas de transcrição por IA — outra IA especializada — em todas as minhas entrevistas.Cris: Essa foi uma das partes em que a minha cabeça explodiu, eu nunca tinha percebido: a OpenAI criou o Whisper. Deixa eu dizer de outro jeito, do meu ponto de vista. A OpenAI liberou abertamente essa ferramenta incrível de transcrição, o Whisper, em que eu jogo o áudio e ela me devolve as palavras que as pessoas disseram. E eu pensei: ah, que generoso da parte deles.Mas o motivo real de terem criado a ferramenta foi pegar todos os vídeos do YouTube, transcrever e alimentar a máquina. E aí é: ah, claro. Enfim, falando de ferramentas e de otimismo — a gente está chegando ao fim da conversa. Eu tenho uma regra desde o episódio dois deste programa, há oito anos: de novo, como eu disse do seu livro, não pode ser só uma lista de reclamações e coisa ruim. E a gente tem se saído bem até aqui.Você falou de caminhos e de bicicletas, mas eu quero ser mais específico. Se isso aqui fosse uma reunião de negócios: qual é o plano de ação, quais são os próximos passos? Só que uma das coisas que eu repito bastante, na vida e neste programa, é que problema sistêmico não se resolve com ação individual. Se eu tomar banhos mais curtos, isso nunca vai salvar o planeta do aquecimento global.E muitos amigos meus simplesmente: não quero falar de IA, não quero usar IA. Voltando aos videogames: leram que tal jogo usa IA e pronto, não vão jogar. E a minha primeira pergunta pra você é: como a gente ocupa esses espaços da IA generativa — ChatGPT, Gemini e por aí vai? Porque o que a gente viu com as redes sociais foi: ah, o Facebook é do mal, vou sair do Facebook. Ah, vou sair do Twitter.E, na esperança de quê, sei lá, talvez alguém diga: ah, sinto falta do Cris, cadê ele? Ah, está no Bluesky. Mas isso deixa o espaço aberto pra os radicais entrarem e postarem o que quiserem, sem ninguém contrapor ou tornar aquilo um lugar melhor. Então como a gente ocupa o espaço da IA — seja qual for a definição de “espaço da IA” que você preferir — com todos esses problemas que a gente vem discutindo?Karen Hao: Acho que tem duas categorias de ação pra gente pensar. Uma é desmantelar o império. A outra é investir e construir novos tipos de sistema de IA, que se tornem alternativas às tecnologias do império. Quando eu digo desmantelar o império, não estou dizendo que quero que a OpenAI, o Google, a Anthropic, seja quem for, simplesmente deixem de existir.É que eu não quero que elas sejam imperiais. Não quero que fiquem extraindo uma quantidade extraordinária de valor sem redistribuir nada em troca. Se elas voltassem a ser negócios que praticam uma troca justa de valor com o mundo, eu ficaria perfeitamente feliz com qualquer tecnologia que estivessem desenvolvendo.E a forma de desmantelar o império, acho, se resume a muita organização de base, que vai pressionar os governos a regular e responsabilizar essa indústria. No último ano, a gente viu uma quantidade incrível dessa organização de base florescendo pelo mundo.Recentemente, lancei com um grupo de jornalistas, pesquisadores de IA e acadêmicos críticos um projeto chamado AI Resist List, que busca documentar parte dessa organização de base pelo mundo. A gente encontrou cerca de 30 exemplos, de todas as regiões, de ações individuais, institucionais e movidas pela comunidade.Tinha ação artística, ação política. E isso mostra bem o seu ponto: não dá pra contar só com a ação individual, mas o indivíduo pode, sim, ter impacto. Até uma ação pequena pode gerar um grande efeito cascata. Claro que se juntar com os vizinhos pra protestar contra o data center é ainda mais eficaz. Se juntar dentro da sua escola ou universidade pra protestar contra a parceria dela com uma empresa de IA também é mais eficaz.Se juntar com os colegas de trabalho de um setor pra barrar a adoção de uma IA que corrói os direitos trabalhistas é mais um jeito eficaz. A gente tem um monte desses exemplos. Um dos meus favoritos é o de uma comunidade sobre a qual escrevi no livro, Quilicura, no Chile, na periferia de Santiago. É uma comunidade da classe trabalhadora, bem pobre, que vem sendo alvo incessante da expansão de data centers.E por isso protestaram de forma bem aguerrida contra essa expansão, porque não acharam bom negócio hospedar essas instalações sem tirar nenhum benefício, enquanto elas consomem uma parte significativa dos recursos naturais da região.E, logo depois que escrevi sobre eles, foram além na resistência e criaram uma plataforma chamada Quili.ai. É um site em que você entra e que parece um chatbot, parece o ChatGPT: tem uma interface de chat pra você digitar. Só que, quando você faz uma pergunta, em vez de um modelo de IA responder, a mensagem é encaminhada pra alguém que mora em Quilicura, no Chile. Aí, se você pede “quero a imagem de um cachorro”, aquilo vai pro artista local deles, o Benji. Ele pega um pedaço de papel, desenha um cachorro, tira uma foto e te manda de volta.Eles fizeram isso essencialmente como um projeto de arte performática, pra fazer as pessoas pensarem duas vezes antes de usar IA generativa pra bobagem. A mensagem era: ei, quando você fica brincando com essas ferramentas em pedido besta, isso afeta comunidades como a nossa, drena os recursos de que a gente precisa pra viver bem.E também queriam levar as pessoas a pensar: por que não perguntar pra alguém da sua própria comunidade aquela receita que você procurava, ou pedir aquela imagem? Porque aí você reconstrói as conexões que estão tão em falta na sociedade — a falta delas é o que nos deixa mais vulneráveis a esse tipo de colonização do império.Eles deixaram o projeto aberto por 24 horas, e qualquer pessoa no mundo podia mandar um pedido. Receberam uma quantidade extraordinária deles. Viralizou de vez. E essa cidadezinha conseguiu uma virada enorme de narrativa sobre a suposta inevitabilidade e necessidade dessa tecnologia, sobre tudo o que o Vale do Silício diz — que, se você não usar, vai ficar pra trás de quem usa.E esse é só um exemplo, entre muitos, de como pessoas comuns, não importa a sua posição na sociedade, podem ter impacto real no debate, na consciência pública e até na regulação. A gente está vendo isso agora com os protestos contra data centers. Nos EUA, em 2025, cerca de 150 bilhões de dólares em projetos de data center foram travados.Isso virou uma das questões políticas mais quentes nos EUA para as próximas eleições de meio de mandato. Tem gente eleita sendo literalmente tirada do cargo por ter aprovado data centers, contrariando a vontade do povo. E isso já está tendo efeito real sobre as empresas e sobre a trajetória do desenvolvimento de IA.A OpenAI teve que encerrar recentemente a sua ferramenta de geração de vídeo, o Sora. Quando lançaram, apresentaram como o segundo produto mais importante desde o ChatGPT. O que aconteceu entre o lançamento e o fim? Uma reportagem do Wall Street Journal apontou três motivos, todos moldados por ação de base. Um: um gargalo enorme de capacidade de computação.Muitos dos data centers travados ou parados eram da OpenAI. Dois: um cenário financeiro bem mais incerto. A OpenAI está se preparando pro IPO, o que significa ficar mais exposta a Wall Street — e Wall Street está cada vez mais nervoso com a capacidade dessas empresas de cumprir o que prometem.E aí a OpenAI teve que reforçar alguns projetos paralelos pra fazer o balanço parecer um pouco melhor aos olhos de Wall Street. E, terceiro: os consumidores simplesmente não estavam usando o produto — o que também é ação coletiva de consumidores. Então, por todo esse tipo de resistência, de várias formas, de baixo pra cima, as pessoas estão de fato tendo impacto real na indústria e responsabilizando ela.Essa é a primeira categoria de ação. A segunda é: ok, que tecnologias de IA a gente usaria como alternativa? E aí a gente precisa investir mais nelas. Muitas vezes, quando converso sobre o livro, a pessoa diz: ok, me convenci de que não quero usar ChatGPT, não quero usar Claude — mas então uso o quê no lugar?E o problema é que eu não tenho muitas respostas pra essa lista de alternativas. Tem umas poucas aqui e ali, uma plataforma, uma empresa.Cris: Dá pra rodar o modelo no seu próprio computador, como o Cory Doctorow faz, mas aí é limitado e…Karen Hao: Exatamente, exige mais habilidade técnica. Mas, pra quem consegue instalar modelos de código aberto no próprio computador, eu incentivo 100%. Só que a gente também precisa de mais gente desenvolvendo interfaces bem fáceis pra esses modelos de código aberto, pra que qualquer pessoa consiga usar.A gente também precisa de mais gente desenvolvendo “bicicletas da IA”, de investidores e governos investindo mais nesse tipo de solução, e de talento — pesquisadores de IA, desenvolvedores e outras pessoas dispostas a sacrificar um pouco e abrir mão dos pacotes de remuneração enormes.Cris: Eu estava começando a achar que agora as empresas precisam ter menos lucro — e isso nunca vai acontecer.Karen Hao: Não, não é a empresa ter menos lucro. É o trabalhador topar abrir mão do pacote de milhões de dólares pra levar o talento dele pra outro lugar. Mais fácil, bem mais fácil. Eu converso com muito pesquisador de IA cansado da abordagem da indústria, porque ela é completamente sem criatividade intelectual.Eu conversei com pesquisadores que não passaram seis anos num doutorado em IA só pra ficar empurrando mais dados na máquina — pra eles, é o trabalho mais chato do mundo. E depois automatizar a programação, que era justamente o que eles gostavam de fazer. Converso com tanta gente que já não acha graça nenhuma nisso. Estão meio presos por “algemas de ouro”.E estão tentando descobrir, dentro de si, que carreira alternativa poderiam ter. Eu costumo incentivar esses pesquisadores a gastar o talento deles construindo um tipo diferente de empresa, que trabalhe com “bicicletas da IA”. E a gente já começa a ver cada vez mais desse talento indo por aí.E a gente precisa que todas as facetas da sociedade invistam num ecossistema muito mais robusto e rico de tecnologias de IA, capaz de substituir as que hoje dominam. Eu ainda tenho as cicatrizes das minhas próprias “algemas de ouro”, mas concordo plenamente.Cris: E as redes sociais são o exemplo — veja o que aconteceu com elas. Tem aquela frase famosa: as mentes mais brilhantes da minha geração passam o tempo fazendo as pessoas clicarem em anúncios. E ainda dizem: ah, isso pode ser o futuro. Pois é.Você contou a história do Quili.ai e isso me lembrou um dos primeiros criadores de conteúdo do Brasil, o Cid Não Salvo. Uns 10, 15 anos atrás, ele tuitou o seguinte: “Gente, eu disse pro meu pai que, sempre que ele precisar pesquisar alguma coisa na internet, é pra ir no Twitter.com e digitar a pergunta na caixa”. E olha que ele tinha milhões de seguidores.E, por uns bons dias, quase um mês, você entrava no Twitter do pai dele e via perguntas tipo “onde eu compro pizza?”. Era engraçadíssimo. No fim, ele contou pro pai — ou talvez não. Mas eu adoro essa ideia. Antes de a gente terminar: você já deve ter respondido isso mil vezes, mas vai continuar cobrindo IA? O que está na sua cabeça, o que vem por aí? Turnê mundial? O que vem pela frente?Karen Hao: Com certeza estou pensando em como continuar responsabilizando essas empresas. Estou envolvida em várias colaborações, com gente incrível, em diferentes projetos ligados a isso. O AI Resist List foi um deles. Também co-criei um programa chamado AI Spotlight Series, com o Pulitzer Center, uma organização jornalística sem fins lucrativos que financia jornalismo investigativo pelo mundo.É um programa que treina jornalistas do mundo inteiro a cobrir IA por uma lente de responsabilização. Até agora, já treinamos mais de 3 mil. E eu sigo pensando em como construir mais capacidade dentro do jornalismo, da sociedade civil, de outros contextos, pra mobilizar ainda mais essa organização de base — pra conter de verdade os impérios da IA e ajudar a desmantelá-los.Cris: Adorei o seu exemplo da moda. É possível, já foi feito. Ou até a indústria automotiva. Ou o grande exemplo que a gente não mencionou, e que o pessoal da OpenAI vive citando: o Projeto Manhattan, a energia nuclear.O mundo não acabou. Quando eu era criança lendo Asimov, achava que ia tudo acabar num fogo nuclear. Enfim — alguma última palavra, alguma mensagem, algum palpite pros jogos do Brasil na Copa, alguma coisa que você queira dizer antes da gente encerrar?Karen Hao: No fim das contas, o que eu espero que fique desta conversa e do livro é o seguinte: neste momento, o Vale do Silício está concebendo a IA como um projeto político. E a característica central desse projeto é tirar a autonomia de todo mundo — a autonomia de moldar de verdade o próprio futuro e o nosso futuro coletivo. Mas, no instante em que você reconhece que já tem uma autonomia significativa pra resistir, o império começa a desmoronar.Então espero que as pessoas encontrem a própria voz, a afirmem, conquistem o seu lugar à mesa e se conectem com os vizinhos, com a comunidade, com os colegas de trabalho, pra criar mais movimentos juntos.Cris: Que ótimo. Karen Hao, o seu livro é O Império da IA: Por dentro da corrida irresponsável pela dominação total. Obrigado por vir ao Brasil conversar com a gente. Foi um prazer.Karen Hao: Muito obrigada.Uma das primeiras perguntas que anotei quando comecei a pensar nessa conversa foi justamente a do final, a da ocupação de espaços. Porque, como eu disse, quando as redes sociais chegaram para ficar, muita gente falou “ah, não vou usar, é do mal” — e aí as pessoas ruins, vamos chamar assim, acabam ocupando esse espaço e falando o que bem entendem. A gente precisa aprender essa lição agora, no mundo da IA.Fora que vejo muita gente falando de IA sem nunca ter usado — ou que usou, sei lá, dois anos atrás, acha que continua tudo igual e já diz que não quer chegar perto.E por quê? Porque essa abordagem de ocupar espaços é o que eu e a Ana Freitas buscamos fazer no IA em Curso, nossa comunidade de letramento contínuo em IA. Foi, aliás, uma conversa que tive com a Karen antes da entrevista: ao mesmo tempo que a gente fala do impacto da IA no mundo, também precisa focar no que é prático, no que dá para fazer hoje com IA, sem vender sonho nem desastre. A analogia que usei foi a de que é que nem quando a gente fazia curso de Word e Excel — é o que eu faço agora que vai facilitar minha vida, me fazer ganhar tempo, botar a IA para me ajudar. Quem viu minha conversa com a Ana aqui no Boa Noite Internet, no fim de 2025, sabe do que estou falando. Se não viu, volta lá e confere.Desde que a gente lançou este episódio, o IA em Curso já passou de 400 pessoas. Tem muita gente colocando projetos pessoais incríveis na rua, tirando do papel aquela ideia que rondava a cabeça há um tempão. E a comunidade tem mentoria ao vivo, aula gravada, newsletter, banco de agentes, grupo de Telegram… que mais? O que não falta é jeito de passar para você o conhecimento sobre IA de que você precisa hoje, agora. Quero te dar a bússola para navegar nesse universo.Se esse é o tipo de abordagem que você quer ter com a IA, passa lá no iaemcurso.com.br e usa o cupom BNI2026 para ganhar 20% de desconto no plano anual. Mas corre, porque daqui a duas semanas vou apagar esse cupom — não é todo dia que a gente dá um desconto desses.É isso. Boa Noite Internet, temporada 2026 começando — como todo ano, com mudança, ideia, projeto. Ou, como diz minha citação preferida de todos os tempos: “vivemos uma fase de transição, como sempre”. Espero ver você por aqui e lá no IA em Curso.Obrigado pelo seu tempo e pela sua atenção. Até o próximo episódio. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit boanoiteinternet.com.br/subscribe

The Founding of OpenAI. Guest Author: Keach Hagey. In this opening segment, Keach Hagey discusses the January 2016 founding of OpenAI as a nonprofit research lab. Key figures included co-founder Greg Brockman and chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, a renowned researcher whose recruitment from Google signaled the lab's potential. Backed by a billion-dollar commitment from Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Jessica Livingston, the project was designed as a safe, non-commercial counterweight to Google's DeepMind. Operating initially out of Brockman's apartment, the team aimed to achieve Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) for the benefit of humanity. The technical foundation relied heavily on GPUs—hardware originally designed for video games—which proved essential for training the deep learning neural networks necessary for their research. This era was characterized by an ambitious, "pirate" spirit funded through YC Research to explore radical ideas outside the profit motive. 1JANUARY 1931

Sebastian Mallaby (@scmallaby) is the Paul A. Volcker senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations, a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, and the author of six books, including More Money Than God, The Power Law, The Man Who Knew, and The World's Banker. His latest book is The Infinity Machine: Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence.This episode is brought to you by:Eight Sleep Pod Cover 5 sleeping solution for dynamic cooling and heating: EightSleep.com/TimAG1 Pro all-in-one nutritional supplement: DrinkAG1.com/TimWealthfront high-yield cash account: Wealthfront.com/Tim Wealthfront disclaimer: New clients get 3.30% base APY from program banks + additional 0.75% boost for 3 months on your uninvested cash (max $150k balance). Terms and conditions apply. The Cash Account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC (“WFB”) member FINRA/SIPC, not a bank. The base APY as of 1/30/26 is representative, can change, and requires no minimum. Tim Ferriss, a non-client, receives compensation from WFB for advertising and holds a non-controlling equity interest in the corporate parent of WFB, which creates a conflict of interest. Individual experiences and outcomes will differ. Instant withdrawals may be limited by your receiving firm and other factors. Investment advisory services provided by Wealthfront Advisers LLC, an SEC-registered investment adviser. Securities investments: not bank deposits, not bank-guaranteed or FDIC-insured, and may lose value.*Timestamps[00:00:00] Start.[00:02:11] The twinkly eyed polymath who became Sebastian's next book.[00:06:55] Picking the next book project the way a great VC picks a startup.[00:09:41] Why God keeps crashing the superintelligence party.[00:11:13] Shane Legg's grainy 2009 prophecy — and the nervous giggle.[00:13:11] Ilya Sutskever burns an effigy.[00:13:54] Demis at 4 a.m., hunting God's algorithm.[00:18:43] Super-abundance, Mad Max, and the China shock lesson.[00:22:39] The kitchen debate with Geoff Hinton that flipped Sebastian.[00:24:06] Why a zero-percent chance of doom is indefensible.[00:24:52] Will Washington seize the labs? The Mythos wake-up call.[00:27:18] Anthropic's bull case, bear case, and a dead parent's letter.[00:33:24] Where Sebastian and Benedict Evans part ways.[00:38:16] Is the SaaS apocalypse overdone? One word: Palantir.[00:39:53] The AI friend you'll never switch.[00:41:56] Does Google win consumer AI by default?[00:44:45] Four cities, eight days: China actually talks safety.[00:47:28] A Cold War non-proliferation playbook for AI.[00:49:45] Did the chip export controls actually work?[00:51:49] Burned doves: why Washington swears China won't talk.[00:54:56] "By 2028, the race is over" — one lab boss' bet.[00:59:11] Inside Hikvision: toddlers, sensors, and US sanctions.[01:01:07] Bill Gurley's Uber bet: venture capital perfected.[01:05:18] Luke Nosek bear-hugs DeepMind into existence.[01:10:52] Thiel's heresy: never invest by committee.[01:11:59] How Founders Fund nearly fumbled the deal of the century.[01:14:30] Selling to Google for $650M: a secret British heist?[01:16:41] The Traitorous Eight, gardening leave, and the UK's to-do list.[01:20:55] Ender's Game: "That's really how I see myself."[01:23:42] Too dumb for Gödel, Escher, Bach? Maybe an LLM can help.[01:25:19] If not Demis or Sam, then Dario.[01:26:04] My royalties cliff — and what dropped in late 2022.[01:27:47] Lila Sciences and the labs that run themselves.[01:31:13] Sebastian's billboard: "Prepare your mind."[01:35:14] The one thing Sebastian will never outsource to AI.[01:40:09] Parting thoughts.For show notes and past guests on The Tim Ferriss Show, please visit tim.blog/podcast.For deals from sponsors of The Tim Ferriss Show, please visit tim.blog/podcast-sponsorsSign up for Tim's email newsletter (5-Bullet Friday) at tim.blog/friday.For transcripts of episodes, go to tim.blog/transcripts.Discover Tim's books: tim.blog/books.Follow Tim:Twitter: twitter.com/tferriss Instagram: instagram.com/timferrissYouTube: youtube.com/timferrissFacebook: facebook.com/timferriss LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/timferrissSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Stanislas Polu is Co-Founder & CTO of Dust — the enterprise AI agent platform used by 51,000 workers at 3,000+ companies. Before Dust, he spent three years on OpenAI's research team under Ilya Sutskever, working on mathematical reasoning in language models, and prior to that was an engineer at Stripe. He brings a rare combination of frontier AI research and product-building experience to the enterprise agent space.MCP, Agents & the $40M Bet on Multiplayer AI // MLOps Podcast #384 with Stanislas Polu, Co-Founder & CTO of Dust

Inside a packed federal courtroom, some of the richest and most powerful figures in artificial intelligence are testifying under oath, and their testimony may be helping and hurting OpenAI at the exact same time. In Round 9 of Musk v. Altman, billionaire witnesses including Ilya Sutskever, Satya Nadella, and Bret Taylor stepped before a federal judge and nine jurors to defend the future of OpenAI, but several of their admissions may have handed Elon Musk critical ammunition. In this episode of The Valley Current®, Jack Russo breaks down the courtroom psychology, billion-dollar financial conflicts, explosive testimony about Sam Altman's leadership, and the growing legal battle over whether OpenAI's nonprofit mission was quietly transformed into one of the most commercially powerful companies on Earth. The stakes are no longer just personal reputations. They may determine the future structure of the AI industry itself. Jack Russo Managing Partner Jrusso@computerlaw.com www.computerlaw.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackrusso "Every Entrepreneur Imagines a Better World"®️  

Keach Hagey recounts the January 2016 founding of OpenAI in San Francisco, initially established as a modest nonprofit research lab in Greg Brockman's apartment. Co-founded by Sam Altman, Brockman, and chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, the organization aimed to develop artificial general intelligence (AGI) safely outside of profit motives. Major initial backers included Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, who sought to create a counterweight to Google's DeepMind. The discussion explains how neural networks utilize Nvidia's GPUs—originally designed for video games—to mimic human thought, forming the technical foundation for the current AI race. (1/4)MARCH 1959

Jim Love breaks down the biggest moments from the high-stakes Elon Musk vs OpenAI trial, where the future of one of the world's most important AI companies may be shaped in court. This episode covers Sam Altman's dramatic cross-examination, where Musk lawyer Steven Molo directly challenged Altman's honesty in front of the jury, asking whether he was completely trustworthy and whether he always told the truth. Despite the aggressive attack, many observers described Altman as calm and unshaken. Jim also examines one of the most surprising moments in the trial: testimony from OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever, who said he spent roughly a year compiling detailed notes about concerns over Altman's honesty with the board — only to later publicly regret helping remove him and support Altman's return. With reports placing Sutskever's OpenAI stake at roughly US$7 billion, the testimony raises difficult questions about motive, governance, and the internal power struggle at OpenAI. The episode also revisits Elon Musk's own testimony, the excluded Greg Brockman text message controversy, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella's role, and what closing arguments could mean for OpenAI, artificial general intelligence (AGI), and the future of AI governance. If you follow OpenAI, Elon Musk, Sam Altman, artificial intelligence, AI lawsuits, or the future of AGI, this is the trial everyone in tech is watching. 00:00 Today's Trial Focus 01:14 Musk Testimony Recap 02:23 The Brockman Text Drama 03:37 Sutskever's Reversal 06:55 Why Altman Matters 08:18 Altman Cross Examination 09:22 Founders Mission And Control 10:36 No Perry Mason Moment 11:11 Closing Arguments And Sign Off

# TEMA LA VENGANZA DE ILYA SUTSKEVER "Elon Musk es el CEO más competente"# PRESENTA Y DIRIGE 

Hey everyone, Alex here

Jacob Ward joins Mikah Sargent on Tech News Weekly! More insights into the Musk vs. OpenAI trial. Everything unveiled at The Android Show: Google I/O Edition 2026. And the Canvas cyberattack. Jacob has been covering the Musk vs. OpenAI trial since he was last on the show. He talks about the trial and some of the more interesting things that have occurred during the trial. Jason Howell stops by to talk about everything that was unveiled at The Android Show: Google I/O Edition, a lead-up to the big Google I/O event that is taking place on May 19th. And Mikah talks about the Canvas cyberattack that occurred on May 7th and how the company paid the ransom that the attackers were demanding from the organization. Hosts: Mikah Sargent and Jacob Ward Guest: Jason Howell Download or subscribe to Tech News Weekly at https://twit.tv/shows/tech-news-weekly. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: joindeleteme.com/twit promo code TWIT hoxhunt.com/securitynow zscaler.com/security bitwarden.com/twit

Sam Altman took the stand this week to defend himself and his company against a lawsuit by Elon Musk. The three-week long trial has featured some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley, including Microsoft's CEO Satya Nadella and OpenAI cofounder and former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever. As the trial nears its end, Danny Fortson and Katie Prescott talk about why the stakes are so high and debate whether this is a case of sour grapes, or if OpenAI did actually “steal a charity” from Musk. Plus, the founder of Raspberry Pi on the future of AI and how he feels about his microcomputer being used to power AI agents such as OpenClaw.Get in touch: techpod@thetimes.co.ukProducer: Marnie DukeExecutive Producer: Priyanka DeladiaImage: Getty Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jacob Ward joins Mikah Sargent on Tech News Weekly! More insights into the Musk vs. OpenAI trial. Everything unveiled at The Android Show: Google I/O Edition 2026. And the Canvas cyberattack. Jacob has been covering the Musk vs. OpenAI trial since he was last on the show. He talks about the trial and some of the more interesting things that have occurred during the trial. Jason Howell stops by to talk about everything that was unveiled at The Android Show: Google I/O Edition, a lead-up to the big Google I/O event that is taking place on May 19th. And Mikah talks about the Canvas cyberattack that occurred on May 7th and how the company paid the ransom that the attackers were demanding from the organization. Hosts: Mikah Sargent and Jacob Ward Guest: Jason Howell Download or subscribe to Tech News Weekly at https://twit.tv/shows/tech-news-weekly. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: joindeleteme.com/twit promo code TWIT hoxhunt.com/securitynow zscaler.com/security bitwarden.com/twit

Jacob Ward joins Mikah Sargent on Tech News Weekly! More insights into the Musk vs. OpenAI trial. Everything unveiled at The Android Show: Google I/O Edition 2026. And the Canvas cyberattack. Jacob has been covering the Musk vs. OpenAI trial since he was last on the show. He talks about the trial and some of the more interesting things that have occurred during the trial. Jason Howell stops by to talk about everything that was unveiled at The Android Show: Google I/O Edition, a lead-up to the big Google I/O event that is taking place on May 19th. And Mikah talks about the Canvas cyberattack that occurred on May 7th and how the company paid the ransom that the attackers were demanding from the organization. Hosts: Mikah Sargent and Jacob Ward Guest: Jason Howell Download or subscribe to Tech News Weekly at https://twit.tv/shows/tech-news-weekly. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: joindeleteme.com/twit promo code TWIT hoxhunt.com/securitynow zscaler.com/security bitwarden.com/twit

Jacob Ward joins Mikah Sargent on Tech News Weekly! More insights into the Musk vs. OpenAI trial. Everything unveiled at The Android Show: Google I/O Edition 2026. And the Canvas cyberattack. Jacob has been covering the Musk vs. OpenAI trial since he was last on the show. He talks about the trial and some of the more interesting things that have occurred during the trial. Jason Howell stops by to talk about everything that was unveiled at The Android Show: Google I/O Edition, a lead-up to the big Google I/O event that is taking place on May 19th. And Mikah talks about the Canvas cyberattack that occurred on May 7th and how the company paid the ransom that the attackers were demanding from the organization. Hosts: Mikah Sargent and Jacob Ward Guest: Jason Howell Download or subscribe to Tech News Weekly at https://twit.tv/shows/tech-news-weekly. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: joindeleteme.com/twit promo code TWIT hoxhunt.com/securitynow zscaler.com/security bitwarden.com/twit

Jacob Ward joins Mikah Sargent on Tech News Weekly! More insights into the Musk vs. OpenAI trial. Everything unveiled at The Android Show: Google I/O Edition 2026. And the Canvas cyberattack. Jacob has been covering the Musk vs. OpenAI trial since he was last on the show. He talks about the trial and some of the more interesting things that have occurred during the trial. Jason Howell stops by to talk about everything that was unveiled at The Android Show: Google I/O Edition, a lead-up to the big Google I/O event that is taking place on May 19th. And Mikah talks about the Canvas cyberattack that occurred on May 7th and how the company paid the ransom that the attackers were demanding from the organization. Hosts: Mikah Sargent and Jacob Ward Guest: Jason Howell Download or subscribe to Tech News Weekly at https://twit.tv/shows/tech-news-weekly. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: joindeleteme.com/twit promo code TWIT hoxhunt.com/securitynow zscaler.com/security bitwarden.com/twit

Jacob Ward joins Mikah Sargent on Tech News Weekly! More insights into the Musk vs. OpenAI trial. Everything unveiled at The Android Show: Google I/O Edition 2026. And the Canvas cyberattack. Jacob has been covering the Musk vs. OpenAI trial since he was last on the show. He talks about the trial and some of the more interesting things that have occurred during the trial. Jason Howell stops by to talk about everything that was unveiled at The Android Show: Google I/O Edition, a lead-up to the big Google I/O event that is taking place on May 19th. And Mikah talks about the Canvas cyberattack that occurred on May 7th and how the company paid the ransom that the attackers were demanding from the organization. Hosts: Mikah Sargent and Jacob Ward Guest: Jason Howell Download or subscribe to Tech News Weekly at https://twit.tv/shows/tech-news-weekly. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: joindeleteme.com/twit promo code TWIT hoxhunt.com/securitynow zscaler.com/security bitwarden.com/twit

Jacob Ward joins Mikah Sargent on Tech News Weekly! More insights into the Musk vs. OpenAI trial. Everything unveiled at The Android Show: Google I/O Edition 2026. And the Canvas cyberattack. Jacob has been covering the Musk vs. OpenAI trial since he was last on the show. He talks about the trial and some of the more interesting things that have occurred during the trial. Jason Howell stops by to talk about everything that was unveiled at The Android Show: Google I/O Edition, a lead-up to the big Google I/O event that is taking place on May 19th. And Mikah talks about the Canvas cyberattack that occurred on May 7th and how the company paid the ransom that the attackers were demanding from the organization. Hosts: Mikah Sargent and Jacob Ward Guest: Jason Howell Download or subscribe to Tech News Weekly at https://twit.tv/shows/tech-news-weekly. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: joindeleteme.com/twit promo code TWIT hoxhunt.com/securitynow zscaler.com/security bitwarden.com/twit

Jacob Ward joins Mikah Sargent on Tech News Weekly! More insights into the Musk vs. OpenAI trial. Everything unveiled at The Android Show: Google I/O Edition 2026. And the Canvas cyberattack. Jacob has been covering the Musk vs. OpenAI trial since he was last on the show. He talks about the trial and some of the more interesting things that have occurred during the trial. Jason Howell stops by to talk about everything that was unveiled at The Android Show: Google I/O Edition, a lead-up to the big Google I/O event that is taking place on May 19th. And Mikah talks about the Canvas cyberattack that occurred on May 7th and how the company paid the ransom that the attackers were demanding from the organization. Hosts: Mikah Sargent and Jacob Ward Guest: Jason Howell Download or subscribe to Tech News Weekly at https://twit.tv/shows/tech-news-weekly. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: joindeleteme.com/twit promo code TWIT hoxhunt.com/securitynow zscaler.com/security bitwarden.com/twit

Jacob Ward joins Mikah Sargent on Tech News Weekly! More insights into the Musk vs. OpenAI trial. Everything unveiled at The Android Show: Google I/O Edition 2026. And the Canvas cyberattack. Jacob has been covering the Musk vs. OpenAI trial since he was last on the show. He talks about the trial and some of the more interesting things that have occurred during the trial. Jason Howell stops by to talk about everything that was unveiled at The Android Show: Google I/O Edition, a lead-up to the big Google I/O event that is taking place on May 19th. And Mikah talks about the Canvas cyberattack that occurred on May 7th and how the company paid the ransom that the attackers were demanding from the organization. Hosts: Mikah Sargent and Jacob Ward Guest: Jason Howell Download or subscribe to Tech News Weekly at https://twit.tv/shows/tech-news-weekly. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: joindeleteme.com/twit promo code TWIT hoxhunt.com/securitynow zscaler.com/security bitwarden.com/twit

Jacob Ward joins Mikah Sargent on Tech News Weekly! More insights into the Musk vs. OpenAI trial. Everything unveiled at The Android Show: Google I/O Edition 2026. And the Canvas cyberattack. Jacob has been covering the Musk vs. OpenAI trial since he was last on the show. He talks about the trial and some of the more interesting things that have occurred during the trial. Jason Howell stops by to talk about everything that was unveiled at The Android Show: Google I/O Edition, a lead-up to the big Google I/O event that is taking place on May 19th. And Mikah talks about the Canvas cyberattack that occurred on May 7th and how the company paid the ransom that the attackers were demanding from the organization. Hosts: Mikah Sargent and Jacob Ward Guest: Jason Howell Download or subscribe to Tech News Weekly at https://twit.tv/shows/tech-news-weekly. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: joindeleteme.com/twit promo code TWIT hoxhunt.com/securitynow zscaler.com/security bitwarden.com/twit

Deputy Bureau Chief of Finance Cory Weinberg and Mostly Metrics author CJ Gustafsson join TITV Host Akash Pasricha to break down how OpenAI stands to gain over $5 billion from the upcoming Cerebras IPO through unconventional "penny warrants". We then explore exclusive reporting from Aaron Holmes on Microsoft's renegotiated revenue-sharing deal with OpenAI and how the tech giant has already doubled its $13 billion investment. Next, Rocket Drew provides updates on the Musk-OpenAI trial featuring testimony from Satya Nadella and Ilya Sutskever, followed by Replit's Michele Catasta on the new "VibeBench" for AI coding models. We wrap with Stephanie Palazzolo discussing Thinking Machines' high-profile research preview of real-time interaction models.Articles discussed on this episode: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/openai-making-billions-just-promising-buy-suppliershttps://www.theinformation.com/articles/openai-save-97-billion-2030-latest-microsoft-dealhttps://www.theinformation.com/articles/microsoft-recouped-double-13-billion-openai-investment-revenueSubscribe: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@theinformation The Information: https://www.theinformation.com/subscribe_hSign up for the AI Agenda newsletter: https://www.theinformation.com/features/ai-agendaTITV airs weekdays on YouTube, X and LinkedIn at 10AM PT / 1PM ET. Or check us out wherever you get your podcasts.Follow us:X: https://x.com/theinformationIG: https://www.instagram.com/theinformation/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@titv.theinformationLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/theinformation/Chapters:00:00 - Introduction01:13 - Cerebras IPO: OpenAI's $5B Potential Windfall14:25 - Exclusive: Microsoft Recoups OpenAI Investment26:11 - Musk vs. OpenAI: Nadella & Sutskever Testify30:20 - Replit President on Benchmarking Coding Models40:21 - Thinking Machines Teases New AI Interaction Model

C'est un marché inattendu, né dans les coulisses de l'économie des startups. Depuis avril 2026, la société SimpleClosure propose une nouvelle activité : revendre les archives numériques d'entreprises en liquidation. Code source, échanges Slack, e-mails internes… tout peut être cédé sous licence. Pour son PDG Dori Yona, il s'agit d'une véritable « ruée vers l'or ».En un an, près d'une centaine de transactions auraient déjà été conclues, pour plus d'un million de dollars redistribués aux fondateurs. Et la concurrence s'organise. La plateforme Sunset, par exemple, valorise particulièrement les données issues de secteurs sensibles comme la santé ou la finance, où les historiques sont riches et interconnectés.Pourquoi un tel engouement ? Parce que les données sont devenues la matière première essentielle de l'intelligence artificielle. Or, comme l'a souligné Ilya Sutskever, les grandes bases publiques, Wikipédia, Reddit ou les livres numérisés, sont aujourd'hui largement exploitées. Les nouveaux systèmes d'IA ont besoin d'exemples concrets de travail réel : des échanges imparfaits, des erreurs, des processus humains. Résultat : un nouveau secteur émerge, celui des environnements d'entraînement simulés. Des entreprises comme AfterQuery vendent des univers professionnels reconstitués, « Finance World » ou « Tax World », où des agents IA apprennent à évoluer comme dans une entreprise. Des acteurs majeurs comme Anthropic ou Scale AI investissent déjà massivement dans ce domaine.Mais cette économie soulève des questions sensibles. Juridiquement, les entreprises détiennent généralement les données produites par leurs salariés, y compris sur des outils comme Slack. Pourtant, pour des experts comme Marc Rotenberg, l'enjeu dépasse la simple propriété intellectuelle : il s'agit aussi de données personnelles. L'anonymisation, souvent mise en avant, reste imparfaite. Des études menées par OpenAI et Google ont montré que certains modèles peuvent mémoriser et restituer des données sensibles. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

What if the most important skill for building AI products has nothing to do with evals, technical background, or knowing how to write a prompt? What if it is the ability to design systems that can handle what you never planned for?In this episode of Supra Insider, Marc Baselga and Ben Erez sit down with Apurva Garware, who has built and scaled products across Amazon, Microsoft, and Upwork, to make the case that systems thinking is the defining skill of the next era of product management. Apurva explains why non-determinism forces PMs to stop thinking in features and start designing the guardrails, agent contracts, and escalation points that govern how a system behaves at runtime, when no one is watching. They explore a three-phase framework for governing AI systems across design, deployment, and production; heuristics for deciding what to hand to agents versus escalate to humans; and a sharp insight about the two products every AI-native company is actually building: the customer-facing product, and the internal operational system that drives margin and velocity. Marc and Ben also share their own experience calibrating an agentic workflow at Supra, grounding the conversation in practice.If you are a PM trying to find your footing in the AI era without a deeply technical background, a founder wrestling with when to reach for AI versus simpler deterministic automation, or a product leader who wants to build more discipline into how your team ships AI products, this episode is for you.All episodes of the podcast are also available on Spotify, Apple and YouTube.New to the pod? Subscribe below to get the next episode in your inbox

I've been confusing Don with frontier-lab links late at night for a bit. Ilya Sutskever told a NeurIPS audience that pre-training as we know it would unquestionably end. There's only one internet, and the data isn't growing. The frontier labs call this the pre-training wall. A leaked Google memo from 2023 argued they had no moat. R1 is on GitHub. Llama is on Hugging Face. OpenAI's secondary-market valuation has climbed past $850 billion.  Don was confused. So he came over and we made an episode about it. Episode Page Support The Show Subscribe To The Podcast Join The Newsletter  

This Day in Legal History: Chinese Exclusion ActOn May 6, 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act into law. The law imposed a 10-year ban on the immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States. It also made Chinese immigrants already in the country ineligible for naturalized citizenship, marking a major turn toward federal immigration restriction. The National Archives describes it as the first significant U.S. law restricting immigration and notes that it targeted an ethnic working group on the theory that it threatened public order.The law grew out of anti-Chinese racism and labor anxiety, especially in the American West, where Chinese workers were blamed for low wages and job competition. Although the Act formally applied to “Chinese laborers,” its enforcement burdened many Chinese people seeking entry, including those who claimed exempt status. The National Archives notes that the law helped create a broader framework for later race- and class-based exclusionary immigration policy.The Act was not temporary in practice. Congress extended it through the Geary Act of 1892, later made the exclusion regime permanent, and did not repeal the ban until 1943, during World War II, when the United States and China were allies.OpenAI president Greg Brockman testified in federal court that Elon Musk once supported changing OpenAI from a nonprofit into a for-profit company, but wanted full control of the organization as part of that shift. Brockman said Musk believed the nonprofit model could not raise enough money to build advanced AI systems. According to Brockman, Musk also said he needed an $80 billion stake to help fund a self-sustaining city on Mars. Brockman described a tense 2017 meeting where Musk allegedly rejected a proposed equity structure, became angry, took a painting made for him by Ilya Sutskever, and left while threatening to pause funding.Musk's lawsuit claims OpenAI and Sam Altman misled him into donating $38 million to a nonprofit that later abandoned its charitable mission in favor of profit. Musk is seeking $150 billion in damages for the nonprofit and wants Altman and Brockman removed from leadership. OpenAI argues that Musk is upset because he left before the company became highly successful and is now trying to gain control while also advancing his own AI company, xAI. Brockman also faced questions about his own financial interests, including testimony that his OpenAI stake is worth nearly $30 billion and evidence of an old diary entry about reaching $1 billion. OpenAI later created a for-profit unit controlled by the nonprofit, which helped it raise massive sums for computing power, hiring, and expansion.Musk wanted $80 billion to colonize Mars, OpenAI president testifies at trial | ReutersPublishers Elsevier, Cengage, Hachette, Macmillan, and McGraw Hill, along with author Scott Turow, sued Meta in federal court in Manhattan over its AI training practices. The lawsuit claims Meta used millions of copyrighted books and journal articles without permission to train its Llama large language models. The works allegedly included textbooks, scientific publications, and novels, such as books by N.K. Jemisin and Peter Brown. The publishers are seeking class-action status so they can represent a broader group of copyright owners. They are also asking for monetary damages.Meta responded that AI training can qualify as fair use and said it plans to fight the case. The publishers argue that using allegedly pirated copies of creative and scholarly works is not the same as lawful innovation. The case joins a growing wave of lawsuits by authors, news organizations, artists, and other creators against AI companies, including Meta, OpenAI, and Anthropic. These lawsuits largely turn on whether using copyrighted works to train AI models is legally protected because the resulting systems create something new and transformative. Courts have not yet settled the issue, and early rulings have pointed in different directions. Anthropic previously resolved one major author lawsuit for $1.5 billion, showing how financially significant these disputes can become.Major publishers sue Meta for copyright infringement over AI training | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court allowed its recent Louisiana voting-rights ruling to take effect earlier than usual, clearing the way for political and legal consequences before the November midterm elections. The Court's April 29 decision had struck down a Louisiana congressional map that created a second Black-majority district. That ruling weakened a major part of the Voting Rights Act by limiting challenges to maps that allegedly dilute minority voting power. Normally, the Supreme Court waits 32 days before issuing its formal judgment, giving the losing side time to seek rehearing. Here, the Court agreed to speed up the process after a request from the voters who had won the case.The move helps Louisiana Republicans pursue a new congressional map and may weaken lawsuits challenging Governor Jeff Landry's decision to delay the state's May 16 congressional primaries. Some challengers had argued that Landry acted too soon because the Supreme Court's ruling had not formally taken effect yet. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, saying the Court's accelerated action had created disorder in Louisiana. The case is part of a broader national fight over redistricting, especially as both parties seek advantages in House races. The dispute began after Louisiana drew a second majority-Black district in 2024 to address a prior court ruling that the old map harmed Black voters under the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court later held that the replacement map relied too heavily on race, violating equal protection principles.US Supreme Court lets Voting Rights Act ruling take effect ahead of schedule | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Ryan MacDonald, country leader for SAS Canada Recorded on site at SAS Innovate 2026 in Grapevine, Texas, today’s In The Channel features Ryan MacDonald, country leader at SAS Canada, in a wide-ranging conversation about what the week’s major announcements mean for Canadian organizations – and where SAS sees its channel and partner opportunity growing. The conversation opens on the energy at SAS Innovate, which marks the company’s fiftieth anniversary, and what the announcement lineup – including the new SAS AI Navigator for AI governance and the expansion of agentic AI capabilities across the Viya platform – means for the Canadian market specifically. MacDonald describes Canadian enterprise AI maturity as strong in intellectual capital but still building toward consistent economic output, with the governance and trust framework a necessary foundation before organizations can scale. He draws a direct line between Canada’s regulatory environment – OSFI E-21 in particular – and the practical operational pressure organizations are feeling as model validation volumes have grown from two a week to multiple per day. On the competitive landscape, MacDonald addresses the challenge from Microsoft Fabric and Databricks with an argument about SAS’s existing footprint in business-critical decisioning layers – often invisible infrastructure organizations don’t always realize they’re sitting on, and an upgrade path through Viya designed to deliver incremental value rather than a rip-and-replace. The conversation also covers the evolution of SAS’s channel strategy, the managed services opportunity in a data sovereignty environment, and the MCP-based openness that is letting external AI agents call SAS analytics directly. Read Full Transcript Robert Dutt: Hello, and welcome to In The Channel from ChannelBuzz.ca, bringing news and information to the Canadian IT channel for the last 16 years. I’m Robert Dutt, editor of ChannelBuzz.ca, and your host for the show. This week, I’m coming to you from Grapevine, Texas, where I’ve been on the ground at SAS Innovate 2026. It’s a significant week for SAS Institute on a couple of fronts. The company is marking its 50th anniversary this year, and the announcement lineup has been one of the more substantive in recent memory, with major moves in AI governance, agentic AI across the Viya platform, and a meaningful shift in how the platform opens up to external AI agents and frameworks. My guest today is Ryan Macdonald, country manager [CHECK: title recorded as “country manager” – should be “managing director” if you want to punch in] for SAS Canada. Ryan’s been with SAS Canada for about a decade, and has just stepped into a role leading the country this year. He has a front row seat to some significant strategic changes – the move to Viya, the expansion of the partner and channel program, and now what I think is a genuinely important moment as AI governance moves from theoretical concern to practical operational requirement, particularly in Canada’s regulated industries. We cover a lot of ground – what this week’s announcements mean for Canadian organizations, where Canadian enterprise stands on AI maturity right now, the OSFI E-21 story, how SAS is thinking about its channel ecosystem and the mid-market opportunity, and a candid conversation about managed services and data sovereignty. Let’s get right into it. My chat with Ryan Macdonald. [MUSIC] Robert Dutt: Ryan, thanks for taking the time, and what I’m sure is a busy week for you. Ryan MacDonald: Yes, of course. Thanks for having me, Robert. Robert Dutt: You guys turned 50 this year, and it feels like one of the bigger product lineup announcements at Innovate in a while. Curious what you felt from the room. What’s the energy, what’s the vibe that you’re getting from this year at Innovate, especially given that 50 years of SAS framing? Ryan MacDonald: I agree with the energy you’re feeling. Certainly a ton of energy around our 50th and just what we’re seeing in terms of AI tooling and where we fit into that ecosystem. So lots of conversations about the data estate, how that’s evolving, and then just really looking for the reality check on where practical value lives in the new AI ecosystem that’s being framed around, especially for enterprise technology stacks. Robert Dutt: Look at the announcement stack this week. You’ve got Navigator for AI governance. You’ve got the agentic AI expansion in Viya, the various industry solutions. Curious – and I’m sure you’ve seen some of these before they were announced to the public and been following their development – what is kind of activating your Spidey senses in terms of, “ooh, that’s going to play well at home right now.” What are we seeing as sort of the big early day opportunities out of those innovations? Ryan MacDonald: Certainly in Canada, the regulatory domain around model risk management and model management and lineage and explainability is front of mind for everybody. I think that’s the major limiting factor in terms of proliferating cost of AI, in terms of actually calculating a per unit cost of running a model or introducing intelligence to something that was maybe traditionally rules-based. And so I think not only is there a regulatory driver, but people are seeing that as a practical constraint. So a lot in the governance and trust domain is certainly a hot topic. Robert Dutt: And that kind of speaks to where I wanted to go next, actually, which is you guys have been in Canada across verticals for a long time, obviously. Curious how you would describe the overall kind of AI maturity of the Canadian market right now. Are we kind of leading, lagging? Or is there something distinctly Canadian to it? Ryan MacDonald: Yeah, great question. This is close to home. We have the benefit of working with thought leaders in AI, folks like Ajay Agrawal. And just knowing the pedigree of intellectual property around this conversation in Canada, we have so much there. Of course, Geoffrey Hinton and Ilya Sutskever and the folks at U of T have just delivered so much to this community. I think that said, enterprise adoption and converting this into economic output is still something that we’re figuring out. So I think our investments generally, relative to peer groups around the world, we’re still a little behind. I think we’re doing some advanced things. There are some exceptions to this, where use cases are at the forefront of what’s being delivered globally. But generally, I think the data estate and this trust dynamic and the need for establishing a scalable framework for trust and governance – it’s a responsible thing to do. But relative to other geographies, it’s setting a foundation before we really run away with some use cases and deliver. Robert Dutt: One thing we’re tracking – I’m sure a lot of people are – is the idea of AI initiatives that get a start and a lot of fanfare and then fizzle out before hitting production or certainly proving their worth. I’ve heard a lot of the framing of the idea of trust and governance as kind of the growth driver, rather than the compliance tax. How is that hitting in Canada? And is that any different than what you’ve seen in terms of reactions and feeling and overall motion in the states or elsewhere? Ryan MacDonald: I think there are certainly differences in the tone of this conversation. For me, the purview is mostly north and south of the border – the US and Canada. But I think in Canada, we have a regulatory domain that is really prioritizing these things. So it’s not optional for a lot of – especially in a regulated market, this isn’t really a luxury you’d have to say, do I comply with this or not? But I think it’s also putting a per unit cost parameter on this for folks that is important. We’re seeing a huge proliferation of AI. Everything – your microwave, your lawnmower, everything has some sort of AI enablement component to it. Is it necessary? Are you getting the appropriate uplift? And these teams that are validating and pushing these models through the organization – what we’re hearing from them – this went from two a week, to a month, to two a day, five a day, ten a day. And so the systems – it’s not just a luxury or a question really of the ethics. Are we doing the right thing? Is this responsible? It’s a framework that’s required for the validation process, even just table stakes, to really scale through the organization. Robert Dutt: To that point, in Canada we’ve got financial services, and particularly we’ve got OSFI E-21 coming up. That’s pretty scary – things attached to it if you’re not hitting the bar. Are you seeing that create urgency? Or are customers still in a wait and see kind of space around that? Ryan MacDonald: I think the regulatory conversations there are interesting. There’s a lot of assessment of what peers are doing. And I think OSFI, to their credit, really listens to the community. Rather than setting a standard blind lead, just based on their intellectual property and what they see as being a requirement, they really listen to the community and measure from where everybody is, taking stock of that. So I don’t believe there’s a lot of fear and panic. I think organizations – as we did a lot of work around E-21 [CHECK: transcript rendered as “E23” – confirm on playback] specifically in this space – they were really well prepared. They had some ideas on how to make this more efficient, really focus on the materiality of where the risk lives and develop a framework that’s consistent with the risk posture in other domains. And I think that’s really – nobody was suggesting, “hey, this isn’t a good idea. This is too much pressure. This is putting a cost burden on us.” That wasn’t really the dialogue. Robert Dutt: Beyond financial services and other regulated industries especially, what are you seeing in terms of how customers are wrestling with AI governance right now? Ryan MacDonald: I think the scale of maturity across industries just varies so greatly. You have some organizations that are really just getting started, and they’re acknowledging that. In some of the roundtables we’ve had the benefit of participating in, some folks are trying to find their first step in AI. What does this even mean? They’re trying to find the right resources that can guide them. They’re still building their technology estate. And then, conversely, you have folks that are, as we spoke about earlier, leading the world – the global community – in terms of things like automated decisioning frameworks and integrating what were previously siloed processes. We see this in risk and fraud domains merging together. So I think we’re seeing both ends of that spectrum in Canada, certainly. Robert Dutt: Analytics has become a crowded space lately – with Databricks, with Snowflake, with Microsoft Fabric getting in there, all in territory that you guys have been in for a long time. How do you make the case to Canadian organizations that have been told, especially by Microsoft, “hey, you can just have analytics as part of what you already have?” What’s the competitive message there? Ryan MacDonald: Yeah, that’s a regular conversation for us, of course. I think what we really offer institutions, especially given the scale of the organizations we support – and we work in almost every major industry, every major enterprise in Canada – we offer a very different risk posture in moving through this process. So they may have what were traditional analytics with SAS. Maybe we had dabbled in what was previously BI, something like that. But for a lot of institutions, we support business-critical payload. There is a core application to their business that’s being delivered with a component of SAS. And oftentimes, as our relationships diversify across the organization, maybe we have a specific technology sponsor that helped build this alongside their business counterpart. Maybe they’ve moved on. And that decisioning layer is sort of obfuscated. So we spend a lot of time identifying – hey, is this what looks like ETL work potentially, in a report or an assessment that’s performed? Is this really a decisioning layer in your organization? And that’s what we’re really finding is there. And what folks are really interested in is taking that framework – what was previously identified as legacy SAS – and seeing what we offer in terms of Viya. It’s scaling far beyond what the competition can offer in terms of decisioning frameworks and automating process and delivering core value. A lot of the AI discussion is focused now on where are you seeing ROI? How long do we have to wait? What is the roadmap to finally get something out of this? And I think that’s really the core difference. Yes, there’s a lot of tools. It’s a crowded space. The competition is fierce and they can do some very exciting things. I think what we offer organizations is really the opportunity to do those same things and more, and to take your current investments, your current intellectual property, through that framework – which delivers value incrementally rather than a build within a complete new paradigm. Robert Dutt: One of the announcements that really caught my eye this week was the addition of the MCP – in that essentially you guys are opening up the analytics engine to external AI agents like Claude to call it directly. It seems like a pretty significant shift in terms of thinking about openness, thinking about consuming SAS from wherever folks want to consume it. What does that motion mean for the Canadian organization and for your Canadian customers? Ryan MacDonald: I think this is an extrapolation of what we spoke about earlier, in the sense of we are providing these deterministic decision frameworks to these organizations today. And so we talk about this almost in the sense of the Apple/Android paradigm. This was a previously closed ecosystem. The SAS code base was proprietary. The compute infrastructure was proprietary. And the open source motion was the first move here – running Python and R and other code frameworks natively within SAS is something that we’ve supported now for years within Viya. And it’s an extrapolation of this – meeting our customers where they are. SAS did not endeavor to compete directly with the frontier labs and build LLM models. But we certainly see the benefit – this is providing the market the productivity increase, the creativity of use cases, and what this adds to decisioning frameworks. I think the shortcoming is still the deterministic component, where something can be built in a hard and trusted capacity, presented to a regulator with the appropriate lineage. That’s really where we see these worlds coming together. So I don’t think it’s a great strategic decision if SAS were to impose, “we have one specific framework, one partner in this space.” We’re seeing, in addition to the frontier labs, a lot of custom work in this space as well – enterprises that are building more small language models around their data sets. So imposing this integration framework, I think, allows us to really meet customers where they are. Robert Dutt: A few years ago there was a flurry of things going on on the channel side for you guys. You brought on TD SYNNEX as a distributor. I believe it was a worldwide, not Canadian-specific figure that you were going for – 30% of contribution through partners. Where’s the channel scene at for you today? How would you characterize where you’re at against those goals and others? Ryan MacDonald: I think we’re still making progress in that domain. The channel business is still growing very aggressively. It’s a big shift to turn, frankly, in terms of getting the allotment of customers we had when we segmented what work was going to the channel, how that was going to be developed. And we compare ourselves to our peers in the industry – they’ve been at this for a lot longer. So just the maturity continues to develop. I think we’re seeing great progress, great feedback from customers in terms of the way that the channel is able to support them. And we see proliferation of niche players here that have come out of the woodwork that are very industry-specific. So I think that’s really the opportunity – where we had a general technology-based approach for certain industry segments, what we’re seeing is these channel partners can really tie together these business outcome-driven discussions in a way that was much more expensive and difficult for SAS to scale to. Robert Dutt: What does the community look like today in terms of scale, profile of partners, what they’re doing, and where do you see that evolving over the near future? Ryan MacDonald: I think we’re seeing this change very quickly with the advent of AI in terms of what use cases are being prioritized. I think in Canada, a lot of organizations have hit a wall in terms of understanding their data foundations – they’re not necessarily ready to scale them towards all the outcomes they’re seeking to deliver. And so channel partners are that domain. What are our peers doing? And this is GSIs and niche consulting firms and everybody in between. So we’re really seeing those conversations take shape of almost a reset of the roadmap, a reprioritization of how they’re building out their target state ecosystem. And that industry expertise is, I believe, the real differentiator. There’s a lot of competition. It’s a crowded space in that sense. So having an outcomes-focused point of view, whether that’s from SAS directly or a channel partner, is really important. Robert Dutt: Is the changing nature of what you guys are focused on in terms of AI governance and all those kinds of things that we’ve been talking about changing the definition of who you’re working with as a partner? Or is that something that’s likely to happen in the near future? Ryan MacDonald: I don’t think it’ll necessarily change. We might add some things to it, but they’re really part of the same conversation. I don’t think you can have a conversation about scaling AI without a discussion about the governance framework. And in a lot of cases, model inventory work, and just being the core platform of delivering models in this decisioning layer, is something that SAS had a lot of experience and an existing footprint within. So I think it’s really germane to the way we’ve been working with these customers today. Robert Dutt: How does the service mix – how they actually bring this all to market as partners – change as kind of what you’re going after changes? Ryan MacDonald: I think there’s a lot more consultative work right now around these outcome-focused and prioritization discussions. So I think it certainly is changing. And if you’re seeing this sort of increased competition in the technology domain and more commoditization of certain tool sets, it just puts more weight on – how do I really navigate? It crowds the pathway and creates more obstacles in terms of delivering outcomes. And so I think just refocusing on outcome-oriented discussion – and a lot of times these are deep partnerships between a niche consulting vendor, or somebody that now is a channel partner to SAS, and these firms in sectors across Canada. So it’s not necessarily changing the way we’re working with them. It’s changing the prioritization of the discussion, putting consulting maybe ahead of technology. Robert Dutt: Before we sat down to record, just as we were getting to know each other, you mentioned that part of your path through SAS Canada was you had managed services, at least for a while – and I believe that to be internally. How has that shaped, and how does this moment shape, how you think about working with partners who are in that managed services kind of motion? Ryan MacDonald: Yeah, that conversation is changing everywhere in the world. The political landscape, of course, is relevant here – in terms of we’re seeing some location dictate where customers are willing to send or host data. We’re seeing geo-repatriation in that sense. We’re seeing movement to the cloud change the dynamics of the cost model, what folks are seeing in terms of stable applications that don’t necessarily need the scalability or proximity to data. We’re seeing them pull some things back on premises and build clouds internally with OpenShift and other technologies. So I think it’s a cycle like most things in technology, where we’ve had the gold rush of moving everything to the cloud. And I think especially enterprise customers are now deciding not only how do they divide that workload amongst hyperscaler partners, but what is appropriate for internal clouds, which are now growing in popularity. And I think in Canada, we’re not seeing a huge disruption in this space, but we’re seeing a lot more of our business grow in terms of managed services. And as we talk about more outcome-driven engagements – less just providing raw access to the technology – the managed service really bridges the gap in terms of the various integration points that need to be managed along the way. And so it’s not just simply providing the infrastructure and application support. We’re seeing the managed service domain, especially around SAS – where this is not a one-size-fits-all approach – really extrapolate into “can we help you really derive your outcome” with expertise in either transformations of data, or we’re providing models now in terms of a service offering, in addition to consulting work of building models custom to each application. So that’s really evolving quickly. Robert Dutt: One of the trends that we follow a lot is this move across the industry to look at partners less as a direct, straight-through channel and more as an ecosystem – a lot more multi-partner engagements, especially given where you guys sit in the complexity and custom nature of a lot of what customers are asking of you. How are you guys thinking about that ecosystem, multi-partner play? Ryan MacDonald: I think the list of partners is generally growing as we talk about extrapolating into channel and SAS’s ambition to have, as you stated, 30% of our revenue flowing through the channel in Canada. I think the customer really dictates the specific mix. And so customers in large enterprise have a preference of GSI and specific domains. And what we’re seeing more is the introduction of niche players alongside GSIs, where typically that was binary previously. They would typically – let’s say they work with Deloitte or EY, for example – that would be their preference to continue in that direction. And now we’re seeing them want to leverage the scale those organizations offer, but really like the thought leadership and expertise delivered by a niche partner, and want to bring us all together. So we’re seeing a lot more partners enter the conversation, which I think is very healthy for the competitive domain and just in terms of getting to specific outcomes very quickly. Robert Dutt: The traditional sweet spot for SAS has been clearly enterprise, and Canada’s a very SMB-heavy nation, obviously. But a lot of the stuff that’s going on right now between the Viya SaaS model and the stuff going up on GitHub and the move towards managed services suggests that there might be even more of a mid-market play than before. I’m curious what you see in terms of what a Canadian reseller can realistically and credibly pursue right now. Ryan MacDonald: That has been the way the economy has been structured in Canada for decades, of course, and something that I think our channel strategy really celebrates and prioritizes. SAS – it’s hard to work both ends of the spectrum. And so our legacy of working with enterprise customers, to explore some of the topics we’ve covered in the regulatory domain and how that takes shape, the reach to SMB customers has been something that we’ve candidly struggled with at times. The channel is really the resolution to that. So we’re seeing, as we talk about more entities in this space, the mix of consulting partners or partners in general proliferating – that’s really where we’re seeing it, down more towards the SMB segments, less on the enterprise side. Robert Dutt: Acknowledging that there’s going to be a wide range of things here, and it may even depend partner to partner, but looking at the channel as an aggregate – what do you need more of from your partners right now in terms of areas of focus, in terms of opportunities to be going at, in terms of skillsets? Ryan MacDonald: I think because we are trying to aggressively pursue this market in Canada and service this customer base – which, again, the channel is just better suited for, all around – to me, it’s the feedback loop. That’s something that we challenge, of course, our frontline in an enterprise setting. You have a consistent flow of communication that’s bidirectional. We’re getting feedback on what’s important to them, what they are doing with the platform at times in our tool sets. And having that flow through an additional intermediary is an additional step in the process in the channel segment. But I think that’s really important – just to make sure we’re collecting feedback not just from channel partners, but direct from customers – their experience with SAS, how our channel partners feel in terms of support and enablement, pricing and mechanics and the rest of it as well. Robert Dutt: Curious what you see success at SAS Canada looking like over the next 12 to 18 months. What are the conversations you want to be having that you aren’t yet? What are the measurements that you’re looking at? Ryan MacDonald: We have been growing the business – in terms of revenue, of course, is always important to us – but influence in the market, I think, is something else. SAS, having such a – as we celebrate 50 years – our legacy is something we’re incredibly proud of. It’s afforded us the opportunity to build these great partnerships in Canada, all across the country, various enterprises. I think at times the double-edged sword there is they may equate us to the way they had built with SAS previously and don’t necessarily take stock of some of the things you’re seeing us bring to market today and announcing here at Innovate. So I think that is really what we look for – not just in terms of revenue growth and are we delivering more outcomes and scaling the progress with these customers. Are we really – are they delivering within the new framework? Are we changing the narrative in terms of what they see from SAS and who we are to them? Robert Dutt: My last and definitely most important question – how many dinners did you have last night? Ryan MacDonald: I had one dinner. Robert Dutt: One? One dinner. Oh, that’s an accomplishment. I appreciate you taking the time, Ryan. Thanks. Ryan MacDonald: Thank you, Robert. Really, really nice to meet you here today. Thank you, I appreciate your time. Robert Dutt: There you have it – Ryan Macdonald from SAS Canada. I’d like to thank Ryan for his time. This was our first in-person recording with the new setup, and I think you can hear the difference. And thank you for listening. A few things I’m taking away from this one. First – the AI governance story in Canada is moving faster than it might look from the outside. Ryan’s framing stuck with me: the volume of models organizations are pushing through validation has gone from two a week to five to ten a day. The governance framework isn’t a compliance tax – it’s the operational infrastructure that makes any of this scalable. And for Canadian financial services firms, OSFI E-21 isn’t on the horizon anymore – it’s here. Second – SAS’s competitive argument is more interesting than the standard “we’ve been around longer” play. The pitch is that there’s already a business-critical decisioning layer in your organization that’s been built on SAS. And the real question is whether you’re going to upgrade and grow from that investment, or build something new from scratch alongside it. For a lot of Canadian enterprises, that’s a conversation worth having. And third – Ryan was candid that the direct sales model doesn’t reach the SMB, and the channel is the answer. What’s interesting is where the growth is coming from – niche, industry-specific partners alongside the big GSIs, with customers already wanting both in the room. If you’re a Canadian reseller or systems integrator with deep vertical expertise, SAS is worth a conversation. We’ll be back tomorrow with more from on the ground here at SAS Innovate 2026, as we chat with the global channel chief at SAS Institute, John Carey [CHECK: transcript rendered as “John Kerry” – confirm on playback before publishing]. If you found this one useful, follow or subscribe to In The Channel from ChannelBuzz.ca. We’re on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and most of the major directories. Ratings and reviews are always appreciated and genuinely help other people in the channel find the show. Until next time, I’m Robert Dutt for ChannelBuzz.ca, and I’ll see you in the channel.

The AI race, the future of AGI, and the inside story of OpenAI. Greg Brockman is the co-founder and President of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and GPT-5. He was the first engineer at Stripe before leaving in 2015 to help start OpenAI. In this rare conversation, Greg goes inside the moments that built, and nearly broke, the most important AI company in the world. Greg explains how the original Napa offsite produced the three-step technical plan OpenAI has followed for a decade and the real reason OpenAI had to abandon its pure nonprofit structure. He then walks through the 72 hours after Sam Altman was fired: where he was when he got the board call, why he quit the same day, how the "Phoenix" backup company was designed at Sam's house the next morning, and the moment Ilya Sutskever's tweet changed everything. From there, the conversation turns forward: whether we're in a global AI race, how much of OpenAI's own code is now written by AI ("it's hard to know what percent is not"), why OpenAI stopped showing reasoning traces, what a compute-constrained world means for who gets access to AGI, and Greg's answer to the question everyone is really asking: What happens to your job? ----- Timestamps: 00:00:00 Introduction 00:00:49 Meeting Sam Altman and Starting OpenAI 00:02:40 Building the Founding Team 00:04:25 DeepMind's Lead Over OpenAI 00:04:54 Changing OpenAI to a For-Profit Model 00:06:05 Breakthrough Moments at OpenAI 00:08:22 What Dota 2 Meant for OpenAI 00:10:04 Reasoning Versus Prediction 00:11:59 Tensions Grow at OpenAI 00:15:44 Sam Altman's Firing 00:17:49 Greg Quits OpenAI 00:19:56 Sam Explores Deal with Microsoft's Satya 00:20:28 OpenAI Employees Sign Petition for Altman's Return 00:23:43 Ilya Sutskever Leaves OpenAI 00:24:59 Lessons Learned in Leadership after Sam Ousting 00:28:22 The Thing Ilya Said that Greg Can't Forget 00:32:22 Is AI Going Parabolic? 00:33:24 How Much of OpenAI's Code is Written by AI? 00:36:21 Are AI Chatbots Just Telling Us What We Want to Hear? 00:38:06 The Global AI Race to Reach AGI 00:38:40 What Happens if US Doesn't Reach AGI First? 00:39:49 Are Competing Countries Stealing AI Advancements from U.S? 00:40:38 Why ChatGPT No Longer Shows Reasoning 00:41:47 The Finite Constraints of Compute 00:43:38 On Investing Early in Data Centers 00:46:31 The Future of Data Center Specialization 00:47:52 How OpenAI Will Decide Whose Queries to Serve 00:49:08 OpenAI on Consumer vs Enterprise Models 00:53:05 Data Centers in Space? 01:00:56 What Should AI Regulation Look Like? 01:04:33 The Future of AI-Powered Entrepreneurship 01:04:44 AI and Job Loss 01:07:15 The Skills Young People Should Invest In 01:11:30 What Does Success Look Like For You? ------ Newsletter: The Brain Food newsletter delivers actionable insights and thoughtful ideas every Sunday. It takes 5 minutes to read, and it's completely free. Learn more and sign up at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠fs.blog/newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ------ Follow Shane Parrish: X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/shaneparrish⁠ Insta: ⁠https://www.instagram.com/farnamstreet/⁠ LinkedIn: ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/shane-parrish-050a2183/⁠ Follow Greg Brockman: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/thegdb/ Blog: https://blog.gregbrockman.com/ ------ Thank you to the sponsors for this episode: +CoinShares: Delivering Reason to Digital Asset Investing. ⁠https://coinshares.com/⁠ +Granola AI, The AI notepad for people in back-to-back meetings: https://www.granola.ai/shane Check out the Granola Notes. HeyGen is a message-first AI video platform that helps people and AI agents turn ideas into professional video in minutes. Try for free at https://www.heygen.com/ Join the salty rebellion: https://drinklmnt.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Une enquête fouillée du New Yorker relance les interrogations autour de Sam Altman, figure centrale de la révolution de l'IA. Au-delà du portrait personnel, l'affaire pose une question de fond : peut-on confier une technologie aussi structurante à des dirigeants dont la gouvernance est contestée ?Un portrait accablant du patron d'OpenAILe New Yorker publie une longue enquête fondée sur plus de cent entretiens et des documents internes, dont un mémo attribué à Ilya Sutskever mettant en cause la franchise de Sam Altman. L'article décrit un dirigeant accusé par plusieurs anciens proches d'avoir déformé certains faits, minimisé des risques et cultivé une communication à géométrie variable au service de ses ambitions.Le traumatisme du “Blip” de 2023Le récit revient aussi sur la crise de novembre 2023, lorsque Sam Altman a été évincé puis rapidement réinstallé à la tête de OpenAI. Cet épisode rocambolesque, baptisé “Blip” en interne, continue d'alimenter les doutes sur la gouvernance interne de l'entreprise, au moment même où son poids économique et politique ne cesse de grandir avec le soutien de Microsoft.Qui gouverne vraiment l'intelligence artificielle ?Au-delà du cas Altman, le sujet dépasse qui interroge est celui de la personnalité des dirigeants de la tech. De Sam Altman à Mark Zuckerberg, en passant par les investisseurs Peter Thiel ou Marc Andreesen, peut-on avoir confiance à quelques dirigeants, presque mégalomanes, qui détiennent entre leurs mains la technologie clé de notre avenir, sans véritable contre-pouvoir ? Pour prolonger cette réflexion, on peut relire sur Monde Numérique l'épisode consacré aux trois ans de ChatGPT, ainsi que ce débrief sur le virage stratégique d'OpenAI.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

This is a link post. AI capabilities have improved remarkably quickly, fuelled by the explosive scale-up of resources being used to train the leading models. But if you examine the scaling laws that inspired this rush, they actually show extremely poor returns to scale. What's going on? AI Scaling is Shockingly Impressive The era of LLMs has seen remarkable improvements in AI capabilities over a very short time. This is often attributed to the AI scaling laws — statistical relationships which govern how AI capabilities improve with more parameters, compute, or data. Indeed AI thought-leaders such as Ilya Sutskever and Dario Amodei have said that the discovery of these laws led them to the current paradigm of rapid AI progress via a dizzying increase in the size of frontier systems. Before the 2020s, most AI researchers were looking for architectural changes to push the frontiers of AI forwards. The idea that scale alone was sufficient to provide the entire range of faculties involved in intelligent thought was unfashionable and seen as simplistic. A key reason it worked was the tremendous versatility of text. As Turing had noted more than 60 years earlier, almost any challenge that one could pose to [...] --- First published: January 30th, 2026 Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/742xJNTqer2Dt9Cxx/the-scaling-paradox Linkpost URL:https://www.tobyord.com/writing/the-scaling-paradox --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. ---Images from the article:Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

QNB Dijital Köprü katkılarıyla hazırladığımız 290. bölümde Pirix Kurucusu Çiğdem Öztabak konuğum oldu. QNB Dijital Köprü katkılarıyla... Bu bölüm ⁠⁠⁠⁠QNB Dijital Köprü⁠⁠⁠⁠ hakkında tanıtım içerir. ⁠⁠https://www.qnb.com.tr/dijitalkopru⁠ 2026, geleceğin bir kavram olmaktan çıkıp gündelik hayata çarptığı yıl. Yapay zekadan uzay yarışına, robotlardan insan olmanın anlamına kadar; iş, devletler ve bireyler için geri dönüşü olmayan bir eşiği konuşuyoruz. Abartı ile gerçeklik arasındaki çizgide, AI balonunu, yeni güç dengelerini ve “insan sorusunu” masaya yatırıyoruz. Bu bölüm, geleceği anlatmıyor, gelecekle yüzleştiriyor. (00:00) – Açılış (01:00) – Çiğdem Öztabak'ı tanıyoruz. (03:30) – Gelecek gelmedi mi? Back to The Future - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future Her - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_(2013) (05:33) - 2026'nın, geleceğin bir kavram olmaktan çıkıp gündelik hayata çarptığı yıl olacağını, AI, uzay, eğitim, iş, danışmanlık şirketleri, robotlar ve insan ömrü üzerinden konuşuyoruz. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_University Ilya Sutskever - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Sutskever (09:15) - 2026'da uzay yarışı kızışıyor. Jeff Bezos, Ay'a inişte Elon Musk'ı muhtemelen geçecek gözüyel bakılıyor. Aynı zamanda Elon Musk da, Mars'a Starship fırlatmaya hazırlanıyor. Uzay neden bu kadar önemli? (13:42) – Uzaydan gele ataklar ve uzayda savunma sanayii (15:35) - Herkesin merak ettiği Çin nerede dersek? (17:47) – Sam Altman İstanbul'a mı geldi? (21:48) - Ülkelerin yapay zeka sağlayıcılarına ve ABD'nin siyasi sistemine bağımlılıktan uzaklaşma çabalarıyla AI egemenliği bu yıl ciddi ivme kazanacak. Yapay Zeka egemenliği nedir? Pivot with Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBHGZpDF2fsqPIPi0pNyuTg (24:30) – Yapay Zeka balonunun sönmesi (25:25) – LLM'e yapılacak yatırımlar bitti mi? https://huggingface.co/ (28:44) – Yapay Zeka yatırımları aynı hızla devam eder mi? (31:14) – Yapay Zeka ile ilgili startuplar tarafında çok fazla başarısızlık görebilir miyiz? Severance - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11280740/ (34:24) – CES 2026 , Kod yazmak hala önemli mi? https://www.instagram.com/p/DSOEtzDDc-j/?hl=de (38:00) – İnsan ve yapay zeka etkileşimi nasıl olacak? Uzun vadeli faydaları ne olacak? Lazy Web (40:57) – Singularity nedir? https://www.su.org/team/ray-kurzweil (47:13) – Yapay zeka ajanları ile çalışırken burada insanlar hangi rollere kayacak? https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Hinton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rni7Fz7208c (48:00) – Üniversitelerde bazı bölümler ortadan mı kalkıyor? (50:00) – İşler değişiyor ve yapay zekaya devrediliyor. (56:00) – Hem bireyler, hem şirketler hem de Devletler için 2026'dan çıkarılması gereken stratejik sonuçlar neler? AI ile rekabet etmek yerine onu nasıl kullanabiliriz? (61:02) - Kapanış Sosyal Medya takibi yaptın mı? ⁠⁠⁠⁠X⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  – ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ – ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Linkedin⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ – ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Youtube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ – ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Goodreads⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Bülten⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ – ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠E-Posta⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ – Bu çalışmaları ve emeklerimi desteklemek için ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  ve ⁠⁠⁠Buy Me A Coffee⁠⁠⁠ hesabımız⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

FOUNDING OPENAI Colleague Keach Hagey, The Optimist. In 2016, Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and Ilya Sutskever founded OpenAI as a nonprofit research lab to develop safe artificial general intelligence (AGI). Backed by investors like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, the organization aimed to be a counterweight to Google's DeepMind, which was driven by profit. The team relied on massive computing power provided by GPUs—originally designed for video games—to train neural networks, recruiting top talent like Sutskever to lead their scientific efforts. NUMBER 13 1955

SHOW 12-2-2026 THE SHOW BEGIJS WITH DOUBTS ABOUT AI --  a useful invetion that can match the excitement of the first decades of Photography. November 1955 NADAR'S BALLOON AND THE BIRTH OF PHOTOGRAPHY Colleague Anika Burgess, Flashes of Brilliance. In 1863, the photographer Nadar undertook a perilous ascent in a giant balloon to fund experiments for heavier-than-air flight, illustrating the adventurous spirit required of early photographers. This era began with Daguerre's 1839 introduction of the daguerreotype, a process involving highly dangerous chemicals like mercury and iodine to create unique, mirror-like images on copper plates. Pioneers risked their lives using explosive materials to capture reality with unprecedented clarity and permanence. NUMBER 1 PHOTOGRAPHING THE MOON AND SEA Colleague Anika Burgess, Flashes of Brilliance. Early photography expanded scientific understanding, allowing humanity to visualize the inaccessible. James Nasmyth produced realistic images of the moon by photographing plaster models based on telescope observations, aiming to prove its volcanic nature. Simultaneously, Louis Boutan spent a decade perfecting underwater photography, capturing divers in hard-hat helmets. These efforts demonstrated that photography could be a tool for scientific analysis and discovery, revealing details of the natural world previously hidden from the human eye. NUMBER 2 SOCIAL JUSTICE AND NATURE CONSERVATION Colleague Anika Burgess, Flashes of Brilliance. Photography became a powerful agent for social and environmental change. Jacob Riis utilized dangerous flash powder to document the squalid conditions of Manhattan tenements, exposing poverty to the public in How the Other Half Lives. While his methods raised consent issues, they illuminated grim realities. Conversely, Carleton Watkins hauled massive equipment into the wilderness to photograph Yosemite; his majestic images influenced legislation signed by Lincoln to protect the land, proving photography's political impact. NUMBER 3 X-RAYS, SURVEILLANCE, AND MOTION Colleague Anika Burgess, Flashes of Brilliance. The discovery of X-rays in 1895 sparked a "new photography" craze, though the radiation caused severe injuries to early practitioners and subjects. Photography also entered the realm of surveillance; British authorities used hidden cameras to photograph suffragettes, while doctors documented asylum patients without consent. Finally, Eadweard Muybridge's experiments captured horses in motion, settling debates about locomotion and laying the technical groundwork for the future development of motion pictures. NUMBER 4 THE AWAKENING OF CHINA'S ECONOMY Colleague Anne Stevenson-Yang, Wild Ride. Returning to China in 1994, the author witnessed a transformation from the destitute, Maoist uniformity of 1985 to a budding export economy. In the earlier era, workers slept on desks and lacked basic goods, but Deng Xiaoping's realization that the state needed hard currency prompted reforms. Deng established Special Economic Zones like Shenzhen to generate foreign capital while attempting to isolate the population from foreign influence, marking the start of China's export boom. NUMBER 5 RED CAPITALISTS AND SMUGGLERS Colleague Anne Stevenson-Yang, Wild Ride. Following the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown, China reopened to investment in 1992, giving rise to "red capitalists"—often the children of party officials who traded political access for equity. As the central government lost control over local corruption and smuggling rings, it launched "Golden Projects" to digitize and centralize authority over customs and taxes. To avert a banking collapse in 1998, the state created asset management companies to absorb bad loans, effectively rolling over massive debt. NUMBER 6 GHOST CITIES AND THE STIMULUS TRAP Colleague Anne Stevenson-Yang, Wild Ride. China's growth model shifted toward massive infrastructure spending, resulting in "ghost cities" and replica Western towns built to inflate GDP rather than house people. This "Potemkin culture" peaked during the 2008 Olympics, where facades were painted to impress foreigners. To counter the global financial crisis, Beijing flooded the economy with loans, fueling a real estate bubble that consumed more cement in three years than the US did in a century, creating unsustainable debt. NUMBER 7 STAGNATION UNDER SURVEILLANCE Colleague Anne Stevenson-Yang, Wild Ride. The severe lockdowns of the COVID-19 pandemic shattered consumer confidence, leaving citizens insecure and unwilling to spend, which stalled economic recovery. Local governments, cut off from credit and burdened by debt, struggle to provide basic services. Faced with economic stagnation, Xi Jinping has rejected market liberalization in favor of increased surveillance and control, prioritizing regime security over resolving the structural debt crisis or restoring the dynamism of previous decades. NUMBER 8 FAMINE AND FLIGHT TO FREEDOM Colleague Mark Clifford, The Troublemaker. Jimmy Lai was born into a wealthy family that lost everything to the Communist revolution, forcing his father to flee to Hong Kong while his mother endured labor camps. Left behind, Lai survived as a child laborer during a devastating famine where he was perpetually hungry. A chance encounter with a traveler who gave him a chocolate bar inspired him to escape to Hong Kong, the "land of chocolate," stowing away on a boat at age twelve. NUMBER 9 THE FACTORY GUY Colleague Mark Clifford, The Troublemaker. By 1975, Jimmy Lai had risen from a child laborer to a factory owner, purchasing a bankrupt garment facility using stock market profits. Despite being a primary school dropout who learned English from a dictionary, Lai succeeded through relentless work and charm. He capitalized on the boom in American retail sourcing, winning orders from Kmart by producing samples overnight and eventually building Comitex into a leading sweater manufacturer, embodying the Hong Kong dream. NUMBER 10 CONSCIENCE AND CONVERSION Colleague Mark Clifford, The Troublemaker. The 1989 Tiananmen Squaremassacre radicalized Lai, who transitioned from textiles to media, founding Next magazine and Apple Daily to champion democracy. Realizing the brutality of the Chinese Communist Party, he used his wealth to support the student movement and expose regime corruption. As the 1997 handover approached, Lai converted to Catholicism, influenced by his wife and pro-democracy peers, seeking spiritual protection and a moral anchor against the coming political storm. NUMBER 11 PRISON AND LAWFARE Colleague Mark Clifford, The Troublemaker. Following the 2020 National Security Law, authorities raided Apple Daily, froze its assets, and arrested Lai, forcing the newspaper to close. Despite having the means to flee, Lai chose to stay and face imprisonment as a testament to his principles. Now held in solitary confinement, he is subjected to "lawfare"—sham legal proceedings designed to silence him—while he spends his time sketching religious images, remaining a symbol of resistance against Beijing's tyranny. NUMBER 12 FOUNDING OPENAI Colleague Keach Hagey, The Optimist. In 2016, Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and Ilya Sutskever founded OpenAI as a nonprofit research lab to develop safe artificial general intelligence (AGI). Backed by investors like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, the organization aimed to be a counterweight to Google's DeepMind, which was driven by profit. The team relied on massive computing power provided by GPUs—originally designed for video games—to train neural networks, recruiting top talent like Sutskever to lead their scientific efforts. NUMBER 13 THE ROOTS OF AMBITION Colleague Keach Hagey, The Optimist. Sam Altman grew up in St. Louis, the son of an idealistic developer and a driven dermatologist mother who instilled ambition and resilience in her children. Altmanattended the progressive John Burroughs School, where his intellect and charisma flourished, allowing him to connect with people on any topic. Though he was a tech enthusiast, his ability to charm others defined him early on, foreshadowing his future as a master persuader in Silicon Valley. NUMBER 14 SILICON VALLEY KINGMAKER Colleague Keach Hagey, The Optimist. At Stanford, Altman co-founded Loopt, a location-sharing app that won him a meeting with Steve Jobs and a spot in the App Store launch. While Loopt was not a commercial success, the experience taught Altman that his true talent lay in investing and spotting future trends rather than coding. He eventually succeeded Paul Graham as president of Y Combinator, becoming a powerful figure in Silicon Valley who could convince skeptics like Peter Thiel to back his visions. NUMBER 15 THE BLIP AND THE FUTURE Colleague Keach Hagey, The Optimist. The viral success of ChatGPT shifted OpenAI's focus from safety to commercialization, despite early internal warnings about the existential risks of AGI. Tensions over safety and Altman's management style led to a "blip" where the nonprofit board fired him, only for him to be quickly reinstated due to employee loyalty. Elon Musk, having lost a power struggle for control of the organization, severed ties, leaving Altman to lead the race toward AGI. NUMBER 16

AI models feel smarter than their real-world impact. They ace benchmarks, yet still struggle with reliability, strange bugs, and shallow generalization. Why is there such a gap between what they can do on paper and in practiceIn this episode from The Dwarkesh Podcast, Dwarkesh talks with Ilya Sutskever, cofounder of SSI and former OpenAI chief scientist, about what is actually blocking progress toward AGI. They explore why RL and pretraining scale so differently, why models outperform on evals but underperform in real use, and why human style generalization remains far ahead.Ilya also discusses value functions, emotions as a built-in reward system, the limits of pretraining, continual learning, superintelligence, and what an AI driven economy could look like. Resources:Transcript: https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/ilya-sutsk...Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7naO... Stay Updated:If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to like, subscribe, and share with your friends!Find a16z on X: https://x.com/a16zFind a16z on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a16zListen to the a16z Podcast on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5bC65RDvs3oxnLyqqvkUYXListen to the a16z Podcast on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a16z-podcast/id842818711Follow our host: https://x.com/eriktorenbergPlease note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures](http://a16z.com/disclosures.  Stay Updated:Find a16z on XFind a16z on LinkedInListen to the a16z Show on SpotifyListen to the a16z Show on Apple PodcastsFollow our host: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Live from The Hyderabad Public School, a private high school in India which features notable alums 1) Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, 2) Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen 3) former Mastercard CEO Ajay Banga, 4) Fairfax Financial CEO Prem Watsa, and 5) Procter & Gamble CEO-designate Shailesh Jejurikar, it's an all-new Terrific Tuesday edition of Business Pants, featuring Analyst-Hole Matt Moscardi! On today's Lead Independent Turkey called November 25th, 2025: the Who Do You Blame? Game!Our show today is being sponsored by Free Float Analytics, the only platform measuring board power, connections, and performance for FREE.DAMIONCampbell's Places VP on Leave Following Viral 'Poor People' RantMartin Bally, Campbell Soup Company's vice president and chief information security officer: “"We have s--- for f---ing poor people. Who buys our s---? I don't buy Campbell's products barely anymore. Bioengineered meat — I don't wanna eat a piece of chicken that came from a 3-D printer."He also allegedly made derogatory comments about Indian coworkers and – according to the recording – claimed he sometimes came to work under the influence of marijuana: "F---ing Indians don't know a f---ing thing," the voice on the recording says. "They couldn't think for their f---ing selves."The statement follows claims made by former Campbell's security analyst Robert Garza, who filed a lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit Court alleging that Bally launched into an hour-long tirade during what was meant to be a discussion about Garza's salary.Campbell's: “We are proud of the food we make, the people who make it and the high-quality ingredients we use ... The comments on the recording are not only inaccurate—they are patently absurd.Campbell's also noted that Bally is not involved in food development. “Keep in mind, the alleged comments are made by an IT person, who has nothing to do with how we make our food,” the statement concluded.WHO DO YOU BLAME?The founding families:Voting power: (35%) Mary Alice D. Malone - 18% Bennett Dorrance- 15% Archbold D. van Beuren - 2%Board influence (76%): Mary Alice Dorrance Malone (61%; board member since 1990); Archbold Dorrance van Beuren (9%; wealth management); Bennett Dorrance (6%: bachelor's degree in art history from Princeton University and a master's degree in sustainable leadership from Arizona State University); Mary Alice Dorrance Malone Jr (accomplished equestrian, and a luxury fashion entrepreneur) MMInvestors: 11/18/2025 AGMAverage director support 98% (9 over 99%): 43% yes simple majority vote; regenerative agriculture program including pesticide reduction outcomes 11% yes; say on pay 99% yesAn unserious food board of 9 non-family board members:No food: Fabiola R. Arredondo (family investment trust); Howard M. Averill(former Time Warner CFO); Maria Teresa (Tessa) Hilado (former CFO Allergan); Grant Hill (NBA); Sarah Hofstetter (e-commerce sales); Marc B. Lautenbach (global shipping); Chair Keith R. McLoughlin (appliances); Kurt T. Schmidt (weed and pet food); CEO Mick J. Beekhuizen: 13 years with Goldman Sachs in roles including Managing Director in the merchant banking divisionAmerican pop-artist Andy Warhol for somehow making Campbell's Food company eternally relevant Q3 2025 Gender Diversity IndexLittle Movement on Boardroom Gender Diversity: 30% of Russell 3000 board members are women, a figure that has stayed within a narrow 30% to 30.3% range over the past five quarters.Percentage of Boards with 50% Women: Across the Russell 3000, 6% (175) of boards are composed of at least 50% women, while the remaining 94% (2,736) have less than 50% female representation.New Female Director Appointments Hit Record Low: 22.3% of new directors on Russell 3000 boards are women. This represents the lowest percentage recorded in the study (since Q12017)WHO DO YOU BLAME?The anti-DEI MAGA movementNominating Committees, specifically their Chairs MMPassive Investors (BlackRock, Vanguard, etc)The proxy experts: ISS, Glass Lewis, etc.Previous female board members who retired or died: if they were immortal maybe the numbers would be better?OpenAI announces shopping research tool in latest e-commerce pushOpenAI announced a new tool called “shopping research” that will generate detailed, in-depth shopping guides.The guides include top products, key differences between the products and up-to-date information from reliable retailers, OpenAI said.“With these new abilities, we can have shared prosperity to a degree that seems unimaginable today; in the future, everyone's lives can be better than anyone's life is now.”WHO DO YOU BLAME?The sycophants: open letter sent to the board of directors“We are unable to work for or with people that lack competence, judgement and care for our mission and employees,” the letter continues before demanding that “all current board members resign,” appoint “two new lead independent directors.”signed by a whopping 700 of the company's 770 employees — including CTO Mira Murati, who the board briefly named interim CEO only to be replaced just a few days later, and Altman's fellow cofounder Ilya Sutskever, who initially appeared to be one of the forces behind his ousterNew Initial Board (Nov 2023)Bret “Salesforce” Taylor (Chair), Larry “Epstein” Summers, and Adam “voted to fire him in the first place” D'AngeloNew Board Members (Mar 2024)Sue Desmond-Hellmann (former CEO, Bill “Epstein” & Melinda Gates Foundation); Nicole “Iran Contra” Seligman (former Sony GC); Fidji Simo (CEO of Instacart) MMThe wafflers: Ilya Sutskever and Adam D'AngeloNOT Helen Toner: Director of Strategy at the Georgetown Center for Security and Emerging Technology and Tasha McCauleySam:San Francisco, CA (Russian Hill): A historic mansion purchased for $27 million in 2020.San Francisco, CA (Adjacent Homes): Three adjacent houses purchased for $12.8 million each (totaling $38.4 million) in January 2024. These purchases appear to be consolidating a potential mega-compound next to his original Russian Hill home.Kailua-Kona, Hawaii (Big Island): A large, 22-acre oceanfront estate, quietly purchased in 2021 for $43 million (later listed for $49 million in 2025). It features multiple houses, a private marina/beach, helipadNapa, CA (Ranch): A 950-acre ranch, reportedly purchased for $15.7 million in 2020.Kohl's names Michael Bender as permanent CEO after a turbulent year and sales declines. WHO DO YOU BLAMEAshley Buchanan: On May 1, 2025, Kohl's board terminated Buchanan “for cause” following an outside investigation overseen by its Audit Committee. The investigation found that Buchanan directed Kohl's to do business with a vendor founded by someone with whom he had a personal relationship. He also caused Kohl's to enter into a multimillion-dollar consulting agreement involving that same person. Crucially, he did not disclose this personal relationship, which was a violation of Kohl's code of ethics.Golden hello: $17m equity and $3.75m cashFormer director Christine Day: Shortly after Buchanan was fired, Day resigned, citing “lack of transparency” and governance concerns. Day said she was frustrated that not all board members were kept informed of risks and that decisions seemed centralized (“Michael ‘handles' everything … then ‘tells' everyone what the decision is”). Kohl's strongly disputed her characterization, saying her resignation was not “due to any disagreements” over operations or practices.Investors: chair Bender named interim CEO 4/30/25… AGM 5/14/2595% yes bender; 55% yes pay; 89% yes Prising; 92% average; new chair 91% John E. Schlifske (2011-, longest-tenured)Compensation Committee: “regularly and actively reviewing and evaluating our executive management succession plans and making recommendations to the Board with respect to succession planning issues”Chair Jonas Prising (2015-)Member Michael BenderMichael Bender, who was the Board Chair and sat on COmp Committee and director since 2019, was named interim CEO$1.475M/175% target up to 350%/$9.5M equity ($500k more than ashley) target/$200k aircraft (up from $180k for ashley)/$160k relocationone-time award of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) valued at $3,775,000The glass cliff: women and POC promoted to precarious leadership positions, such as the CEO or a board seat, during times of crisis, organizational turmoil, or poor performance MMMATTWatchdog group warns AI teddy bear discusses sexually explicit content, dangerous activities. This is the $99 Kumma bear made by FoloToy using OpenAI's service. OpenAI said it was suspending Folotoy for violations of usage of ChatGPT. WHO DO YOU BLAME?:Folotoy, who's founder and CEO Larry Wang calls himself “Chief Geek Officer” and has a background in child psychology and behavioral science… oh, wait, not, he has background in computer science and was founder of a tech telecomm company and was a software developer for insurance before that. But he's obviously qualified to do this: “Kumma, our adorable bear, combines advanced artificial intelligence with friendly, interactive features, making it the perfect friend for both kids and adults. From lively conversations to educational storytelling, FoloToy adapts to your personality and needs, bringing warmth, fun, and a little extra curiosity to your day.”OpenAI - obviously Sam Altman's commitment to “the benefit of humanity” stopped short of “sex advice from baby toys,” even though he says having kids of his own will help him not destroy humanity. I assume he's not getting Sammy Jr a Kumma bear? DROpenAI's board - obviously if they had fired Sam Altman, there wouldn't be sex bears using ChatGPT. But Helen Toner was forced out by the rest of the board, investors, and public pressure - she's since said, “But for years, Sam had made it really difficult for the board to actually do that job by withholding information, misrepresenting things that were happening at the company, in some cases outright lying to the board,” and that Altman gave them, “inaccurate information about the small number of formal safety processes that the company did have in place.” Perhaps Altman said, “no, that teddy bear didn't just say he loved oral sex, that's just a misinterpretation.”Microsoft - Satya, despite misgivings from Bill Gates, threw $10bn at OpenAI in January 2023. In November 2023, the board removed Sam Altman. Turns out Microsoft had released a version of ChatGPT in India that Altman sanctioned outside of safety protocols - the board should have signed off, but Altman lied to them and hid it. But rather than Microsoft pulling back the release and recognizing the damage it could do, they swooped in and “hired” Sam Altman 3 days after his firing. Their $10bn investment might have been the first cog in a sex bear wheel.I'm the Chief People Officer at Walmart. I always wake up to the same U2 song and watch the 'Today' show. That is Donna Morris listening to U2's “Beautiful Day”, the first thing she does is go online, she doesn't drink coffee but drinks Diet Coke (“I've just never been a hot drink type of girl, I guess. I try to limit myself to two Diet Cokes a day, although every once in a while, I sneak in a third.”), she likes buying cookbooks but doesn't use them. Not mentioned: Walmart's DEI rollback, the new CEO coming in, working for a family dictatorship, and any of her colleagues - as chief people officer, there are almost zero people mentioned. WHO DO WE BLAME FOR THIS EXISTING?Professional Conservative Snowflake Robby Starbuck - he claimed Walmart as his first “victory” after Trump's election in the DEI rollback. Post-Starbuck snowflake-ism, Morris might have had a job managing humans, but now her job is basically to send pink slips and make sure there aren't TOO many swastikas in the bathroom stall. A few is fine, but c'mon. So to pass the time, Morris is stuck giving interviews to Business Insider.Business Insider, who must have known Morris had the potential to give an insipid review of her day when this was her excuse for Walmart's DEI rollback: "When you talk about diversity, equity, inclusion, all in part, there can be communities, and often the largest communities, that step back and say, 'Geez, I'm not sure if I'm even actually included'," Morris explained of the decision. Which echoes… ROBBY FUCKING STARBUCK, who said to anyone who would listen: "This is the biggest win yet for our movement to end wokeness in corporate America. This won't just have a massive effect for their employees who will have a neutral workplace without feeling that divisive issues are being injected but it will also extend to their many suppliers."Donna Morris, because as only we covered here when discussing the corporate move to blame the employees for every problem and getting fired, had this to say of her biggest red flag on an employee: “Nobody wants [to hire] a Debbie Downer. [Someone who is] constantly negative. You know they're going to show up [and] they're going to bring the problem, never the solution.” Literally, the JOB of HR is to field COMPLAINTS from employees about how their managers treat them - or is it too Debbie Downer to complain about racial discrimination of employees?Walmart's board - they must have signed off on Morris getting hired, right? Or a Walton? Someone somewhere thought this was a good idea? Take your pick:CFO of OpenAI Sarah Friar (who said OpenAI would need a government backstop, then clarified)Brian Niccol, the CEO of Starbucks who was given a golden hello, a golden parachute, and probably a golden shower, who just named to a “worst CEO” listThe current AND former CEO of WalmartSteuart Walton, who couldn't bother to even be named “Stuart” (he had to spell it with an extra “E”) with a claim to fame of marrying a Baywatch reboot actress, and Greg Penner, the son-in-law of a different Walton and snuck his way onto the board AND as co-owner of the Denver BroncosTom Horton, retired American Airlines CEO who was CFO of American for years right before they declared bankruptcy, but somehow is remembered for “restructuring” them instead of bankrupting them?Marissa Mayer - yes, that Mayer, formerly of YahooNot one, but TWO different consultantsRandall Stephenson, ex AT&T CEO, who, if I'm honest, seems to have actual integrity and I'm not sure why he's here, plus two DEI directors (because they're not white, so probably not qualified)

Ilya & I discuss SSI's strategy, the problems with pre-training, how to improve the generalization of AI models, and how to ensure AGI goes well.Watch on YouTube; read the transcript.Sponsors* Gemini 3 is the first model I've used that can find connections I haven't anticipated. I recently wrote a blog post on RL's information efficiency, and Gemini 3 helped me think it all through. It also generated the relevant charts and ran toy ML experiments for me with zero bugs. Try Gemini 3 today at gemini.google* Labelbox helped me create a tool to transcribe our episodes! I've struggled with transcription in the past because I don't just want verbatim transcripts, I want transcripts reworded to read like essays. Labelbox helped me generate the exact data I needed for this. If you want to learn how Labelbox can help you (or if you want to try out the transcriber tool yourself), go to labelbox.com/dwarkesh* Sardine is an AI risk management platform that brings together thousands of device, behavior, and identity signals to help you assess a user's risk of fraud & abuse. Sardine also offers a suite of agents to automate investigations so that as fraudsters use AI to scale their attacks, you can use AI to scale your defenses. Learn more at sardine.ai/dwarkeshTo sponsor a future episode, visit dwarkesh.com/advertise.Timestamps(00:00:00) – Explaining model jaggedness(00:09:39) - Emotions and value functions(00:18:49) – What are we scaling?(00:25:13) – Why humans generalize better than models(00:35:45) – SSI's plan to straight-shot superintelligence(00:46:47) – SSI's model will learn from deployment(00:55:07) – How to think about powerful AGIs(01:18:13) – “We are squarely an age of research company”(01:20:23) – Self-play and multi-agent(01:32:42) – Research taste Get full access to Dwarkesh Podcast at www.dwarkesh.com/subscribe

The big news in Silicon Valley this week of a supposedly orchestrated “Panic Campaign” against AI. According to the researcher Nirit Weiss-Blatt, the campaign about the apocalyptical inevitability of AI is being driven by doomers like former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever. Weiss-Blatt's analysis are now being taken seriously in a Silicon Valley not adverse to conspiracy theories - particularly against itself. But how credibly should outsiders take her warnings? Keith Teare takes it seriously enough to dedicate his That Was The Week newsletter to it. I'm not so sure. And in the midst of our jousting, we were joined by Weiss-Blatt herself whose analysis of this moral panic, I have to admit, isn't entirely absurd. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

OpenAI is drawing fire after its CFO hinted the company might want a government "backstop" for its massive infrastructure costs. And Microsoft has published a new manifesto pledging to build "humanist superintelligence" that keeps humans in control. This week, Paul and Mike talk about those stories and more, including Google's new paper on the future of AI in learning, new data that shows AI is driving layoffs, and the backlash against Coca-Cola's latest AI-generated holiday ad. This week's episode also covers a feud between Amazon and Perplexity over AI shopping agents, a shocking deposition from Ilya Sutskever about OpenAI's internal power struggles, and much more. Show Notes: Access the show notes and show links here Click here to take this week's AI Pulse. Timestamps:  00:00:00 — Intro 00:09:09 — OpenAI Draws Fire for Comments About Government Backstop 00:23:02 — Microsoft's Humanist AI Manifesto 00:38:36 — Google AI and the Future of Learning 00:48:28 — Data Shows AI Is Driving Layoffs 00:52:43 — Coca-Cola's AI Christmas Ad Generates Controversy 00:57:46 — Amazon and Perplexity Feud Over Agent 01:03:18 — Ilya Sutskever Deposition 01:08:48 — Apple Nears Google Deal 01:11:56 — AI Companies Are Going on the PR Offensive This episode is brought to you by MAICON On-Demand.  This year's top breakout sessions and keynotes are now available on-demand. If you missed MAICON 2025 or want to relive some of your favorite sessions, now you can watch them on-demand at any time. Use code AISHOW50 to save $50. Learn more here. Visit our website Receive our weekly newsletter Join our community: Slack LinkedIn Twitter Instagram Facebook Looking for content and resources? Register for a free webinar Come to our next Marketing AI Conference Enroll in our AI Academy 

Google faces the greatest innovator's dilemma in history. They invented the Transformer — the breakthrough technology powering every modern AI system from ChatGPT to Claude (and, of course, Gemini). They employed nearly all the top AI talent: Ilya Sutskever, Geoff Hinton, Demis Hassabis, Dario Amodei — more or less everyone who leads modern AI worked at Google circa 2014. They built the best dedicated AI infrastructure (TPUs!) and deployed AI at massive scale years before anyone else. And yet... the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022 caught them completely flat-footed. How on earth did the greatest business in history wind up playing catch-up to a nonprofit-turned-startup?Today we tell the complete story of Google's 20+ year AI journey: from their first tiny language model in 2001 through the creation Google Brain, the birth of the transformer, the talent exodus to OpenAI (sparked by Elon Musk's fury over Google's DeepMind acquisition), and their current all-hands-on-deck response with Gemini. And oh yeah — a little business called Waymo that went from crazy moonshot idea to doing more rides than Lyft in San Francisco, potentially building another Google-sized business within Google. This is the story of how the world's greatest business faces its greatest test: can they disrupt themselves without losing their $140B annual profit-generating machine in Search?Sponsors:Many thanks to our fantastic Fall ‘25 Season partners:J.P. Morgan PaymentsSentryWorkOSShopifyAcquired's 10th Anniversary Celebration!When: October 20th, 4:00 PM PTWho: All of you!Where: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84061500817?pwd=opmlJrbtOAen4YOTGmPlNbrOMLI8oo.1Links:Sign up for email updates and vote on future episodes!Geoff Hinton's 2007 Tech Talk at GoogleOur recent ACQ2 episode with Tobi LutkeWorldly Partners' Multi-Decade Alphabet StudyIn the PlexSupremecyGenius MakersAll episode sourcesCarve Outs:We're hosting the Super Bowl Innovation Summit!F1: The MovieTravelpro suitcasesGlue Guys PodcastSea of StarsStepchange PodcastMore Acquired:Get email updates and vote on future episodes!Join the SlackSubscribe to ACQ2Check out the latest swag in the ACQ Merch Store!‍Note: Acquired hosts and guests may hold assets discussed in this episode. This podcast is not investment advice, and is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. You should do your own research and make your own independent decisions when considering any financial transactions.

Go behind the curtain at OpenAI as bestselling author Karen Hao shares stories of infighting, ego, and shifting agendas. Find out why even OpenAI's security had her face on alert during her investigation. Karen Hao reveals OpenAI's secretive culture and early ambitions OpenAI's shifting leadership and transparency: from nonprofit roots to Big Tech power Defining AGI: moving goalposts, internal rifts, and philosophy debates OpenAI's founders dissected: Altman, Brockman, and Sutskever's styles and motives Critiquing the AI industry's resource grabs and "AI imperialism" How commercialization narrowed AI research and the dominance of transformers China's AI threat as Silicon Valley's favorite justification, debunked Karen Hao details reporting process and boardroom chaos at OpenAI GPT-5 skepticism: raised expectations, lackluster reality, and demo fatigue Karen Hao's bottom line: AI's current trajectory isn't inevitable — pushback is needed Harper Reed shares vibe coding workflows using Claude Code
 AI commoditization—why all major models start to feel the same
 Western vs. Chinese open-source models and global AI power shifts
 Google antitrust ruling: AI's rise dissolves traditional search monopoly "Algorithm movies" spark debate over art, entertainment, and AI's creative impact
 Meta's AI talent grab backfires amid exits and cash-fueled drama Anthropic's "historic" author settlement likely cements fair use for AI training
 DIY facial recognition: Citizen activists unmask ICE using AI tools
 Picks: Byte Magazine's 50th, AI werewolf games, Berghain bouncer AI test, and arthouse film "Perfect Days" Hosts: Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis, and Paris Martineau Co-Host: Harper Reed Guest: Karen Hao Download or subscribe to Intelligent Machines at https://twit.tv/shows/intelligent-machines. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: threatlocker.com/twit monarchmoney.com with code IM helixsleep.com/twit pantheon.io

Go behind the curtain at OpenAI as bestselling author Karen Hao shares stories of infighting, ego, and shifting agendas. Find out why even OpenAI's security had her face on alert during her investigation. Karen Hao reveals OpenAI's secretive culture and early ambitions OpenAI's shifting leadership and transparency: from nonprofit roots to Big Tech power Defining AGI: moving goalposts, internal rifts, and philosophy debates OpenAI's founders dissected: Altman, Brockman, and Sutskever's styles and motives Critiquing the AI industry's resource grabs and "AI imperialism" How commercialization narrowed AI research and the dominance of transformers China's AI threat as Silicon Valley's favorite justification, debunked Karen Hao details reporting process and boardroom chaos at OpenAI GPT-5 skepticism: raised expectations, lackluster reality, and demo fatigue Karen Hao's bottom line: AI's current trajectory isn't inevitable — pushback is needed Harper Reed shares vibe coding workflows using Claude Code
 AI commoditization—why all major models start to feel the same
 Western vs. Chinese open-source models and global AI power shifts
 Google antitrust ruling: AI's rise dissolves traditional search monopoly "Algorithm movies" spark debate over art, entertainment, and AI's creative impact
 Meta's AI talent grab backfires amid exits and cash-fueled drama Anthropic's "historic" author settlement likely cements fair use for AI training
 DIY facial recognition: Citizen activists unmask ICE using AI tools
 Picks: Byte Magazine's 50th, AI werewolf games, Berghain bouncer AI test, and arthouse film "Perfect Days" Get "Empire of AI" (Amazon Affiliate): https://amzn.to/4lRra9h Hosts: Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis, and Paris Martineau Co-Host: Harper Reed Guest: Karen Hao Download or subscribe to Intelligent Machines at https://twit.tv/shows/intelligent-machines. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: threatlocker.com/twit monarchmoney.com with code IM helixsleep.com/twit pantheon.io

Go behind the curtain at OpenAI as bestselling author Karen Hao shares stories of infighting, ego, and shifting agendas. Find out why even OpenAI's security had her face on alert during her investigation. Karen Hao reveals OpenAI's secretive culture and early ambitions OpenAI's shifting leadership and transparency: from nonprofit roots to Big Tech power Defining AGI: moving goalposts, internal rifts, and philosophy debates OpenAI's founders dissected: Altman, Brockman, and Sutskever's styles and motives Critiquing the AI industry's resource grabs and "AI imperialism" How commercialization narrowed AI research and the dominance of transformers China's AI threat as Silicon Valley's favorite justification, debunked Karen Hao details reporting process and boardroom chaos at OpenAI GPT-5 skepticism: raised expectations, lackluster reality, and demo fatigue Karen Hao's bottom line: AI's current trajectory isn't inevitable — pushback is needed Harper Reed shares vibe coding workflows using Claude Code
 AI commoditization—why all major models start to feel the same
 Western vs. Chinese open-source models and global AI power shifts
 Google antitrust ruling: AI's rise dissolves traditional search monopoly "Algorithm movies" spark debate over art, entertainment, and AI's creative impact
 Meta's AI talent grab backfires amid exits and cash-fueled drama Anthropic's "historic" author settlement likely cements fair use for AI training
 DIY facial recognition: Citizen activists unmask ICE using AI tools
 Picks: Byte Magazine's 50th, AI werewolf games, Berghain bouncer AI test, and arthouse film "Perfect Days" Get "Empire of AI" (Amazon Affiliate): https://amzn.to/4lRra9h Hosts: Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis, and Paris Martineau Co-Host: Harper Reed Guest: Karen Hao Download or subscribe to Intelligent Machines at https://twit.tv/shows/intelligent-machines. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: threatlocker.com/twit monarchmoney.com with code IM helixsleep.com/twit pantheon.io

Go behind the curtain at OpenAI as bestselling author Karen Hao shares stories of infighting, ego, and shifting agendas. Find out why even OpenAI's security had her face on alert during her investigation. Karen Hao reveals OpenAI's secretive culture and early ambitions OpenAI's shifting leadership and transparency: from nonprofit roots to Big Tech power Defining AGI: moving goalposts, internal rifts, and philosophy debates OpenAI's founders dissected: Altman, Brockman, and Sutskever's styles and motives Critiquing the AI industry's resource grabs and "AI imperialism" How commercialization narrowed AI research and the dominance of transformers China's AI threat as Silicon Valley's favorite justification, debunked Karen Hao details reporting process and boardroom chaos at OpenAI GPT-5 skepticism: raised expectations, lackluster reality, and demo fatigue Karen Hao's bottom line: AI's current trajectory isn't inevitable — pushback is needed Harper Reed shares vibe coding workflows using Claude Code
 AI commoditization—why all major models start to feel the same
 Western vs. Chinese open-source models and global AI power shifts
 Google antitrust ruling: AI's rise dissolves traditional search monopoly "Algorithm movies" spark debate over art, entertainment, and AI's creative impact
 Meta's AI talent grab backfires amid exits and cash-fueled drama Anthropic's "historic" author settlement likely cements fair use for AI training
 DIY facial recognition: Citizen activists unmask ICE using AI tools
 Picks: Byte Magazine's 50th, AI werewolf games, Berghain bouncer AI test, and arthouse film "Perfect Days" Hosts: Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis, and Paris Martineau Co-Host: Harper Reed Guest: Karen Hao Download or subscribe to Intelligent Machines at https://twit.tv/shows/intelligent-machines. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: threatlocker.com/twit monarchmoney.com with code IM helixsleep.com/twit pantheon.io

Meta has some new smartglasses. How long can the TikTok groundhog day go on? Masa Son wants to create a Shenzhen-like production city here in the US. Are your smart cameras a national security threat to the home front in a war? And, of course, the Weekend Longreads Suggestions.Sponsors:Factor75.com/rideLinks:Meta announces Oakley smart glasses (The Verge)Meta tried to buy Ilya Sutskever's $32 billion AI startup, but is now planning to hire its CEO (CNBC)Trump extends TikTok ban deadline for a third time, without clear legal basis (AP)Publishers facing existential threat from AI, Cloudflare CEO says (Axios)Masa Son Pitches $1 Trillion US AI Hub to TSMC, Trump Team (Bloomberg)Israeli Officials Warn Iran Is Hijacking Security Cameras to Spy (Bloomberg)Weekend Longreads Suggestions:Scientists once hoarded pre-nuclear steel; now we're hoarding pre-AI content (ArsTechnica)Why Everything in the Universe Turns More Complex (QuantaMagazine)See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Beeping smoke detectors and haunted dolls. Ilya Sutskever, a co-founder and the chief scientist of OpenAI, says they will build a bunker before releasing artificial general intelligence.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Beeping smoke detectors and haunted dolls. Ilya Sutskever, a co-founder and the chief scientist of OpenAI, says they will build a bunker before releasing artificial general intelligence.

Beeping smoke detectors and haunted dolls. Ilya Sutskever, a co-founder and the chief scientist of OpenAI, says they will build a bunker before releasing artificial general intelligence. Getting to the airport two hours early. Snitzer would try Galaxy Gas. Man accuses his wife of cheating at his 40th birthday party. Charlie would out someone that wronged him. $1200 cap and gown. The Polk county sheriff's office conducted an operation called "fool around and find out" arrested 250 people including former Browns player, Adarius Taylor. Rover believes prostitution should be legal. A couple married for 31 years schedule their sex life. Charlie and Rover would love to schedule their sex lives. Smelly vaginas. Controversy in Paralympics after a gold medalist was banned for life. Rover will never get an Airbnb again.

Beeping smoke detectors and haunted dolls. Ilya Sutskever, a co-founder and the chief scientist of OpenAI, says they will build a bunker before releasing artificial general intelligence. Getting to the airport two hours early. Snitzer would try Galaxy Gas. Man accuses his wife of cheating at his 40th birthday party. Charlie would out someone that wronged him. $1200 cap and gown. The Polk county sheriff's office conducted an operation called "fool around and find out" arrested 250 people including former Browns player, Adarius Taylor. Rover believes prostitution should be legal. A couple married for 31 years schedule their sex life. Charlie and Rover would love to schedule their sex lives. Smelly vaginas. Controversy in Paralympics after a gold medalist was banned for life. Rover will never get an Airbnb again. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.