Podcast appearances and mentions of Mark Zuckerberg

In this episode, the Queen of Code! Navy Rear Admiral Grace Hopper was the third-ever programmer for the world's first programmable computer, the Mark I. Through her years of service to the U.S. Navy and private business, including during World War II, Grace helped push the boundaries of the new computer industry by developing key innovations in computer programming. Known today as Amazing Grace, the Grandmother of Programming, and the Queen of Code, Grace's contributions to computing continue to shape the way computers operate around the globe. [This episode originally aired January 2021.] About the Narrator Randi Zuckerberg likes to call herself “a professional mom to entrepreneurs”. She currently works with more than 20 early and mid stage companies as an advisor, investor, or board director, the vast majority started and run by female founders. Randi also has a passion for producing and creating media content that celebrates strong, smart women and girls. Through her company, Zuckerberg Media, she is the best selling author of four books, producer of multiple television shows and theater productions, and hosts a weekly radio show, Randi Zuckerberg Means Business, on SiriusXM. Randi has been recognized with an Emmy nomination, two Tony awards, a Drama Desk Award, and a Kidscreen Award. Prior to founding her own company, Randi was an early employee at Facebook, where she is best known for creating Facebook Live.  Credits This podcast is a production of Rebel Girls. It's based on the book series Good Night Stories for Rebel Girls. Executive Producers are Jes Wolfe and Katie Sprenger. This episode was produced by Isaac Kaplan-Woolner. Sound design and mixing by Luis Miranda. Corinne Peterson is our Production Manager. This episode was written by Alexis Stratton. Proofread by Ariana Rosas. It was narrated by Randi Zuckerberg, who you can learn more about in the next Get to Know episode. Original theme music was composed and performed by Elettra Bargiacchi. For more, visit Rebel Girls dot com. Until next time, stay rebel!

The Ultimate Entrepreneur Secret to Long-Term Success Are you tired of paying Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and ByteDance just to talk to your own customers? If your business relies solely on Instagram, TikTok, or YouTube, you are building a multi-million dollar empire on rented land. One algorithm tweak, one random account ban, or one ad-cost spike can instantly shut down your revenue stream. In Episode #631 of the Black Entrepreneur Blueprint podcast, host Jay Jones breaks down the ultimate wealth-protection strategy for modern business owners: Owned Media. This isn't just about marketing—it's about ownership, control, and printing your own money without breaking the bank on ads. GET YOUR FREE ENTREPRENEUR RESOURCES:  https://blackentrepreneurblueprint.com/

What if understanding how your brain actually works could change the way you coach, communicate, and handle stress…in a matter of seconds? Today's episode features Susan Jarema, founder of Grand Connection, and Rei McColley, neuroscience educator and lead trainer of the NeuroSelf Mastery Program, who join Marc to break down the science of brain networks, mental looping, and why flow isn't just something that happens to you. Rather, it's something you can actually learn! Ready to take your coaching to the next level with the latest brain science? Check out the NeuroSelf Mastery Program, created exclusively for Marc's community with special bonuses you won't find anywhere else! Head to www.naturalborncoaches.com/self to learn more and get started today! Do you have something that helps coaches, like a program, a product or a service? If you'd like to get your offer out to about 100,000 coaches, Marc currently has openings for partnerships (with a special summer offer), and you can get the details and book a call to chat with him about it at www.jvwithmarc.com/!  This episode was edited and produced by Marc's brother Matt and his team and PodAssist, and right now they're offering listeners of this show a very special discount on their services. You can now get your brand-new audio podcast launched in as little as 2 weeks for just $297 US, which is $400 off their regularly-priced package by mentioning this show. That's just $297 to get personally coached and supported by Matt, from concept to your show going live, and all you have to do is visit PodAssist.com to learn more and book a call. Being a small team their spots are limited, and this promotion ends very soon, July 31st, 2026 (don't forget to mention that Marc sent you)!  What You'll Hear In This Episode: How the NeuroSelf Mastery Program uses neuroscience to transform the way coaches understand themselves and connect with others. Why knowing how your brain works is the real key to creating lasting change. What mental looping actually is, why your brain gets stuck in it, and which network you need to access to finally break the cycle. How brain network switching works and how to use it to get out of your own way.  What meta awareness really means (hint: nothing to do with Zuckerberg) and how Susan uses it to stay calm, present, and connected during live events. The two simple things anyone can start doing today to slow down and tap into their intuition and inner wisdom. How learning neuroscience has changed the way both Susan and Rei coach, lead, and show up in conversations with others. Why the program is built around helping coaches find agency and choice, plus how the tools translate directly into your work with clients. A full breakdown of the NeuroSelf Mastery Program:  what each phase covers and why procrastination alone might make it worth the investment. LINKS:  Join The NeuroSelf Mastery Program (with Special Bonuses for Marc's Community)!  Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi   Book a no-obligation 1:1 strategy call with Marc for your coaching business: http://www.chatwithmarcm.com   If you'd like more coaching clients without sending cold messages or spending money on ads, the Natural Born Coach Program is for you. Get the details here! http://www.nbcprogram.com Join The Coaching Jungle Facebook Group! http://www.thecoachingjungle.com   Become a Coaching Jungle VIP member which includes special posting perks in the group to reach almost 30,000 potential clients! http://www.myjunglevip.com   Grow your business with The Coaching Jungle Mastermind! http://www.coachingjunglemastermind.com If you have a product or service that helps coaches, and you'd like to get it in front of 100,000 of them: http://www.jvwithmarc.com  

Why are so many political activists crashing into severe burnout and depression? Can the deep psychology of Carl Jung provide a radical toolkit for modern survival without retreating from the fight? In this episode of Varnblog, we sit down with ecotherapist and author Rob Faure Walker to deconstruct his groundbreaking book, Radical Jung .We dive into a mind-bending exploration bridging the Marxist radical imagination with Jungian analytical psychology. Rob shares his personal journey through school teacher union organizing, severe activist burnout, and finding spiritual navigation via dream integration and Gnostic texts. Together, we unpack how modern capitalism has become truly nihilistic, why mainstream psychoanalysis often defaults to isolationist individualism, and how right-wing figures like Jordan Peterson have weaponized and essentialized Jungian concepts on hierarchy and gender .Furthermore, we explore the terrifying intersections of state power, counter-extremism governmentality , and how billionaire techno-oligarchs like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Mark Zuckerberg project their own "shadow of privilege" onto marginalized groups while building automated survival bunkers and centralizing control .If you are looking for a deeper psychological toolkit to understand the algorithm's control over our unconscious mind , structural political failure , and the path toward true recovery , this deep-dive conversation is for you.✨ Grab Rob Faure Walker's new book, Radical Jung, out now from Revo Press!Send us Fan Mail Musis by Bitterlake, Used with Permission, all rights to BitterlakeSupport the showCrew:Host: C. Derick VarnIntro and Outro Music by Bitter Lake.Intro Video Design: Jason MylesArt Design: Corn and C. Derick VarnLinks and Social Media:twitter: @varnvlogblue sky: @varnvlog.bsky.socialYou can find the additional streams on YoutubeCurrent Patreon at the Sponsor Tier: Jordan Sheldon, Mark J. Matthews, Lindsay Kimbrough, RedWolf, DRV, Kenneth McKee, JY Chan, Matthew Monahan, Parzival, Adriel Mixon, Buddy Roark, Daniel Petrovic,Julian, Drea, Free Beer 

Welcome to Week 3 of The Second Act Executive: Podcast Workshop!In tonight's power packed episode, host Tawnie Wolf officially launches Week 3: Recording & Live Streaming. We bridge the gap between real world executive leadership, parenting in a digital age, macroeconomics, and the studio setups needed to build an independent media platform you own 100%.Whether you are currently navigating corporate America or transitioning out to launch your own private firm, this session is your blueprint for turning your expertise into sovereign media authority. What We Cover in This Episode:Monday Vibe Check & Kitchen Lessons: Why oat milk is non negotiable for crisp onion rings...Wolf Vibrations,LLC YouTube Announcement: A special shoutout for the grown and extremely sexy (ages 55–110)! Discover how Wolf Vibrations, LLC supports corporate leaders and transitioning executives in stepping into their power, asserting their authority, and staying on top.Market Insights: Palantir ($PLTR) & AI Patriotism: Why backing foundational U.S. defense AI infrastructure in 2026 is an act of patriotism, and why long term investors don't sweat short term price fluctuations around $136.Parenting, Social Media Literacy, & Real Value:Reminding our children that social media is a business, not real life.Unpacking the post 2017 foreign capital pullback, desperate monetization models, and why online trolling is just broken business models in disguise.Focusing on big economic success, global competition (BRICS), and real innovation over performative “costume party” clout.Asher the Chief Ranger: A personal story of Tawnie's son finding his voice despite a speech delay, inspired by tech “wizards” like Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Sundar Pichai, and Satya Nadella.Week 2 Recap (Days 12 & 13): Reviewing the 30 Second Hook Formula (Problem → Promise → Identity) and the non negotiable rule of keeping PDF music licensing certificates stored safely in Google Drive.Day 14 Audit & Showcase: Evaluating cover art.Day 15 Intro: Riverside.fm:Local High Quality Recording: Why local WAV audio and 4K video recording on Riverside eliminates glitchy Zoom streams permanently.Leveraging Riverside's direct partnership with Spotify for Creators and AI generated short form clips.“Our freedom of speech is not for sale. When the public square is compromised by trolls and broken algorithms, you must own your microphone.” Tonight's Homework Assignment (Next 24 Hours) and so much more! Links & Resources:YouTube: Subscribe to Wolf Vibrations for corporate leadership strategies and executive transition guidance.Workshop Schedule: Join us live every night at 8:30 PM EST. Be sure to turn on your notifications so you never miss an episode!

Na początku lipca Reuters ujawnił nagranie z wewnętrznego town hallu w Meta. Mark Zuckerberg przyznał wprost: agenci AI rozwijają się wolniej, niż zarząd zakładał. Firma zwolniła 10 % kadry, przesunęła siedem tysięcy osób do zespołów AI i wyda w tym roku nawet sto czterdzieści pięć miliardów dolarów na infrastrukturę. Zakład jeszcze się nie zwrócił.Jarosław Kuźniar sprawdza, co mówią najnowsze dane. Gartner umieścił agentów na szczycie rozdmuchanych oczekiwań. Tylko 17 % firm ich wdrożyło, ale ponad 60 % planuje to zrobić w ciągu dwóch lat. Mimo to ponad 40 % projektów ma zostać anulowanych do 2027 roku. W tle jest zjawisko "agent washing”. Realną agentowość oferuje podobno tylko około stu trzydziestu z tysięcy dostawców. Testy Carnegie Mellon pokazują, że najlepsze modele kończą samodzielnie jedną trzecią zadań, a przy ośmiu powtórzeniach tego samego zadania skuteczność potrafi spaść z 60 % do 25 %.Komentarz inwestora Tomasza Karwatki dodaje ramę Geoffreya Moore'a. Koniec hype'u to nie koniec technologii, tylko przejście przez przepaść do pragmatycznej większości rynku. Nie zastępowanie ludzi, ale wzmacnianie ich narzędziami. To tam dziś są prawdziwe pieniądze.Z tego felietonu dowiesz się:- Co powiedział Zuckerberg pracownikom Meta o agentach AI?- Dlaczego Gartner widzi agentów na szczycie rozdmuchanych oczekiwań?- Czym jest "agent washing"?- Jak duży jest problem z powtarzalnością działania agentów?- Gdzie dziś naprawdę są pieniądze na AI, według Tomasza Karwatki?Chcesz mówić tak, żeby ludzie naprawdę słuchali i pamiętali? 5 modułów tematycznych. 5 sesji live z ekspertami. Dostęp do platformy szkoleniowej 24/7. Narzędzia i prompty AI. Zamknięta społeczność liderów. Sprawdź program kursu Public Speaking Academy i dołącz teraz: https://academy.voicehouse.co/psaJuż 28 lipca o 19:00 Jarosław Kuźniar zdradzi wszystko na temat Public Speaking Academy: moduły, eksperci, narzędzia, format pracy. 60 minut. Na Zoomie. Za darmo.Do zobaczenia: https://luma.com/ejo96t8sMasz pytanie do ekspertów? Możesz je zadać tutaj: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://tally.so/r/npJBAV ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠W aplikacji Voice House Club m.in.:✔️ Wszystkie formaty w jednym miejscu.✔️ Możesz przeczytać lub posłuchać.✔️ Transkrypcje odcinków Serii in Brief z dodatkowymi materiałami wideo.Dołącz: ​​⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/VoiceHouseClub ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Znajdziesz nas też:

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

Polymarket isn't just a betting app — it might be the newest branch of the surveillance state. This week on Conspiracy Social Club, we break down journalist Whitney Webb's bombshell investigation tying Polymarket's origins to Palantir, Peter Thiel, DARPA's Information Awareness Office, and the Pentagon's decades-long obsession with predictive markets. We trace the lineage from John Poindexter's Iran-Contra-linked "Policy Analysis Market" all the way to today's prediction-market boom — plus the Zuckerberg and Bancor connections nobody's talking about. Then things get heated: Trump's claims of a massive Chinese data breach exposing 220 million voter profiles kicks off a full-blown 2020 election fight — FISA warrants, Carter Page, Thomas Massie's "Deep Throat" theory, election recounts in Arizona and Georgia, mail-in ballot security, and whether democracy itself is already broken. As always, it's not a debate without chaos — comment of the week, TRT talk, and way too many tangents. Get in the comments and let us know where you stand.

In 1776 — that same year America declared its independence — Adam Smith published the equally revolutionary The Wealth of Nations, his founding explanation of national economic value. Two hundred and fifty years later, Tim O'Reilly argues in the free-market Economist that Elon Musk and his fellow tech barons are building a monarchical form of capitalism that the proto-democratic Smith would have hated. Musk, O'Reilly reports, believes that SpaceX will become “worth more than the rest of Earth”. The merchants are becoming princes, O'Reilly warns. And the rest of us are becoming peasants. Such is the road to serfdom in our AI age. So who should own the AI in our bewildering age of multi-trillion dollar start-ups like SpaceX, Anthropic and OpenAI? Or as That Was The Week publisher Keith Teare asks in his latest editorial, who should own the “intelligence” of our AI age? Keith uses a bottling plant as a metaphor to describe our dilemma. Since no single entity can own this intelligence — the sum total of our common experience — charging us for it would be like seizing the Earth's water supply and selling it back to us, Coca-Cola style, in plastic bottles. Except that the Hayekian Keith approves of the bottling process. Private companies, rather than governments, he argues, are most suited to doing this. For Keith, this dilemma is also an opportunity to redistribute the ownership of intelligence. He argues for a “Human Wealth Fund” into which every consequential AI company should put a slice of its equity. In the manner of Norway's sovereign wealth fund, this fund would be distributed to all citizens. Rather than Denmark, now we should become like Norway, a tiny homogenous nation with a cultural distaste for Muskian individual wealth. Not very realistic, I fear. On top of that, it's hard to imagine our tech princes collaborating on anything. Musk and Altman aren't on speaking terms while Altman and Amodei, who also loathe each other, are focused on their IPOs. Meanwhile, the Trump administration, which presumably would coordinate this fund, is pitching a $100,000-a-month fast feed of the president's posts. Keith's question, “who owns the intelligence”, is the right one. But the answer won't come from trickle-down funds set-up by our tech princes. Such supposed munificence is about as likely as America becoming Norway. Read the fine print of any “Human Wealth Fund” set up by Sam Altman and Elon Musk. As we should know all too well by now, when a “revolutionary” Silicon Valley gives stuff away, it turns out to be exorbitantly expensive. Free plastic bottles of intelligence, anyone? Five Takeaways •       Intelligence, Not AI. The week's framing shift: the word AI is too small, because AI is merely the tool for harvesting and delivering the thing itself — intelligence, the sum total of our common human experience. Keith argues the renaming is not semantic but political: the moment intelligence sits at the center of the discussion, everyone's opinion has to be shaped by what it actually is, and the idea that any single entity could own it starts to look as bizarre as owning the world's water supply. Andrew's rejoinder: they're still just words — though he concedes intelligence is the better one. •       Bottled Intelligence Is Good — The Question Is Who Benefits. Keith refuses the critic's role: bottling intelligence, like Google's bottling of the world's words into search, is a good thing, because only massively capitalized private companies can innovate at that scale — and between private entities and governments as owners of intelligence, he'll take the companies every time. What's wrong is the distribution of the benefits. Even insiders are complaining: Alex Karp is publicly angry at OpenAI and Anthropic's pricing, while China's Kimi K3 — released the day of recording and, Keith claims, better than Claude Fable — signals that very good models are about to get very cheap. •       Capitalism Adam Smith Would Hate. Tim O'Reilly argues in The Economist that Musk and his type are building a capitalism Smith would despise — founders as monarchs, a point Henry Farrell reinforces with a slide from Peter Thiel's startup class placing the king of a monarchy and the founder of a startup side by side. Keith's response is characteristically unsentimental: Smith would have hated everything since the Federal Reserve, and the founder-king structure — Larry and Sergey's voting shares, Zuckerberg's special rights, corporations bigger than countries with user bases bigger than China — is simply the stage of capitalism we're at. The question is whether there's a path from here to somewhere better. •       The Human Wealth Fund. Keith's path comes in two versions: government-down, a sovereign wealth fund holding AI equity for every citizen; or company-up, the AI companies voluntarily endowing a global fund — and it only takes one to move first, because everyone else would have to react. His proxy is Norway, where every citizen benefits from ownership — not payouts, ownership — in the oil fund; AI revenues, unlike Norwegian oil, could eventually drive most of a doubled global GDP. His critique of the Brynjolfsson economists' much-signed statement is that “must act now” is vacuous: he'd have added a point four naming the actual mechanism. •       The Bet. Andrew's counter-case: Musk and Altman loathe each other, the mob hates AI so thoroughly that no pro-AI politician can survive, the states from Newsom's California to Florida are embracing nothing, New York just enacted the first data center moratorium, and the founders — eyes on their IPOs — are in the pockets of the banks. Hence the wager: 5% of the Teare Wealth Fund says no Human Wealth Fund this year, and none in the twenties. Keith declined the bet, on principle: he's an advocate, and only through advocacy does public opinion change. As Andrew put it: keep fighting the good fight — maybe one of the crazy ideas will stick. About the Guest Keith Teare is the founder and editor of the That Was The Week tech newsletter, and Andrew's weekly co-host. A British-born Silicon Valley entrepreneur and investor, he was a co-founder of TechCrunch and runs the Palo Alto–based venture firm SignalRank. He and Andrew have been arguing about technology — productively — every week for years. References: •       That Was The Week — Keith's newsletter; this week's editorial argues that the word AI is too small, and that the central question of the age is who owns intelligence. •       Tim O'Reilly in The Economist — on Elon Musk building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate, quoting Musk's claim that SpaceX will become worth more than the rest of the Earth. •       Henry Farrell — the big tech critic's companion piece, featuring the slide from Peter Thiel's startup class that plac...

This week's video transcript summary is here. You can click on any bulleted section to see the actual transcript. Thanks to Granola for its software.EditorialIntelligence: Who Owns it?This week the word “AI” feels too small.AI is a technology. Intelligence is its product. And if intelligence is the product, the question is no longer just: Which model is best? Who has the cheapest tokens? Who owns the weights? Who controls the data center? Those are important questions, but they are lower in the stack.The bigger question is simpler and more political:Who owns intelligence?That sounds abstract until you make it concrete. Intelligence is becoming something companies can capture, package, serve, meter, route, improve, and sell.It can write code, answer questions, design molecules, automate offices, run agents, draft legal work, advise scientists, serve consumers, and reshape workflows. It is not merely software. It is a general-purpose capability. And all humans could benefit from more of it.General-purpose capabilities have a habit of becoming public questions. But the default answer, that public good is best delivered by government, is the wrong answer in this context.The Product Is IntelligenceWe should stop talking about AI as a feature and start talking about intelligence as the universal thing that is delivered as an input to the world.Water is an input. Electricity is an input. Literacy is an input. Connectivity is an input. Once a society depends on them, access stops being optional. Nobody needs government to build every well, power plant, school, or network. But everybody understands that a civilization cannot be organized around less than universal and reliable access to foundational inputs.Intelligence is reaching that level of importance now that we all know it is real.Government should not own it, operate it, or develop it. Quite the opposite. Companies are the right actors to build fast, compete hard, improve models, serve customers, and discover the real use cases. Self-interest is a useful framing here. Markets are good at finding demand, reducing costs, and turning invention into services people actually use.Companies are the right operators, developers, and owners. But that does not settle the real question of who owns the benefits. That is an economic question.If intelligence becomes metered infrastructure, what happens to the value it creates?The Ownership StackThis week's articles keep circling the same issue from different directions but in the nature of ‘circling' never quite nail it.Jamin Ball's “Own Your Weights” starts with the enterprise version of the question. Owning a model file is not enough. The durable asset is the loop: the data flywheel, the evaluations, the reinforcement system, the workflow learning, and the operating context that lets capability compound.Benedict Evans' “Ways to Think About Token Pricing” adds the market layer. Tokens may become essential, abundant, and cheap, like mobile data. But being essential does not guarantee that the token layer captures the value. The money may move up the stack to whoever owns the workflow, the customer, the distribution, or the application.Alex Karp's fight with the labs, reported in “Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI”, is the same argument in sharper enterprise language. Companies are afraid that model providers will not just sell intelligence, but learn from customer workflows and then move into the markets where those workflows create value. The “All-in” group are echoing Karp's view.And “What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?” names the new contested terrain. The loop is where intelligence meets the world. Whoever owns the loop owns the learning. Whoever owns the learning owns the compounding asset.That is why “who owns intelligence?” is not a slogan. It is the question under the model layer, the application layer, the enterprise layer, and the economic layer.Because intelligence is the product, the tools creating it are fragmented and competitive. So there is no logic in trying to discuss this at the level of a single company or set of tools and models.The Old Promise Was That Commerce Would Tame PowerThe essays this week give the historical backdrop.Deirdre McCloskey, in “What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution”, argues that modern growth came not simply from capital accumulation, but from a change in permission: ordinary people were allowed to innovate, trade, build, and be honored for it.That matters because intelligence could be another expansion of permission. It could make more people capable of building, learning, creating, coding, researching, translating, selling, and coordinating. It could lower the cost of competence.But only if access is broad.Paul Krugman's “AI in an Age of Oligarchy” warns that the same technology lands differently in different political economies. A new general-purpose technology entering a broad, open, upwardly mobile society is one thing. The same technology entering a concentrated economy, with extreme wealth and weak counterweights, is another.Tim O'Reilly's Economist essay, “Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate”, makes the governance point more directly. The old liberal hope was that commerce would tame arbitrary power. Markets, boards, courts, shareholders, disclosure, and competition would discipline the prince.But what if the prince uses markets to escape discipline?Henry Farrell's “political economy of billionaire derangement” pushes the same point. Founder culture, monopoly ambition, peer rivalry, weak correction mechanisms, and vast private control can amplify appetites rather than restrain them.The danger with intelligence is not that companies build it. They should. Companies build it, meter it, use public tolerance and public infrastructure to scale it, learn from everyone who uses it. All of those things are inevitable and healthy. Market forces will sort out winners from losers. The real danger is that the winners treat all of the surplus produced as purely private.Metered Intelligence Creates SurplusIf metering is not the problem, what is?The problem is pretending that metered intelligence creates value only for the metering entity. Metering water is only tolerated as a public good. If the public were blackmailed by a private water company with the threat of no water we would all rebel.Once we understand that the product of AI is intelligence we can see that every time intelligence is used, there is the immediate transaction: the user pays, the provider serves.But there is also system value. Usage creates signals. Workflows reveal patterns. Prompts, corrections, failures, preferences, integrations, edge cases, and business processes all help define where intelligence is useful and how it should improve. Intelligence breeds intelligence.Even when customer data is contractually protected, the market learns. The platform learns where demand is. The product team learns which workflows matter. The ecosystem learns which jobs are vulnerable, which tasks are automatable, and which parts of the economy can be reorganized around machine intelligence.So the surplus is not born in a vacuum.It rests on public science, public education, public data exhaust, public law, public infrastructure, public energy systems, public tolerance for data centers, and billions of human interactions. It is served by companies, but it is not made only by companies.This is why “Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches” belongs at the center of this week's issue. The detail can be debated. The principle is harder to dismiss. If intelligence becomes a new foundational resource, then some part of the wealth it creates should flow back to the people whose society makes it possible. Intelligence did not suddenly appear. AI is built on the entire history of human intelligence. It benefits from it and at the same time evolves it.Not Nationalization. A Human Wealth Fund.If intelligence belongs to everybody, some conclude that government ownership of intelligence is the right outcome.Governments are not well suited to build, operate, or improve intelligence. They will move too slowly, regulate too early, politicize the wrong things, and confuse economic participation with operational control.Andrew McAfee's “Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter” is useful here. His objection is not that the technology is unimportant. It is that steering too hard before we understand the shape of the change can become its own failure mode. Marc Andreessen's satire of AI regulation is less policy than temperament, but it captures a real Silicon Valley fear: that regulation can become permission, capture, and incumbency before it becomes wisdom.That fear should be taken seriously.But it does not answer the economic question. It answers only the operational one.How can the economic benefits of intelligence be distributed? The better answer is a sovereign human wealth fund.Call it a sovereign wealth fund if you must, but the phrase is too national. Intelligence will not respect borders. The leading companies are global. The models, chips, data centers, agents, platforms, and workflows will be transnational from the beginning. If the value created by intelligence is global, then the mechanism for sharing some of that value should begin with the companies global enough to capture it. The nice thing about xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic is that they are supranational.These companies own and operate intelligence. Let them compete. Let them profit. Let them keep the incentives that make the system improve. But if intelligence is the new water, the wealth it creates cannot belong only to the companies that meter it. And they, themselves, have the power to fix it, even more than governments.Access will become a Human Right; Ownership Is the Economic DesignThis is where human rights come in. There is no right to access an AI model, yet. But there will soon be a need to change that.Not as a claim that every person is entitled to every frontier model at every moment for free. That is not serious. Capacity has costs. Models have costs. Inference has costs. Data centers have costs. Although those costs will decline over time, possibly quite quickly as self-learning models address costs.The claim is more basic: in a world where intelligence becomes a primary input into education, work, health, science, citizenship, creativity, and economic agency, baseline access to intelligence starts to look like a civic requirement.That could mean public access layers. It could mean education credits. It could mean open models. It could mean AI dividends. It could mean public-interest compute. It could mean taxes on rents. It could mean a company-initiated human wealth fund that returns some of the upside to society without handing the operating system to the state. The latter could couple wealth growth with universal distribution of ownership.The exact mechanism matters. But the distinction matters more.Government should not own intelligence. It should be universally available. And people should have a claim on the wealth intelligence creates.The Frontier Is Also PhysicalThe abstraction is not weightless.“The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning”, “New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium”, Reuters on pollution from Musk's xAI power project, and DataGravity's “Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?” all say the same thing from the ground up.Intelligence uses land. It uses power. It uses water. It uses chips. It uses grid capacity. It uses neighborhoods. It uses public patience.That makes the value question unavoidable. A society can accept the buildout if the buildout is legible as shared progress. It will resist it if the costs are local, the profits are private, and the benefits feel enclosed.Who Owns the “Loop”?The week ends where it began.“Anthropic and Blackstone” are betting that implementation is the next trillion-dollar business. “Vint Cerf” is working on identity for agents on the open internet. “GPT-Red” points toward systems that improve their own robustness. “Kimi K3” adds another open frontier model to the global mix.The model race continues. The deployment race is accelerating. The governance race is behind.My view is this:The central product of this era is intelligence. Companies have figured out how to capture it, package it, serve it, and meter it. That is good. It should stay in the hands of builders who have the incentive to make it better.But intelligence is too foundational to become just another private toll booth. A significant part of it will turn out to be free to users.As intelligence becomes a general-purpose resource, then access to it becomes a human-capability question, and the surplus from it becomes an economic-justice question. Not because government should run it. Because government should not run it. The operating layer belongs with companies. The wealth question belongs with everyone. But companies are best placed to turn that into a process of distribution.The question is not whether companies should build intelligence. They should.The question is whether humanity gets a stake in the wealth created by the thing that may soon become its most important shared input.Contents* Essays* Deirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution* AI in an Age of Oligarchy* Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate* Murky Mirror: Truth and Consequences* The political economy of billionaire derangement* Is there any “oligarchy” to fight?* AI* Nearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. Threats* Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter* Own Your Weights* Ways to Think About Token Pricing* Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI* The AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft Office* What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?* The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning* 6 months to live for open models* Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches* Who Gets to Define the Frontier?* GPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for Robustness* Anthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just models* Vint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internet* xai-org/grok-build, now open source* The Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?* Orphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligence* The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center* Why AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”* Kimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier Intelligence* Venture Capital* Three Years In* Venture Has Rarely Looked More Bifurcated* The Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active Now* Are Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?* Regulation* Exclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College Campuses* The Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.* India's crackdown on a new WhatsApp feature risks setting a global precedent* Let's build a children's public internet* Computer cops* Google is better at playing the AI regulations game* Infrastructure* Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?* New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium* Pollution from Musk's unpermitted xAI power project hits hardest in Black communities* Interview of the Week* The End of the End of Geography* Startup of the Week* Radical AI's Joseph Krause: The Scientist Building The “Waymo” Lab For New Materials* Post of the Week* Marc Andreessen on AI RegulationEssaysDeirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial RevolutionYascha Mounk and Deirdre McCloskey | Persuasion | July 11, 2026Yascha Mounk interviews Deirdre McCloskey about her argument that the modern world's economic liftoff came less from capital accumulation than from a change in ideas. McCloskey says both left and right versions of the conventional story rely too heavily on investment: the left stresses exploitation and surplus value, while the right stresses virtuous saving by capitalists. Her objection is historical and economic. Human beings had always invested, from irrigation works and Roman roads to seed grain, and simple accumulation quickly runs into diminishing returns.McCloskey's alternative is that northwestern Europe, first Holland, then Britain and Scotland, and then the North American colonies, developed a liberal ideology that changed who was allowed to innovate and be honored for it. The conversation links that shift to the erosion of inherited hierarchy, the spread of dignity for ordinary commercial life, and a moral vocabulary in which liberalism is not merely procedural but connected to virtues and values. The point is not that machines, coal, trade, and institutions did not matter, but that they do not explain the scale and timing of modern enrichment without a cultural permission structure for innovation.The interview also turns to the contemporary defense of liberalism. Mounk frames the series around the worry that liberalism is often treated as too thin to command allegiance, while its opponents speak more directly to moral passions. McCloskey's case is that liberal societies became rich because they dignified experimentation and ordinary enterprise, and that liberals need to recover the moral language behind that claim.Read moreAI in an Age of OligarchyPaul Krugman | Paul Krugman | July 12, 2026Paul Krugman frames AI as a major technological shock arriving inside an already unequal political economy. The post says AI's economic and social effects may take years to understand, but argues that the setting matters now: America has much greater wealth concentration and political inequality than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when progressive taxation, stronger regulation, and more active antitrust might have contained some of the destructive effects of a new technology.Krugman's opening claim is that the same technology would likely have different consequences in a more level society. In today's United States, he writes, extreme wealth is both a cause and effect of policies that favor a small elite, including low effective taxes on capital and high incomes, weak enforcement of worker protections and antitrust, and cuts to programs that benefit ordinary Americans.The article is explicitly more about oligarchy than AI. Krugman says the paid sections document the rise of the “.0002%,” the economics and politics of extreme wealth, how oligarchy will shape AI's impact, and possible policy paths. His caveat is that AI itself may still produce a pushback against oligarchy, but absent that, he expects the pre-existing concentration of wealth and power to magnify AI's downsides.Read moreElon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hateAuthor: Tim O'Reilly Published: July 12, 2026Tim O'Reilly argues that Elon Musk is using the legal forms of shareholder capitalism to escape the restraints that shareholder capitalism was supposed to impose. The article begins with SpaceX's public-market structure: ordinary public investors get little meaningful governance power, Musk keeps roughly 85 percent of the votes through super-voting shares, buyers waive jury trials and class actions, the company qualifies as controlled, and removal of Musk depends on the share class he controls. In O'Reilly's framing, that is not ordinary founder control; it is a design for being answerable to no one, possibly beyond Musk's own lifetime.The killer detail is the article's turn through Albert Hirschman, Montesquieu, James Steuart, Adam Smith, and Keynes. Older defenses of commerce held that markets would tame princely passions because the self-interest of merchants was safer than arbitrary rule. O'Reilly says Musk reverses that hope. The market discipline that was supposed to cage the prince has become the lever by which the prince raises capital, removes feedback loops, and carries private power into politics, government, Mars, robots, AI, or whatever ambition comes next.The pull is the link to AI governance. O'Reilly says corporations are already a kind of artificial intelligence: narrow-input systems that act at a scale no individual human can match. Their partial controls include independent boards, shareholder votes, courts, disclosure, regulators, public pressure, and activism. If the leaders building frontier AI strip those alignment mechanisms out of their own companies, the governance of the company becomes a preview of the governance of the machine.Read more: The EconomistMurky Mirror: Truth and ConsequencesAuthor: Esther Dyson Published: July 14, 2026Esther Dyson argues that today's institutional crisis is better viewed through the 14th century than through recent political history. Using Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror as her frame, she compares a world of famine, plague, church schism, feudal predation, and purposeless war with a present in which institutions again feel brittle, incentives are badly aligned, and power is shifting into forms that are hard to govern.The killer detail is the historical analogy between land, corporations, and AI. Dyson moves from nobles who controlled serfs and territory, to the East India Company as a quasi-sovereign business, to today's AI systems and data centers as a possible new sector that crosses and weakens both nation-states and companies. The question is whether AI becomes a new kind of private land, owned by a new nobility, or an open prairie that many people can cultivate.The pull is human attention. Dyson says the central question is not what AI will do to people, but how people will react to it: whether they can value love, kindness, embodied attention, and artisanal human presence in a world of seductive artificial offerings.Read more: SourceThe political economy of billionaire derangementAuthor: Henry Farrell Published: July 15, 2026Henry Farrell argues that the visible political radicalization of some Silicon Valley billionaires is not a random personality quirk, but a product of the political economy that made them. Starting from Tyler Cowen's dismissal of “billionaire derangement syndrome” and Tim O'Reilly's warning that Elon Musk is using shareholder capitalism to escape shareholder restraint, Farrell flips the phrase: the question is why billionaires themselves can become deranged.The killer detail is Farrell's use of Peter Thiel as both theorist and example. Thiel's Stanford lectures described startups as monarchies and founders as figures vested with unusual power, while Silicon Valley culture rewarded eccentricity, monopoly ambition, and founder exceptionalism. Farrell says those ideas combined with dense founder-investor networks, peer rivalry, and weak correction mechanisms to amplify rather than discipline princely appetites.The pull is the ideological problem for classical liberals who once saw tech wealth as an ally of markets and freedom. Farrell says commerce did not tame the passions; in parts of Silicon Valley, the passions have begun to devour markets, institutions, and the liberal story that justified them.Read more: SourceIs there any “oligarchy” to fight?Matthew Yglesias | Slow Boring | July 16, 2026Matthew Yglesias argues that “oligarchy” is a rhetorically powerful but analytically loose way to describe American politics. The post begins from Bernie Sanders' “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Amy Klobuchar's warning about a MAGA “broligarchy,” and the long afterlife of the Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper that was widely summarized as showing that only the rich matter in policy outcomes. Yglesias says the evidence supports a weaker claim: affluent people and business leaders have unusual access and influence, but that is not the same as rule by a small cabal.His main distinction is between inequality and oligarchy. The Gilens-Page measure treated the top 10 percent of households as “the wealthy,” and later critics found that rich and middle-class preferences usually align; in the cases where they differ, the rich win about 53 percent of the time. Yglesias also says business executives get special access partly because their decisions are materially important to communities, jobs, investment, and local tax bases, not only because of campaign donations.The post preserves Jerusalem Demsas' counterpoint from their podcast discussion: privileged donor and business access can still violate democratic equality even if the oligarchy label overstates the structure of power. Yglesias' narrower claim is that Democrats should be precise about what problem they are trying to solve, because donor influence can also push the party left on climate and cultural issues in ways that alienate many voters.Read more: Slow BoringAINearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. ThreatsAuthor: Ben Casselman Published: July 13, 2026Ben Casselman reports on “We Must Act Now,” a statement warning that artificial intelligence could transform the economy faster than any previous technology and that policymakers need to move faster to understand and respond. The statement says AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years, bringing risks such as large-scale job displacement as well as opportunities such as higher living standards. Nearly 200 people signed, including 15 Nobel laureates, the chief economists of OpenAI and Anthropic, Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.The killer detail is who joined the warning. Casselman notes that the signatories include economists who have historically been skeptical of Silicon Valley's most dramatic AI job-loss forecasts, including Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, the MIT professors who won the 2024 Nobel in economics. Erik Brynjolfsson, who helped organize the statement, says there has been a notable change in the profession and that economists and policymakers are not ready for the “tsunami” he sees coming.The pull is the measurement problem. The statement does not offer a specific policy menu, but calls for economists, policymakers, and industry leaders to understand the economics of transformative AI and steer it toward complementing humans. Brynjolfsson says one high priority is better data on AI's spread and impact, because current measures tell conflicting stories about job losses and which workers are most exposed.Read more: The New York TimesWhy I Didn't Sign the AI Open LetterAuthor: Andrew McAfee Published: July 13, 2026Andrew McAfee explains why he did not sign “We Must Act Now,” the AI economy statement organized in part by his longtime collaborator Erik Brynjolfsson. McAfee agrees with the letter's starting point that AI is likely to become radically more powerful over the next decade and that it is a general-purpose technology. His objection is not to urgency or to studying AI's economic effects, but to the framing of risk, displacement, and institutional steering as the first move.The killer detail is McAfee's line edit. He says the original letter comes close, then “bounces off the crossbar” by calling for incentives, guardrails, and institutions to steer AI before we know enough about its actual impacts. He points to mixed current evidence: labor-market canaries, but also rising software job postings, low unemployment for younger workers, rising real median income, and claims that AI-adopting companies are adding workers faster than low-adopting peers. His worry is that the letter leans toward upstream governance and dirigisme when the evidence may call for capability building instead.The pull is his replacement statement. McAfee keeps the three-paragraph structure but changes the emphasis: AI is likely to become radically more powerful; like earlier world-changing technologies it will raise living standards while also bringing harms and shocks; and economists, policymakers, and technology leaders should build the capabilities to respond quickly and effectively. It is a concise version of the permissionless-innovation case inside the AI policy debate.Read more: The Geek WayOwn Your WeightsAuthor: Jamin Ball Published: July 10, 2026Jamin Ball argues that the enterprise AI debate about whether companies should “own their weights” or rent models from frontier labs is asking too narrow a question. A model weight file gives a company control over a point-in-time artifact, but not durable control over the capability stack. In his framing, the weight file is a melting ice cube: it does not get worse in absolute terms, but it falls behind as frontier systems improve and enterprise needs change.The killer detail is what Ball says companies really need to own: the data flywheel, reinforcement learning infrastructure, and evaluation harness that produce and improve the model. Simply deploying an open-weights model and declaring sovereignty leaves the enterprise with yesterday's capability and no way to compound workflow-specific learning.The pull is that enterprise AI control may be less about model ownership than operating ownership. The defensible layer is the system that turns company data, edge cases, business definitions, and evaluations into continuously improving performance.Read more: Clouded JudgementWays to Think About Token PricingAuthor: Benedict Evans Published: July 9, 2026Benedict Evans argues that today's AI token prices are a temporary signal from a supply-constrained market, not a reliable guide to long-term value capture. The open question is whether foundation models keep durable pricing power or become commodity infrastructure as data-center capacity, inference efficiency, and model competition all shift. His current read is that the visible market dynamics point toward commoditization unless something materially changes.The killer detail is the mobile data analogy. Evans says cellular networks became a trillion-dollar industry with hundreds of billions in capex after data usage exploded, but carrier stocks went nowhere because value moved up the stack. Tokens may behave similarly: an opaque unit tied to marginal cost, sold through bundles, essential to everything, yet not necessarily where profits accrue.The pull is uncertainty, not prediction. Evans lists paths to model dominance, including network effects, less competition, regulation, export controls, or a lab pulling ahead on execution, but says each requires a new fact not yet visible. Without that change, the model layer looks more like infrastructure beneath the products that capture value.Read more: SourceAlex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AIAuthor: Tim Higgins Published: July 11, 2026Tim Higgins reports that Palantir CEO Alex Karp has turned corporate frustration with AI labs into a public argument about enterprise control. Palantir released a white paper, “Institutional Sovereignty in the Age of AI,” laying out steps companies and governments can take to protect themselves from OpenAI, Anthropic, and other foundation-model providers. The article links that paper to Karp's CNBC appearance, where he said “something has gone completely wrong” in the relationship between AI labs and customers and argued that enterprises are paying for tokens that create little value.The killer detail is the value-capture question. Higgins writes that Karp's critique has resonated because AI labs may gain power and insight from customer data, workflows, and decision-making, even when enterprise policies say customer data are not used for training. David Sacks amplified the concern by arguing that Anthropic is moving from the model layer into vertical applications such as science, security, legal, and coding, raising the fear that model providers will watch where value is being created and then move into those markets directly.The pull is that Karp is not alone, even if his style is unusually combative. Higgins notes that Satya Nadella has also warned that companies need to retain the learnings created when they use AI models, while Mark Zuckerberg has framed Meta's new model release partly around lower-cost frontier intelligence. The article presents Karp's campaign as one sign that established technology companies and large enterprises are trying to define where they fit when AI labs become central infrastructure, application competitors, and potential IPO giants at the same time.Read more: The Wall Street JournalThe AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft OfficeAlex Wilhelm | Cautious Optimism | July 11, 2026Alex Wilhelm argues that one of the week's quieter AI questions is whether the productivity market that Microsoft successfully moved into subscription software is now being attacked by agentic tools. The piece begins with the infrastructure backdrop: SK Hynix raised $26.5 billion in a U.S. listing while building U.S. HBM and advanced-packaging capacity, and memory, chip, and foundry companies are now priced for sustained AI demand.Wilhelm then says the AI conversation has shifted quickly from raw capability to cost per task. He cites new model releases and vendor language emphasizing cheaper agentic and coding models, faster performance, and lower dollars per task. That matters because lower costs make it more plausible for AI systems to take on routine knowledge work at scale rather than remain a premium coding assistant market.The core of the article is Microsoft Office. Wilhelm notes that Microsoft turned Office from a one-time purchase into Microsoft 365, a large recurring revenue business with tens of millions of subscribers and a major productivity segment. Now, he says, late-stage unicorns and AI labs are pushing into the same territory: Anthropic's Cowork was reportedly used mostly outside software development, OpenAI merged ChatGPT and Codex into a tool for creating sheets, slides, docs, web apps, and long-running work, and other companies are building agentic coworkers that connect business data to documents, workflows, schedules, alerts, and apps.The article's caveat is that Microsoft has survived major platform shifts before. The argument is not that Office disappears quickly, but that the definition of office software is broadening from documents and spreadsheets into AI systems that can create, monitor, and act across workplace data.Read moreWhat Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?Author: Nilesh Barla Published: July 11, 2026Nilesh Barla argues that “loop engineering” is becoming a distinct discipline because production AI agents now fail less at single prompts than at runtime: when to stop, what state to preserve, and how to recover after a bad step. Prompt engineering shapes one model call, and context engineering shapes what the model sees, but loop engineering shapes what a sequence of calls actually does.The killer detail is the three-primitives frame. Barla says a real agent loop needs halt conditions, state carryover, and recovery paths, then maps teams across five maturity levels. At the lowest level, an agent is just a model call in a for-loop with a step cap and raw history; by the higher levels, the system has structured state, explicit planning, replay, evaluation, and self-repair.The pull is organizational. If agents are becoming production systems rather than demos, someone has to own the runtime itself. The loop engineer is the role Barla gives to the person responsible for making long-running agent work dependable.Read more: Adaline LabsThe Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just BeginningEmma Roth | The Verge | July 12, 2026Emma Roth argues that community resistance to data centers has moved from an early warning sign into a national political fight as AI facilities grow larger, more power-hungry, and more visible to nearby residents. The article starts with Apple's failed 2015 plan for a $1 billion data center in Athenry, Ireland, where a small group of residents challenged the project over noise, light pollution, flooding, traffic, and wildlife effects until Apple abandoned it in 2018.The current data-center buildout is presented as much larger and more contentious. Roth writes that residents now cite rising energy costs, water quality, noise, light pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, while the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects commercial energy demand to surpass residential demand this year because of AI data centers and Goldman Sachs expects data-center power demand to double by 2027.The central evidence comes from Data Center Watch, which says protesters blocked or delayed at least 75 U.S. projects worth $130 billion from January to March, with active opposition groups more than doubling from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by the end of the first quarter of 2026. Roth also cites QTS abandoning a $12 billion Wisconsin campus, Delaware City regulators blocking a 580-acre project under the Coastal Zone Act, opposition stopping a QTS project in Prince William County, and pressure that pushed Kevin O'Leary to downsize the proposed 40,000-acre Project Stratos in Utah.The policy section describes a split between federal acceleration and local resistance. President Trump has treated data centers as part of the AI race with China and fast-tracked construction, while some Republican candidates are distancing themselves from that position ahead of midterms. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have proposed a moratorium until price and environmental protections exist, bipartisan lawmakers are backing ratepayer-protection measures, and states including Florida, Idaho, and Washington have passed rules on cost shifting, water use, and tax breaks. Roth's caveat is that the policy patchwork is still incomplete, leaving many communities to fight project by project.Read more6 months to live for open modelsAuthor: Nathan Lambert Published: July 12, 2026Nathan Lambert argues that open-weight AI models are facing their most serious policy test so far because U.S. officials are beginning to discuss concrete controls rather than abstract safety concerns. He says reported White House conversations about a new executive order may initially target Chinese-origin models and government use, but could create a broader review habit for frontier open models. His forecast is that a model above the capability range of GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, or GLM-5.2 could trigger a ban or indefinite delay within six months.The post separates two policy fights that are becoming intertwined: distillation and frontier capability. Lambert says the distillation campaign against Chinese models has become a form of regulatory capture because Anthropic and other closed-model companies would gain economically if Chinese open models were banned. He does not dismiss IP protection, but argues that if a closed model's capabilities are dangerous enough to justify restricting open models, the lab also has to explain why those capabilities are exposed through a queryable API. He cites unauthorized access to Anthropic's Mythos private beta as evidence that APIs are not automatically secure.The broader claim is that a unilateral U.S. ban would hurt positive actors more than bad actors if comparable open models remain available elsewhere. Lambert says the only durable ceiling would require global agreement, which does not exist, and that open models can improve safety by allowing broad inspection, adaptation, and understanding. His proposed near-term off-ramps are a strong U.S. open model release from companies such as Microsoft, Meta, or Reflection, and a broader coalition of open-source beneficiaries lobbying for safe rollout rather than prohibition.Read more: SourceAmericans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' RichesAuthor: Scott Stanford Published: July 14, 2026Scott Stanford argues that proposals to give the government a stake in AI companies miss the point unless ordinary citizens directly receive and control the upside. Sam Altman has discussed giving up equity in OpenAI, Washington already owns a stake in Intel, Nvidia is sharing China chip revenue, and Bernie Sanders wants large AI labs to contribute half their stock to a sovereign wealth fund. Stanford says those ideas all park value with the state, not with people.The killer detail is New Carlisle, Indiana, where AWS's Project Rainier is turning cornfields into one of the world's largest AI superclusters. The project is planned to run up to a million chips, draw more than two gigawatts of power, and represents an investment that has grown from $11 billion to $13.8 billion. Stanford uses that local transformation to argue that AI's public bargain should be visible at the household level.The pull is design. A citizen AI dividend would have to specify who earns a stake, how they hold it, and when they see cash. Without that mechanism, the AI wealth debate remains a fight over government balance sheets rather than public ownership.Read more: SourceWho Gets to Define the Frontier?Author: Mark Daley Published: July 14, 2026Mark Daley argues that Demis Hassabis is right to call for a serious institution to verify frontier AI systems, but that the power to test models is also the power to govern them. Hassabis's proposed Frontier AI Standards Body would get privileged pre-release access to advanced models, testing compute, held-out evaluations, support from national labs and security agencies, third-party auditors, and eventually authority to block models from the American market or coordinate a slowdown.The killer detail is Daley's constitutional objection. He says the proposal sometimes looks like a scientific lab, a standards body, an industry regulator, a licensing authority, and an emergency security council at once. Combining those roles because each requires technical expertise would be like putting the central bank, auditor-general, and Supreme Court in one building and calling it efficient.The pull is standard-setting. Daley's concern is not that verification is unnecessary, but that whoever writes the tests, decides what passes, adjudicates disputes, and grants market access may end up defining the frontier itself.Read more: SourceGPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for RobustnessOpenAI | OpenAI | July 15, 2026OpenAI describes GPT-Red as an internal automated red-teaming model trained to find prompt-injection vulnerabilities at a scale human red teams cannot match. The post says AI systems increasingly encounter third-party data through browsers, connected apps, local files, and tools, creating opportunities for malicious instructions hidden in emails, webpages, tool responses, or code repositories. Human red-teaming remains part of OpenAI's safety process, but the company says it is time-intensive and cannot generate enough diverse adversarial examples for model training.The system is trained through self-play reinforcement learning, with GPT-Red rewarded for eliciting valid failures and defender models rewarded for resisting attacks while still completing their tasks. OpenAI says the training environments specify threat models across settings such as local files, webpage banners, email bodies, and tool outputs. The model is kept separate from deployed production models because it is intentionally trained with malicious capabilities.OpenAI reports that GPT-Red generalized beyond its training set, including an internal replication of the indirect prompt-injection arena from Dziemian et al. (2025), where it found successful attacks in 84% of scenarios compared with 13% for human red-teamers. The post also says GPT-Red transferred attacks from simulation to a live autonomous vending-machine agent, causing price changes and order cancellations, and outperformed a prompted GPT-5.5 baseline against a Codex CLI agent on held-out data-exfiltration tasks.The article's main robustness claim is that OpenAI has used GPT-Red and predecessor models in training since GPT-5.3, with later GPT releases becoming more resistant to prompt injections. It says GPT-5.6 Sol has six times fewer failures on OpenAI's hardest direct prompt-injection benchmark than the best production model from four months earlier, that a “Fake Chain-of-Thought” attack class fell from more than 95% success against GPT-5.1 to below 10% against GPT-5.6 Sol, and that GPT-5.6 Sol fails on only 0.05% of GPT-Red's direct prompt injections. OpenAI says general capabilities and targeted over-refusal evaluations were not harmed, and says a preprint with more details will follow.Read moreAnthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just modelsRebecca Bellan | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Rebecca Bellan reports that Ode with Anthropic is the $1.5 billion AI implementation company launched by Anthropic with Blackstone, Hellman & Friedman, Goldman Sachs, and other backers. The article says the venture reflects a growing belief among frontier AI labs that enterprise adoption requires more than better models: customers need engineers who can embed inside businesses and turn AI into working systems.Ode was originally conceived by Blackstone after it used both large consulting firms and smaller AI services boutiques across its portfolio companies. TechCrunch reports that Fractional AI, an AI engineering services startup, stood out and was acquired by the joint venture shortly after the venture was announced. Fractional now forms the foundation of Ode, which has 100 engineers and works closely with Anthropic's applied AI team to identify where the technology can affect specific businesses.Ode CEO Chris Taylor tells TechCrunch that the company could someday become a trillion-dollar business if it scales without losing quality. He says an ideal customer is one whose CEO treats the AI project as a top one or two priority, whether it is a major product feature or the reworking of a core business process. Ode will operate under a “Claude-first” principle, using Anthropic technology whenever possible, but the article says it can use rival AI products when needed.The article's central implementation argument comes from Ode chief technologist Eddie Siegel, who says model selection matters but is not where most of the engineering effort goes. He compares it to the choice of programming language in software: one ingredient in a system that still has to be engineered. Bellan writes that Ode's challenge is hiring and training enough elite generalist engineers, many of them former founders, while competing with OpenAI's The Deployment Company and consulting giants that have built their own forward-deployed engineering teams.Read moreVint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internetTim Fernholz | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Tim Fernholz reports that Vint Cerf, after leaving Google, is advising Innovation Labs on an open architecture for identifying AI agents online. Innovation Labs is a subsidiary of Identity Digital, a DNS registry company, and its proposal is to use domain-name infrastructure as part of a system for agent identity, accountability, and auditability. The premise is that agents will need a way to identify themselves if they move beyond proprietary systems and begin interacting across the open internet.The concrete proposal is DNSid, a registry that links an AI agent to an existing internet domain and uses cryptographic proofs to log its registration over time. Innovation Labs says it is trialing the standard with unnamed hyperscalers and identity companies. Cerf frames the problem around authority and accountability: what authority an agent has, where that authority came from, who is accountable for the agent's behavior, how its identity is established, and why anyone should trust it.The article's caveat is that standards are still emerging and agents are more active than static domains. Cerf says the period may be both fascinating and exasperating because the functionality is powerful and interoperability is unresolved. He compares the adoption problem to TCP/IP: competing systems may not work together until users push for functional interoperation. He also says an agentic economy is not inevitable, but that people will try to build it because delegating work to agents will be easier.Read more: TechCrunchxai-org/grok-build, now open sourceAuthor: Simon Willison Published: July 15, 2026Simon Willison argues that xAI's decision to open-source Grok Build is best understood as a trust repair move after a severe privacy failure. The CLI had triggered backlash when users realized that running it in a directory could upload the entire directory to xAI's Google Cloud buckets, including one user's reported SSH keys, password manager database, documents, photos, and videos. xAI disabled the feature, said previously retained coding data would be deleted, and released the code under Apache 2.0.The killer detail is what the codebase reveals. Willison counts 844,530 lines of Rust, only about 3% of which appears vendored, and finds remnants of the upload system still present but disabled: gcs.rs contains Google Cloud upload code, while upload_session_state() now returns a hard-coded session_state_upload_unavailable error. He also notes copied or ported tool implementations from Codex and OpenCode, prompt files, and a terminal Mermaid renderer.The pull is that terminal coding agents are becoming large, intricate software systems in their own right. The privacy failure mattered because these tools operate inside the directories where developers keep their most sensitive work; the open-source release matters because trust now depends on inspecting what an agent can see, send, and do.Read more: SourceThe Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?Author: Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric Published: July 16, 2026Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric argue that Bun's AI-assisted rewrite from Zig to Rust is a practical sign of how software engineering changes when models can take on large, bounded migrations with clear feedback loops. The piece does not treat the rewrite as magic: Jarred Sumner first spent hours turning design judgment into a detailed porting guide, then used adversarial review, parallel agents, compiler errors, and tests to force the work toward correctness.The killer detail is the scale. Bun had 535,496 lines of Zig, 1,448 files, and 22 million monthly downloads, making a conventional rewrite a year-long freeze the team could not justify. Using Fable, Sumner split the work across 64 agents, produced about 6,500 commits, and got the migration done in 11 days at an estimated API cost of $165,000.The pull is economic, not theatrical. If a one- or two-year migration can become an 11-day project, AI coding is not just faster autocomplete; it changes which technical debts are worth paying down.Read more: SourceOrphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligenceAuthor: Andrew Maynard Published: July 16, 2026Andrew Maynard argues that frontier AI safety frameworks are creating “orphan risks”: harms that companies can see, but do not formally own because they are hard to quantify, do not fit catastrophic-risk thresholds, or fall outside audit-friendly compliance machinery. His target is not existing frontier safety work, but the narrowing effect that happens when private companies decide which risks count as governable.The killer detail is Maynard's contrast between measurable model dangers and threats to value. He points to Meta's three-day Galactica collapse, OpenAI's 2023 board crisis, safety-team departures, and wellbeing litigation as examples of risks that damaged trust, culture, legitimacy, or users without fitting cleanly into conventional model-risk categories. The proposed fix is an orphan-risk register: a public record of risks a company considered and chose not to manage, with reasons.The pull is accountability. Frontier developers' internal scoping choices have become a de facto layer of public governance, so the question is no longer only which risks they manage, but which risks they quietly leave outside the frame.Read more: SourceThe Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data CenterLatent.Space with Andy Beam and Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli | Latent.Space | July 16, 2026Latent.Space interviews Lila Sciences CTO Andy Beam and chief science officer for physical sciences Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli about the company's attempt to build an AI-run science factory. The post describes Lila's thesis as treating the lab itself as an “infinite token generator”: if internet data drove the first era of AI scaling, experimentally verified scientific data may be the next scarce training source. Lila is trying to produce that data with robotics, lab instruments, orchestration software, and AI models wired into the wet lab.The central analogy is the lab as data center. Instruments are nodes on a graph, a magnetically levitating transport layer moves materials between them, and experiment scheduling looks like a compute queue. Beam says Lila is not simply an automation company, because the point is not just throughput; it is flexibility, generalization, and experiment capture. The post says Lila has built more than 10 trillion experimentally validated “scientific reasoning tokens,” not internet text or biological sequences.The interview ranges across biology, chemistry, drug discovery, materials science, and the limits of automation. It notes that Lila rebuilt one gas-sorption measurement to run roughly 2,500 times faster, claims its general models can transfer priors from small-molecule chemistry to metal-organic frameworks for carbon capture, and describes model-suggested platinum-group-free electrocatalysts that moved from looking boring or wrong to becoming strong performers. The caveats are physical: experiments have runtimes, biology cannot always be accelerated, chains of thought can be unreliable narrators, and reward hacking becomes more dangerous when a model controls a real lab.Read more: Latent.SpaceWhy AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”Kate Park | TechCrunch | July 16, 2026Kate Park interviews AMI Labs CEO Alexandre LeBrun about why Yann LeCun's world-model startup avoids the language of “AGI” and “superintelligence.” LeBrun says the terms are not useful because they lack stable definitions: “We never used the word AGI. And I just noticed that nobody is using it anymore; they switched to superintelligence.” His argument is that the practical frontier is not a label, but whether AI systems can understand and predict real-world states.The article explains the world-model thesis by contrasting language prediction with physical-state prediction. A large language model predicts the next word; a world model predicts the next state, such as what happens when a glass tips over. LeBrun says LLMs remain complementary and efficient for language, but the physical world is where current AI is weak. Robotics is the clearest case: hardware has advanced quickly, but robots are still brittle outside controlled routines because they lack context and situational understanding.AMI is still pre-product, but TechCrunch reports that LeBrun was in Seoul looking for industrial partners, researchers, and global companies. He says world models cannot be built entirely inside a lab because they need access to real environments. That is why South Korea appeals to AMI: robotics, semiconductors, manufacturing, and fast adoption create the kind of hardware-heavy context that software-only AI has barely touched.Read more: TechCrunchKimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier IntelligenceKimi | Kimi | July 16, 2026Kimi introduces Kimi K3 as an open 3T-class frontier model aimed at coding, knowledge work, reasoning, multimodality, and long-context agentic use. The source describes the model as a 2.8T-parameter system built on Kimi Delta Attention and Attention Residuals, with native multimodality and a 1M-token context window. It says Moonshot AI plans to release model weights by July 27.The post presents K3 through benchmark and use-case sections rather than as a general product announcement. It reports results across coding, productivity, agentic, and multimodal evaluations, including DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Program Bench, SWE Marathon, FrontierSWE, PostTrain Bench, OfficeQA Pro, SpreadsheetBench 2, MCP Atlas, AutomationBench, BrowseComp, GDPval-AA v2, AA-Briefcase, MMMU-Pro, MathVision, BabyVision, OmniDocBench, and PerceptionBench. The source says all reported K3 results use maximum reasoning effort with temperature and top-p set to 1.0, and that different benchmark comparisons use KimiCode, Claude Code, or Codex harnesses depending on the test.Kimi's caveats are unusually concrete. The limitations section says K3 was trained in preserved thinking-history mode, so quality may become unstable if an agent harness does not pass historical thinking content correctly or if an ongoing session switches to K3 midstream. It also says K3's emphasis on long-horizon tasks can make it excessively proactive when it encounters minor issues or ambiguous intent, and recommends imposing explicit behavioral constraints for applications that require strict boundaries. The post adds that K3 remains behind Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in user experience despite being competitive overall.Read moreVenture CapitalThree Years InAuthor: Tomasz Tunguz Published: July 10, 2026Tomasz Tunguz marks Theory Ventures' third anniversary by arguing that AI's central market effect is time compression. In his telling, model release cycles, company revenue milestones, enterprise adoption, and venture categories have all accelerated. Seed, Series A, and Series B still exist as financing labels, but they no longer cleanly describe company maturity when some seed rounds are larger than IPOs and the best AI companies can mature much earlier than prior software companies.The killer detail is the shift from models to inference. Tunguz argues that inference has become the dominant AI market because workloads and buyer preferences are fragmenting: video, batch, local, agentic, and real-time tasks each create different infrastructure needs. He compares this to databases splitting into OLTP, OLAP, vector, and streaming categories, with AI pushing the same specialization into inference infrastructure.The pull is that Theory sees the AI-native venture firm as part of the same pattern. The firm says it has analyzed twice as many investment opportunities with three investors working alongside a nine-person intelligence organization, using agents and research systems to map markets, source companies, and support diligence. The piece is both a market map and a statement about how venture itself is being rebuilt by the technology it funds.Read more: LinkedInVenture Has Rarely Looked More BifurcatedAuthor: Beezer Clarkson Published: July 14, 2026Beezer Clarkson points to PitchBook's Q2 report as evidence that the U.S. venture market has split into two very different realities. AI now accounts for more than 60 percent of all U.S. venture deal value, meaning the headline market can look active and well-funded even while much of the non-AI market is dealing with a much colder liquidity and fundraising environment.The thread uses that split as the setup for Clarkson's latest Origins episode with Alec Litowitz, founder of Magnetar and QStar Capital and one of Citadel's original founding partners. Clarkson says markets like this are periods of genuine uncertainty, not merely ordinary risk, which is why Litowitz's Adaptability Quotient framework is relevant.The embedded clip makes the liquidity point concrete. Litowitz says DPI is “the resolution of uncertainty” because it converts an uncertain investment into actual cash returned to LPs. In his framing, a realized dollar is a real mark, while TVPI remains uncertain until it is realized.The killer detail is the distinction between pricing risk and resolving uncertainty. Litowitz's perspective matters because QStar is a SpaceX investor and Clarkson says the conversation happened just before one of venture's most consequential IPOs. The episode's stated questions are why venture remains a way to gain exposure to innovation, how AI is changing what is investable, why liquidity is ultimately a function of time, and why uncertainty requires a different decision framework from risk.Read more: XThe Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active NowAuthor: Ilya Strebulaev Published: July 10, 2026Ilya Strebulaev ranks angels, angel groups, accelerators, and incubators by lifetime U.S. unicorn investments, counting checks written before a company reached unicorn status. The top of the combined list is dominated by organizations: Y Combinator leads with 113 unicorn investments, followed by Plug and Play at 52 and 500 Global at 41. Sand Hill Angels is the highest-ranked angel group at 31.The killer detail is how quickly the list changes below the biggest accelerators. Strebulaev says 271 of the 304 investors in the Top 200 are individuals, or 89%. In the top 100, individuals are 91%. That makes the market underneath the large accelerator counts look much more personal: mostly operators and individual angels writing early checks from their own networks.The pull is the ranking's own caveat. Strebulaev writes that every lifetime leaderboard has a blind spot because many of the unicorns behind those totals were founded a decade or more ago, and some angels have since moved into formal funds, slowed down, or stopped investing. His post therefore separates lifetime performance from recent cohorts, including companies founded in 2015 or later and 2020 or later. For founders or allocators making current decisions, that distinction matters: a career record and a current record are not the same measure.Read more: Ilya StrebulaevAre Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?Author: Contrary Published: July 16, 2026Contrary argues that prediction markets' current boom depends on whether platforms can prove they are more than regulated gambling with exchange-style branding. Kalshi and Polymarket have reached mass cultural, investor, and regulatory attention, but the article says the underlying idea is old: academic markets, corporate forecasting tools, Intrade, PredictIt, and other predecessors all struggled with the same linked problems of liquidity, legality, and user appeal.The killer detail is the comparison with sportsbooks. Prediction markets present themselves as peer-to-peer, transparent, and non-house-based, but sports contracts reportedly account for more than 90 percent of Kalshi trading, and the article says the platforms keep a much thinner slice of volume than sportsbooks. A market can therefore show sports-betting-scale handle while generating far less revenue.The pull is that the product's hardest problem may be distribution of wins. If a small group of sharp traders captures most profits while casual users lose interest, prediction markets may become valuable data feeds and professional tools before they become durable consumer networks.Read more: SourceRegulationExclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College CampusesAuthor: Adrian Carrasquillo Published: July 11, 2026Adrian Carrasquillo reports that college campuses are becoming a new front in the fight over immigration enforcement because automatic license plate readers can turn ordinary campus security infrastructure into searchable location data. His thesis is that Flock Safety's camera network, even without direct ICE or DHS contracts, can feed deportation enforcement through local police partnerships and data-sharing practices.The killer detail is the campaign target. The Emergency Campaign to Support Higher Education, working with Schools Drop ICE, is focusing on 75 colleges and universities publicly identified as having Flock contracts. Flock says it has no ICE or DHS contracts, but activists argue the risk comes through local agencies that coordinate with federal authorities and run searches on their behalf.The pull is broader than immigration. Carrasquillo notes that license plate readers have already been abused by officers for stalking, and that Flock's AI search features can identify more than plates, including bumper stickers. A campus safety tool can become a political surveillance system when the data layer is searchable.Read more: The BulwarkThe Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.Author: Todd Phillips Published: July 12, 2026Todd Phillips argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter damaged independent agencies by ending for-cause removal protections, but did not leave Congress powerless. The ruling weakens the old model in which commissioners at bodies such as the FTC, NLRB, CPSC, SEC, and CFTC could be insulated from dismissal over policy disagreements. Phillips says the next fight is whether presidents can turn nominally bipartisan commissions into one-party instruments.The killer detail is the procedural fix: quorum rules. Phillips proposes that Congress require bipartisan slates of commissioners to be seated before independent agencies can act. A president could still fire commissioners, as the Court now permits, but if those firings broke quorum, the agency would be unable to proceed until replacements were confirmed. The guardrail would

This week's video transcript summary is here. You can click on any bulleted section to see the actual transcript. Thanks to Granola for its software.There was an issue with this only going to paid subscribers, so sending it again. Apologies to those who get it twice. I appreciate being paid so feel free to upgrade if you enjoy TWTW.EditorialIntelligence: Who Owns it?This week the word “AI” feels too small.AI is a technology. Intelligence is its product. And if intelligence is the product, the question is no longer just: Which model is best? Who has the cheapest tokens? Who owns the weights? Who controls the data center? Those are important questions, but they are lower in the stack.The bigger question is simpler and more political:Who owns intelligence?That sounds abstract until you make it concrete. Intelligence is becoming something companies can capture, package, serve, meter, route, improve, and sell.It can write code, answer questions, design molecules, automate offices, run agents, draft legal work, advise scientists, serve consumers, and reshape workflows. It is not merely software. It is a general-purpose capability. And all humans could benefit from more of it.General-purpose capabilities have a habit of becoming public questions. But the default answer, that public good is best delivered by government, is the wrong answer in this context.The Product Is IntelligenceWe should stop talking about AI as a feature and start talking about intelligence as the universal thing that is delivered as an input to the world.Water is an input. Electricity is an input. Literacy is an input. Connectivity is an input. Once a society depends on them, access stops being optional. Nobody needs government to build every well, power plant, school, or network. But everybody understands that a civilization cannot be organized around less than universal and reliable access to foundational inputs.Intelligence is reaching that level of importance now that we all know it is real.Government should not own it, operate it, or develop it. Quite the opposite. Companies are the right actors to build fast, compete hard, improve models, serve customers, and discover the real use cases. Self-interest is a useful framing here. Markets are good at finding demand, reducing costs, and turning invention into services people actually use.Companies are the right operators, developers, and owners. But that does not settle the real question of who owns the benefits. That is an economic question.If intelligence becomes metered infrastructure, what happens to the value it creates?The Ownership StackThis week's articles keep circling the same issue from different directions but in the nature of ‘circling' never quite nail it.Jamin Ball's “Own Your Weights” starts with the enterprise version of the question. Owning a model file is not enough. The durable asset is the loop: the data flywheel, the evaluations, the reinforcement system, the workflow learning, and the operating context that lets capability compound.Benedict Evans' “Ways to Think About Token Pricing” adds the market layer. Tokens may become essential, abundant, and cheap, like mobile data. But being essential does not guarantee that the token layer captures the value. The money may move up the stack to whoever owns the workflow, the customer, the distribution, or the application.Alex Karp's fight with the labs, reported in “Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI”, is the same argument in sharper enterprise language. Companies are afraid that model providers will not just sell intelligence, but learn from customer workflows and then move into the markets where those workflows create value. The “All-in” group are echoing Karp's view.And “What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?” names the new contested terrain. The loop is where intelligence meets the world. Whoever owns the loop owns the learning. Whoever owns the learning owns the compounding asset.That is why “who owns intelligence?” is not a slogan. It is the question under the model layer, the application layer, the enterprise layer, and the economic layer.Because intelligence is the product, the tools creating it are fragmented and competitive. So there is no logic in trying to discuss this at the level of a single company or set of tools and models.The Old Promise Was That Commerce Would Tame PowerThe essays this week give the historical backdrop.Deirdre McCloskey, in “What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution”, argues that modern growth came not simply from capital accumulation, but from a change in permission: ordinary people were allowed to innovate, trade, build, and be honored for it.That matters because intelligence could be another expansion of permission. It could make more people capable of building, learning, creating, coding, researching, translating, selling, and coordinating. It could lower the cost of competence.But only if access is broad.Paul Krugman's “AI in an Age of Oligarchy” warns that the same technology lands differently in different political economies. A new general-purpose technology entering a broad, open, upwardly mobile society is one thing. The same technology entering a concentrated economy, with extreme wealth and weak counterweights, is another.Tim O'Reilly's Economist essay, “Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate”, makes the governance point more directly. The old liberal hope was that commerce would tame arbitrary power. Markets, boards, courts, shareholders, disclosure, and competition would discipline the prince.But what if the prince uses markets to escape discipline?Henry Farrell's “political economy of billionaire derangement” pushes the same point. Founder culture, monopoly ambition, peer rivalry, weak correction mechanisms, and vast private control can amplify appetites rather than restrain them.The danger with intelligence is not that companies build it. They should. Companies build it, meter it, use public tolerance and public infrastructure to scale it, learn from everyone who uses it. All of those things are inevitable and healthy. Market forces will sort out winners from losers. The real danger is that the winners treat all of the surplus produced as purely private.Metered Intelligence Creates SurplusIf metering is not the problem, what is?The problem is pretending that metered intelligence creates value only for the metering entity. Metering water is only tolerated as a public good. If the public were blackmailed by a private water company with the threat of no water we would all rebel.Once we understand that the product of AI is intelligence we can see that every time intelligence is used, there is the immediate transaction: the user pays, the provider serves.But there is also system value. Usage creates signals. Workflows reveal patterns. Prompts, corrections, failures, preferences, integrations, edge cases, and business processes all help define where intelligence is useful and how it should improve. Intelligence breeds intelligence.Even when customer data is contractually protected, the market learns. The platform learns where demand is. The product team learns which workflows matter. The ecosystem learns which jobs are vulnerable, which tasks are automatable, and which parts of the economy can be reorganized around machine intelligence.So the surplus is not born in a vacuum.It rests on public science, public education, public data exhaust, public law, public infrastructure, public energy systems, public tolerance for data centers, and billions of human interactions. It is served by companies, but it is not made only by companies.This is why “Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches” belongs at the center of this week's issue. The detail can be debated. The principle is harder to dismiss. If intelligence becomes a new foundational resource, then some part of the wealth it creates should flow back to the people whose society makes it possible. Intelligence did not suddenly appear. AI is built on the entire history of human intelligence. It benefits from it and at the same time evolves it.Not Nationalization. A Human Wealth Fund.If intelligence belongs to everybody, some conclude that government ownership of intelligence is the right outcome.Governments are not well suited to build, operate, or improve intelligence. They will move too slowly, regulate too early, politicize the wrong things, and confuse economic participation with operational control.Andrew McAfee's “Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter” is useful here. His objection is not that the technology is unimportant. It is that steering too hard before we understand the shape of the change can become its own failure mode. Marc Andreessen's satire of AI regulation is less policy than temperament, but it captures a real Silicon Valley fear: that regulation can become permission, capture, and incumbency before it becomes wisdom.That fear should be taken seriously.But it does not answer the economic question. It answers only the operational one.How can the economic benefits of intelligence be distributed? The better answer is a sovereign human wealth fund.Call it a sovereign wealth fund if you must, but the phrase is too national. Intelligence will not respect borders. The leading companies are global. The models, chips, data centers, agents, platforms, and workflows will be transnational from the beginning. If the value created by intelligence is global, then the mechanism for sharing some of that value should begin with the companies global enough to capture it. The nice thing about xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic is that they are supranational.These companies own and operate intelligence. Let them compete. Let them profit. Let them keep the incentives that make the system improve. But if intelligence is the new water, the wealth it creates cannot belong only to the companies that meter it. And they, themselves, have the power to fix it, even more than governments.Access will become a Human Right; Ownership Is the Economic DesignThis is where human rights come in. There is no right to access an AI model, yet. But there will soon be a need to change that.Not as a claim that every person is entitled to every frontier model at every moment for free. That is not serious. Capacity has costs. Models have costs. Inference has costs. Data centers have costs. Although those costs will decline over time, possibly quite quickly as self-learning models address costs.The claim is more basic: in a world where intelligence becomes a primary input into education, work, health, science, citizenship, creativity, and economic agency, baseline access to intelligence starts to look like a civic requirement.That could mean public access layers. It could mean education credits. It could mean open models. It could mean AI dividends. It could mean public-interest compute. It could mean taxes on rents. It could mean a company-initiated human wealth fund that returns some of the upside to society without handing the operating system to the state. The latter could couple wealth growth with universal distribution of ownership.The exact mechanism matters. But the distinction matters more.Government should not own intelligence. It should be universally available. And people should have a claim on the wealth intelligence creates.The Frontier Is Also PhysicalThe abstraction is not weightless.“The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning”, “New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium”, Reuters on pollution from Musk's xAI power project, and DataGravity's “Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?” all say the same thing from the ground up.Intelligence uses land. It uses power. It uses water. It uses chips. It uses grid capacity. It uses neighborhoods. It uses public patience.That makes the value question unavoidable. A society can accept the buildout if the buildout is legible as shared progress. It will resist it if the costs are local, the profits are private, and the benefits feel enclosed.Who Owns the “Loop”?The week ends where it began.“Anthropic and Blackstone” are betting that implementation is the next trillion-dollar business. “Vint Cerf” is working on identity for agents on the open internet. “GPT-Red” points toward systems that improve their own robustness. “Kimi K3” adds another open frontier model to the global mix.The model race continues. The deployment race is accelerating. The governance race is behind.My view is this:The central product of this era is intelligence. Companies have figured out how to capture it, package it, serve it, and meter it. That is good. It should stay in the hands of builders who have the incentive to make it better.But intelligence is too foundational to become just another private toll booth. A significant part of it will turn out to be free to users.As intelligence becomes a general-purpose resource, then access to it becomes a human-capability question, and the surplus from it becomes an economic-justice question. Not because government should run it. Because government should not run it. The operating layer belongs with companies. The wealth question belongs with everyone. But companies are best placed to turn that into a process of distribution.The question is not whether companies should build intelligence. They should.The question is whether humanity gets a stake in the wealth created by the thing that may soon become its most important shared input.Contents* Essays* Deirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution* AI in an Age of Oligarchy* Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate* Murky Mirror: Truth and Consequences* The political economy of billionaire derangement* Is there any “oligarchy” to fight?* AI* Nearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. Threats* Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter* Own Your Weights* Ways to Think About Token Pricing* Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI* The AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft Office* What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?* The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning* 6 months to live for open models* Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches* Who Gets to Define the Frontier?* GPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for Robustness* Anthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just models* Vint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internet* xai-org/grok-build, now open source* The Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?* Orphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligence* The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center* Why AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”* Kimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier Intelligence* Venture Capital* Three Years In* Venture Has Rarely Looked More Bifurcated* The Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active Now* Are Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?* Regulation* Exclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College Campuses* The Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.* India's crackdown on a new WhatsApp feature risks setting a global precedent* Let's build a children's public internet* Computer cops* Google is better at playing the AI regulations game* Infrastructure* Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?* New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium* Pollution from Musk's unpermitted xAI power project hits hardest in Black communities* Interview of the Week* The End of the End of Geography* Startup of the Week* Radical AI's Joseph Krause: The Scientist Building The “Waymo” Lab For New Materials* Post of the Week* Marc Andreessen on AI RegulationEssaysDeirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial RevolutionYascha Mounk and Deirdre McCloskey | Persuasion | July 11, 2026Yascha Mounk interviews Deirdre McCloskey about her argument that the modern world's economic liftoff came less from capital accumulation than from a change in ideas. McCloskey says both left and right versions of the conventional story rely too heavily on investment: the left stresses exploitation and surplus value, while the right stresses virtuous saving by capitalists. Her objection is historical and economic. Human beings had always invested, from irrigation works and Roman roads to seed grain, and simple accumulation quickly runs into diminishing returns.McCloskey's alternative is that northwestern Europe, first Holland, then Britain and Scotland, and then the North American colonies, developed a liberal ideology that changed who was allowed to innovate and be honored for it. The conversation links that shift to the erosion of inherited hierarchy, the spread of dignity for ordinary commercial life, and a moral vocabulary in which liberalism is not merely procedural but connected to virtues and values. The point is not that machines, coal, trade, and institutions did not matter, but that they do not explain the scale and timing of modern enrichment without a cultural permission structure for innovation.The interview also turns to the contemporary defense of liberalism. Mounk frames the series around the worry that liberalism is often treated as too thin to command allegiance, while its opponents speak more directly to moral passions. McCloskey's case is that liberal societies became rich because they dignified experimentation and ordinary enterprise, and that liberals need to recover the moral language behind that claim.Read moreAI in an Age of OligarchyPaul Krugman | Paul Krugman | July 12, 2026Paul Krugman frames AI as a major technological shock arriving inside an already unequal political economy. The post says AI's economic and social effects may take years to understand, but argues that the setting matters now: America has much greater wealth concentration and political inequality than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when progressive taxation, stronger regulation, and more active antitrust might have contained some of the destructive effects of a new technology.Krugman's opening claim is that the same technology would likely have different consequences in a more level society. In today's United States, he writes, extreme wealth is both a cause and effect of policies that favor a small elite, including low effective taxes on capital and high incomes, weak enforcement of worker protections and antitrust, and cuts to programs that benefit ordinary Americans.The article is explicitly more about oligarchy than AI. Krugman says the paid sections document the rise of the “.0002%,” the economics and politics of extreme wealth, how oligarchy will shape AI's impact, and possible policy paths. His caveat is that AI itself may still produce a pushback against oligarchy, but absent that, he expects the pre-existing concentration of wealth and power to magnify AI's downsides.Read moreElon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hateAuthor: Tim O'Reilly Published: July 12, 2026Tim O'Reilly argues that Elon Musk is using the legal forms of shareholder capitalism to escape the restraints that shareholder capitalism was supposed to impose. The article begins with SpaceX's public-market structure: ordinary public investors get little meaningful governance power, Musk keeps roughly 85 percent of the votes through super-voting shares, buyers waive jury trials and class actions, the company qualifies as controlled, and removal of Musk depends on the share class he controls. In O'Reilly's framing, that is not ordinary founder control; it is a design for being answerable to no one, possibly beyond Musk's own lifetime.The killer detail is the article's turn through Albert Hirschman, Montesquieu, James Steuart, Adam Smith, and Keynes. Older defenses of commerce held that markets would tame princely passions because the self-interest of merchants was safer than arbitrary rule. O'Reilly says Musk reverses that hope. The market discipline that was supposed to cage the prince has become the lever by which the prince raises capital, removes feedback loops, and carries private power into politics, government, Mars, robots, AI, or whatever ambition comes next.The pull is the link to AI governance. O'Reilly says corporations are already a kind of artificial intelligence: narrow-input systems that act at a scale no individual human can match. Their partial controls include independent boards, shareholder votes, courts, disclosure, regulators, public pressure, and activism. If the leaders building frontier AI strip those alignment mechanisms out of their own companies, the governance of the company becomes a preview of the governance of the machine.Read more: The EconomistMurky Mirror: Truth and ConsequencesAuthor: Esther Dyson Published: July 14, 2026Esther Dyson argues that today's institutional crisis is better viewed through the 14th century than through recent political history. Using Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror as her frame, she compares a world of famine, plague, church schism, feudal predation, and purposeless war with a present in which institutions again feel brittle, incentives are badly aligned, and power is shifting into forms that are hard to govern.The killer detail is the historical analogy between land, corporations, and AI. Dyson moves from nobles who controlled serfs and territory, to the East India Company as a quasi-sovereign business, to today's AI systems and data centers as a possible new sector that crosses and weakens both nation-states and companies. The question is whether AI becomes a new kind of private land, owned by a new nobility, or an open prairie that many people can cultivate.The pull is human attention. Dyson says the central question is not what AI will do to people, but how people will react to it: whether they can value love, kindness, embodied attention, and artisanal human presence in a world of seductive artificial offerings.Read more: SourceThe political economy of billionaire derangementAuthor: Henry Farrell Published: July 15, 2026Henry Farrell argues that the visible political radicalization of some Silicon Valley billionaires is not a random personality quirk, but a product of the political economy that made them. Starting from Tyler Cowen's dismissal of “billionaire derangement syndrome” and Tim O'Reilly's warning that Elon Musk is using shareholder capitalism to escape shareholder restraint, Farrell flips the phrase: the question is why billionaires themselves can become deranged.The killer detail is Farrell's use of Peter Thiel as both theorist and example. Thiel's Stanford lectures described startups as monarchies and founders as figures vested with unusual power, while Silicon Valley culture rewarded eccentricity, monopoly ambition, and founder exceptionalism. Farrell says those ideas combined with dense founder-investor networks, peer rivalry, and weak correction mechanisms to amplify rather than discipline princely appetites.The pull is the ideological problem for classical liberals who once saw tech wealth as an ally of markets and freedom. Farrell says commerce did not tame the passions; in parts of Silicon Valley, the passions have begun to devour markets, institutions, and the liberal story that justified them.Read more: SourceIs there any “oligarchy” to fight?Matthew Yglesias | Slow Boring | July 16, 2026Matthew Yglesias argues that “oligarchy” is a rhetorically powerful but analytically loose way to describe American politics. The post begins from Bernie Sanders' “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Amy Klobuchar's warning about a MAGA “broligarchy,” and the long afterlife of the Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper that was widely summarized as showing that only the rich matter in policy outcomes. Yglesias says the evidence supports a weaker claim: affluent people and business leaders have unusual access and influence, but that is not the same as rule by a small cabal.His main distinction is between inequality and oligarchy. The Gilens-Page measure treated the top 10 percent of households as “the wealthy,” and later critics found that rich and middle-class preferences usually align; in the cases where they differ, the rich win about 53 percent of the time. Yglesias also says business executives get special access partly because their decisions are materially important to communities, jobs, investment, and local tax bases, not only because of campaign donations.The post preserves Jerusalem Demsas' counterpoint from their podcast discussion: privileged donor and business access can still violate democratic equality even if the oligarchy label overstates the structure of power. Yglesias' narrower claim is that Democrats should be precise about what problem they are trying to solve, because donor influence can also push the party left on climate and cultural issues in ways that alienate many voters.Read more: Slow BoringAINearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. ThreatsAuthor: Ben Casselman Published: July 13, 2026Ben Casselman reports on “We Must Act Now,” a statement warning that artificial intelligence could transform the economy faster than any previous technology and that policymakers need to move faster to understand and respond. The statement says AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years, bringing risks such as large-scale job displacement as well as opportunities such as higher living standards. Nearly 200 people signed, including 15 Nobel laureates, the chief economists of OpenAI and Anthropic, Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.The killer detail is who joined the warning. Casselman notes that the signatories include economists who have historically been skeptical of Silicon Valley's most dramatic AI job-loss forecasts, including Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, the MIT professors who won the 2024 Nobel in economics. Erik Brynjolfsson, who helped organize the statement, says there has been a notable change in the profession and that economists and policymakers are not ready for the “tsunami” he sees coming.The pull is the measurement problem. The statement does not offer a specific policy menu, but calls for economists, policymakers, and industry leaders to understand the economics of transformative AI and steer it toward complementing humans. Brynjolfsson says one high priority is better data on AI's spread and impact, because current measures tell conflicting stories about job losses and which workers are most exposed.Read more: The New York TimesWhy I Didn't Sign the AI Open LetterAuthor: Andrew McAfee Published: July 13, 2026Andrew McAfee explains why he did not sign “We Must Act Now,” the AI economy statement organized in part by his longtime collaborator Erik Brynjolfsson. McAfee agrees with the letter's starting point that AI is likely to become radically more powerful over the next decade and that it is a general-purpose technology. His objection is not to urgency or to studying AI's economic effects, but to the framing of risk, displacement, and institutional steering as the first move.The killer detail is McAfee's line edit. He says the original letter comes close, then “bounces off the crossbar” by calling for incentives, guardrails, and institutions to steer AI before we know enough about its actual impacts. He points to mixed current evidence: labor-market canaries, but also rising software job postings, low unemployment for younger workers, rising real median income, and claims that AI-adopting companies are adding workers faster than low-adopting peers. His worry is that the letter leans toward upstream governance and dirigisme when the evidence may call for capability building instead.The pull is his replacement statement. McAfee keeps the three-paragraph structure but changes the emphasis: AI is likely to become radically more powerful; like earlier world-changing technologies it will raise living standards while also bringing harms and shocks; and economists, policymakers, and technology leaders should build the capabilities to respond quickly and effectively. It is a concise version of the permissionless-innovation case inside the AI policy debate.Read more: The Geek WayOwn Your WeightsAuthor: Jamin Ball Published: July 10, 2026Jamin Ball argues that the enterprise AI debate about whether companies should “own their weights” or rent models from frontier labs is asking too narrow a question. A model weight file gives a company control over a point-in-time artifact, but not durable control over the capability stack. In his framing, the weight file is a melting ice cube: it does not get worse in absolute terms, but it falls behind as frontier systems improve and enterprise needs change.The killer detail is what Ball says companies really need to own: the data flywheel, reinforcement learning infrastructure, and evaluation harness that produce and improve the model. Simply deploying an open-weights model and declaring sovereignty leaves the enterprise with yesterday's capability and no way to compound workflow-specific learning.The pull is that enterprise AI control may be less about model ownership than operating ownership. The defensible layer is the system that turns company data, edge cases, business definitions, and evaluations into continuously improving performance.Read more: Clouded JudgementWays to Think About Token PricingAuthor: Benedict Evans Published: July 9, 2026Benedict Evans argues that today's AI token prices are a temporary signal from a supply-constrained market, not a reliable guide to long-term value capture. The open question is whether foundation models keep durable pricing power or become commodity infrastructure as data-center capacity, inference efficiency, and model competition all shift. His current read is that the visible market dynamics point toward commoditization unless something materially changes.The killer detail is the mobile data analogy. Evans says cellular networks became a trillion-dollar industry with hundreds of billions in capex after data usage exploded, but carrier stocks went nowhere because value moved up the stack. Tokens may behave similarly: an opaque unit tied to marginal cost, sold through bundles, essential to everything, yet not necessarily where profits accrue.The pull is uncertainty, not prediction. Evans lists paths to model dominance, including network effects, less competition, regulation, export controls, or a lab pulling ahead on execution, but says each requires a new fact not yet visible. Without that change, the model layer looks more like infrastructure beneath the products that capture value.Read more: SourceAlex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AIAuthor: Tim Higgins Published: July 11, 2026Tim Higgins reports that Palantir CEO Alex Karp has turned corporate frustration with AI labs into a public argument about enterprise control. Palantir released a white paper, “Institutional Sovereignty in the Age of AI,” laying out steps companies and governments can take to protect themselves from OpenAI, Anthropic, and other foundation-model providers. The article links that paper to Karp's CNBC appearance, where he said “something has gone completely wrong” in the relationship between AI labs and customers and argued that enterprises are paying for tokens that create little value.The killer detail is the value-capture question. Higgins writes that Karp's critique has resonated because AI labs may gain power and insight from customer data, workflows, and decision-making, even when enterprise policies say customer data are not used for training. David Sacks amplified the concern by arguing that Anthropic is moving from the model layer into vertical applications such as science, security, legal, and coding, raising the fear that model providers will watch where value is being created and then move into those markets directly.The pull is that Karp is not alone, even if his style is unusually combative. Higgins notes that Satya Nadella has also warned that companies need to retain the learnings created when they use AI models, while Mark Zuckerberg has framed Meta's new model release partly around lower-cost frontier intelligence. The article presents Karp's campaign as one sign that established technology companies and large enterprises are trying to define where they fit when AI labs become central infrastructure, application competitors, and potential IPO giants at the same time.Read more: The Wall Street JournalThe AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft OfficeAlex Wilhelm | Cautious Optimism | July 11, 2026Alex Wilhelm argues that one of the week's quieter AI questions is whether the productivity market that Microsoft successfully moved into subscription software is now being attacked by agentic tools. The piece begins with the infrastructure backdrop: SK Hynix raised $26.5 billion in a U.S. listing while building U.S. HBM and advanced-packaging capacity, and memory, chip, and foundry companies are now priced for sustained AI demand.Wilhelm then says the AI conversation has shifted quickly from raw capability to cost per task. He cites new model releases and vendor language emphasizing cheaper agentic and coding models, faster performance, and lower dollars per task. That matters because lower costs make it more plausible for AI systems to take on routine knowledge work at scale rather than remain a premium coding assistant market.The core of the article is Microsoft Office. Wilhelm notes that Microsoft turned Office from a one-time purchase into Microsoft 365, a large recurring revenue business with tens of millions of subscribers and a major productivity segment. Now, he says, late-stage unicorns and AI labs are pushing into the same territory: Anthropic's Cowork was reportedly used mostly outside software development, OpenAI merged ChatGPT and Codex into a tool for creating sheets, slides, docs, web apps, and long-running work, and other companies are building agentic coworkers that connect business data to documents, workflows, schedules, alerts, and apps.The article's caveat is that Microsoft has survived major platform shifts before. The argument is not that Office disappears quickly, but that the definition of office software is broadening from documents and spreadsheets into AI systems that can create, monitor, and act across workplace data.Read moreWhat Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?Author: Nilesh Barla Published: July 11, 2026Nilesh Barla argues that “loop engineering” is becoming a distinct discipline because production AI agents now fail less at single prompts than at runtime: when to stop, what state to preserve, and how to recover after a bad step. Prompt engineering shapes one model call, and context engineering shapes what the model sees, but loop engineering shapes what a sequence of calls actually does.The killer detail is the three-primitives frame. Barla says a real agent loop needs halt conditions, state carryover, and recovery paths, then maps teams across five maturity levels. At the lowest level, an agent is just a model call in a for-loop with a step cap and raw history; by the higher levels, the system has structured state, explicit planning, replay, evaluation, and self-repair.The pull is organizational. If agents are becoming production systems rather than demos, someone has to own the runtime itself. The loop engineer is the role Barla gives to the person responsible for making long-running agent work dependable.Read more: Adaline LabsThe Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just BeginningEmma Roth | The Verge | July 12, 2026Emma Roth argues that community resistance to data centers has moved from an early warning sign into a national political fight as AI facilities grow larger, more power-hungry, and more visible to nearby residents. The article starts with Apple's failed 2015 plan for a $1 billion data center in Athenry, Ireland, where a small group of residents challenged the project over noise, light pollution, flooding, traffic, and wildlife effects until Apple abandoned it in 2018.The current data-center buildout is presented as much larger and more contentious. Roth writes that residents now cite rising energy costs, water quality, noise, light pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, while the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects commercial energy demand to surpass residential demand this year because of AI data centers and Goldman Sachs expects data-center power demand to double by 2027.The central evidence comes from Data Center Watch, which says protesters blocked or delayed at least 75 U.S. projects worth $130 billion from January to March, with active opposition groups more than doubling from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by the end of the first quarter of 2026. Roth also cites QTS abandoning a $12 billion Wisconsin campus, Delaware City regulators blocking a 580-acre project under the Coastal Zone Act, opposition stopping a QTS project in Prince William County, and pressure that pushed Kevin O'Leary to downsize the proposed 40,000-acre Project Stratos in Utah.The policy section describes a split between federal acceleration and local resistance. President Trump has treated data centers as part of the AI race with China and fast-tracked construction, while some Republican candidates are distancing themselves from that position ahead of midterms. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have proposed a moratorium until price and environmental protections exist, bipartisan lawmakers are backing ratepayer-protection measures, and states including Florida, Idaho, and Washington have passed rules on cost shifting, water use, and tax breaks. Roth's caveat is that the policy patchwork is still incomplete, leaving many communities to fight project by project.Read more6 months to live for open modelsAuthor: Nathan Lambert Published: July 12, 2026Nathan Lambert argues that open-weight AI models are facing their most serious policy test so far because U.S. officials are beginning to discuss concrete controls rather than abstract safety concerns. He says reported White House conversations about a new executive order may initially target Chinese-origin models and government use, but could create a broader review habit for frontier open models. His forecast is that a model above the capability range of GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, or GLM-5.2 could trigger a ban or indefinite delay within six months.The post separates two policy fights that are becoming intertwined: distillation and frontier capability. Lambert says the distillation campaign against Chinese models has become a form of regulatory capture because Anthropic and other closed-model companies would gain economically if Chinese open models were banned. He does not dismiss IP protection, but argues that if a closed model's capabilities are dangerous enough to justify restricting open models, the lab also has to explain why those capabilities are exposed through a queryable API. He cites unauthorized access to Anthropic's Mythos private beta as evidence that APIs are not automatically secure.The broader claim is that a unilateral U.S. ban would hurt positive actors more than bad actors if comparable open models remain available elsewhere. Lambert says the only durable ceiling would require global agreement, which does not exist, and that open models can improve safety by allowing broad inspection, adaptation, and understanding. His proposed near-term off-ramps are a strong U.S. open model release from companies such as Microsoft, Meta, or Reflection, and a broader coalition of open-source beneficiaries lobbying for safe rollout rather than prohibition.Read more: SourceAmericans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' RichesAuthor: Scott Stanford Published: July 14, 2026Scott Stanford argues that proposals to give the government a stake in AI companies miss the point unless ordinary citizens directly receive and control the upside. Sam Altman has discussed giving up equity in OpenAI, Washington already owns a stake in Intel, Nvidia is sharing China chip revenue, and Bernie Sanders wants large AI labs to contribute half their stock to a sovereign wealth fund. Stanford says those ideas all park value with the state, not with people.The killer detail is New Carlisle, Indiana, where AWS's Project Rainier is turning cornfields into one of the world's largest AI superclusters. The project is planned to run up to a million chips, draw more than two gigawatts of power, and represents an investment that has grown from $11 billion to $13.8 billion. Stanford uses that local transformation to argue that AI's public bargain should be visible at the household level.The pull is design. A citizen AI dividend would have to specify who earns a stake, how they hold it, and when they see cash. Without that mechanism, the AI wealth debate remains a fight over government balance sheets rather than public ownership.Read more: SourceWho Gets to Define the Frontier?Author: Mark Daley Published: July 14, 2026Mark Daley argues that Demis Hassabis is right to call for a serious institution to verify frontier AI systems, but that the power to test models is also the power to govern them. Hassabis's proposed Frontier AI Standards Body would get privileged pre-release access to advanced models, testing compute, held-out evaluations, support from national labs and security agencies, third-party auditors, and eventually authority to block models from the American market or coordinate a slowdown.The killer detail is Daley's constitutional objection. He says the proposal sometimes looks like a scientific lab, a standards body, an industry regulator, a licensing authority, and an emergency security council at once. Combining those roles because each requires technical expertise would be like putting the central bank, auditor-general, and Supreme Court in one building and calling it efficient.The pull is standard-setting. Daley's concern is not that verification is unnecessary, but that whoever writes the tests, decides what passes, adjudicates disputes, and grants market access may end up defining the frontier itself.Read more: SourceGPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for RobustnessOpenAI | OpenAI | July 15, 2026OpenAI describes GPT-Red as an internal automated red-teaming model trained to find prompt-injection vulnerabilities at a scale human red teams cannot match. The post says AI systems increasingly encounter third-party data through browsers, connected apps, local files, and tools, creating opportunities for malicious instructions hidden in emails, webpages, tool responses, or code repositories. Human red-teaming remains part of OpenAI's safety process, but the company says it is time-intensive and cannot generate enough diverse adversarial examples for model training.The system is trained through self-play reinforcement learning, with GPT-Red rewarded for eliciting valid failures and defender models rewarded for resisting attacks while still completing their tasks. OpenAI says the training environments specify threat models across settings such as local files, webpage banners, email bodies, and tool outputs. The model is kept separate from deployed production models because it is intentionally trained with malicious capabilities.OpenAI reports that GPT-Red generalized beyond its training set, including an internal replication of the indirect prompt-injection arena from Dziemian et al. (2025), where it found successful attacks in 84% of scenarios compared with 13% for human red-teamers. The post also says GPT-Red transferred attacks from simulation to a live autonomous vending-machine agent, causing price changes and order cancellations, and outperformed a prompted GPT-5.5 baseline against a Codex CLI agent on held-out data-exfiltration tasks.The article's main robustness claim is that OpenAI has used GPT-Red and predecessor models in training since GPT-5.3, with later GPT releases becoming more resistant to prompt injections. It says GPT-5.6 Sol has six times fewer failures on OpenAI's hardest direct prompt-injection benchmark than the best production model from four months earlier, that a “Fake Chain-of-Thought” attack class fell from more than 95% success against GPT-5.1 to below 10% against GPT-5.6 Sol, and that GPT-5.6 Sol fails on only 0.05% of GPT-Red's direct prompt injections. OpenAI says general capabilities and targeted over-refusal evaluations were not harmed, and says a preprint with more details will follow.Read moreAnthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just modelsRebecca Bellan | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Rebecca Bellan reports that Ode with Anthropic is the $1.5 billion AI implementation company launched by Anthropic with Blackstone, Hellman & Friedman, Goldman Sachs, and other backers. The article says the venture reflects a growing belief among frontier AI labs that enterprise adoption requires more than better models: customers need engineers who can embed inside businesses and turn AI into working systems.Ode was originally conceived by Blackstone after it used both large consulting firms and smaller AI services boutiques across its portfolio companies. TechCrunch reports that Fractional AI, an AI engineering services startup, stood out and was acquired by the joint venture shortly after the venture was announced. Fractional now forms the foundation of Ode, which has 100 engineers and works closely with Anthropic's applied AI team to identify where the technology can affect specific businesses.Ode CEO Chris Taylor tells TechCrunch that the company could someday become a trillion-dollar business if it scales without losing quality. He says an ideal customer is one whose CEO treats the AI project as a top one or two priority, whether it is a major product feature or the reworking of a core business process. Ode will operate under a “Claude-first” principle, using Anthropic technology whenever possible, but the article says it can use rival AI products when needed.The article's central implementation argument comes from Ode chief technologist Eddie Siegel, who says model selection matters but is not where most of the engineering effort goes. He compares it to the choice of programming language in software: one ingredient in a system that still has to be engineered. Bellan writes that Ode's challenge is hiring and training enough elite generalist engineers, many of them former founders, while competing with OpenAI's The Deployment Company and consulting giants that have built their own forward-deployed engineering teams.Read moreVint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internetTim Fernholz | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Tim Fernholz reports that Vint Cerf, after leaving Google, is advising Innovation Labs on an open architecture for identifying AI agents online. Innovation Labs is a subsidiary of Identity Digital, a DNS registry company, and its proposal is to use domain-name infrastructure as part of a system for agent identity, accountability, and auditability. The premise is that agents will need a way to identify themselves if they move beyond proprietary systems and begin interacting across the open internet.The concrete proposal is DNSid, a registry that links an AI agent to an existing internet domain and uses cryptographic proofs to log its registration over time. Innovation Labs says it is trialing the standard with unnamed hyperscalers and identity companies. Cerf frames the problem around authority and accountability: what authority an agent has, where that authority came from, who is accountable for the agent's behavior, how its identity is established, and why anyone should trust it.The article's caveat is that standards are still emerging and agents are more active than static domains. Cerf says the period may be both fascinating and exasperating because the functionality is powerful and interoperability is unresolved. He compares the adoption problem to TCP/IP: competing systems may not work together until users push for functional interoperation. He also says an agentic economy is not inevitable, but that people will try to build it because delegating work to agents will be easier.Read more: TechCrunchxai-org/grok-build, now open sourceAuthor: Simon Willison Published: July 15, 2026Simon Willison argues that xAI's decision to open-source Grok Build is best understood as a trust repair move after a severe privacy failure. The CLI had triggered backlash when users realized that running it in a directory could upload the entire directory to xAI's Google Cloud buckets, including one user's reported SSH keys, password manager database, documents, photos, and videos. xAI disabled the feature, said previously retained coding data would be deleted, and released the code under Apache 2.0.The killer detail is what the codebase reveals. Willison counts 844,530 lines of Rust, only about 3% of which appears vendored, and finds remnants of the upload system still present but disabled: gcs.rs contains Google Cloud upload code, while upload_session_state() now returns a hard-coded session_state_upload_unavailable error. He also notes copied or ported tool implementations from Codex and OpenCode, prompt files, and a terminal Mermaid renderer.The pull is that terminal coding agents are becoming large, intricate software systems in their own right. The privacy failure mattered because these tools operate inside the directories where developers keep their most sensitive work; the open-source release matters because trust now depends on inspecting what an agent can see, send, and do.Read more: SourceThe Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?Author: Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric Published: July 16, 2026Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric argue that Bun's AI-assisted rewrite from Zig to Rust is a practical sign of how software engineering changes when models can take on large, bounded migrations with clear feedback loops. The piece does not treat the rewrite as magic: Jarred Sumner first spent hours turning design judgment into a detailed porting guide, then used adversarial review, parallel agents, compiler errors, and tests to force the work toward correctness.The killer detail is the scale. Bun had 535,496 lines of Zig, 1,448 files, and 22 million monthly downloads, making a conventional rewrite a year-long freeze the team could not justify. Using Fable, Sumner split the work across 64 agents, produced about 6,500 commits, and got the migration done in 11 days at an estimated API cost of $165,000.The pull is economic, not theatrical. If a one- or two-year migration can become an 11-day project, AI coding is not just faster autocomplete; it changes which technical debts are worth paying down.Read more: SourceOrphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligenceAuthor: Andrew Maynard Published: July 16, 2026Andrew Maynard argues that frontier AI safety frameworks are creating “orphan risks”: harms that companies can see, but do not formally own because they are hard to quantify, do not fit catastrophic-risk thresholds, or fall outside audit-friendly compliance machinery. His target is not existing frontier safety work, but the narrowing effect that happens when private companies decide which risks count as governable.The killer detail is Maynard's contrast between measurable model dangers and threats to value. He points to Meta's three-day Galactica collapse, OpenAI's 2023 board crisis, safety-team departures, and wellbeing litigation as examples of risks that damaged trust, culture, legitimacy, or users without fitting cleanly into conventional model-risk categories. The proposed fix is an orphan-risk register: a public record of risks a company considered and chose not to manage, with reasons.The pull is accountability. Frontier developers' internal scoping choices have become a de facto layer of public governance, so the question is no longer only which risks they manage, but which risks they quietly leave outside the frame.Read more: SourceThe Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data CenterLatent.Space with Andy Beam and Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli | Latent.Space | July 16, 2026Latent.Space interviews Lila Sciences CTO Andy Beam and chief science officer for physical sciences Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli about the company's attempt to build an AI-run science factory. The post describes Lila's thesis as treating the lab itself as an “infinite token generator”: if internet data drove the first era of AI scaling, experimentally verified scientific data may be the next scarce training source. Lila is trying to produce that data with robotics, lab instruments, orchestration software, and AI models wired into the wet lab.The central analogy is the lab as data center. Instruments are nodes on a graph, a magnetically levitating transport layer moves materials between them, and experiment scheduling looks like a compute queue. Beam says Lila is not simply an automation company, because the point is not just throughput; it is flexibility, generalization, and experiment capture. The post says Lila has built more than 10 trillion experimentally validated “scientific reasoning tokens,” not internet text or biological sequences.The interview ranges across biology, chemistry, drug discovery, materials science, and the limits of automation. It notes that Lila rebuilt one gas-sorption measurement to run roughly 2,500 times faster, claims its general models can transfer priors from small-molecule chemistry to metal-organic frameworks for carbon capture, and describes model-suggested platinum-group-free electrocatalysts that moved from looking boring or wrong to becoming strong performers. The caveats are physical: experiments have runtimes, biology cannot always be accelerated, chains of thought can be unreliable narrators, and reward hacking becomes more dangerous when a model controls a real lab.Read more: Latent.SpaceWhy AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”Kate Park | TechCrunch | July 16, 2026Kate Park interviews AMI Labs CEO Alexandre LeBrun about why Yann LeCun's world-model startup avoids the language of “AGI” and “superintelligence.” LeBrun says the terms are not useful because they lack stable definitions: “We never used the word AGI. And I just noticed that nobody is using it anymore; they switched to superintelligence.” His argument is that the practical frontier is not a label, but whether AI systems can understand and predict real-world states.The article explains the world-model thesis by contrasting language prediction with physical-state prediction. A large language model predicts the next word; a world model predicts the next state, such as what happens when a glass tips over. LeBrun says LLMs remain complementary and efficient for language, but the physical world is where current AI is weak. Robotics is the clearest case: hardware has advanced quickly, but robots are still brittle outside controlled routines because they lack context and situational understanding.AMI is still pre-product, but TechCrunch reports that LeBrun was in Seoul looking for industrial partners, researchers, and global companies. He says world models cannot be built entirely inside a lab because they need access to real environments. That is why South Korea appeals to AMI: robotics, semiconductors, manufacturing, and fast adoption create the kind of hardware-heavy context that software-only AI has barely touched.Read more: TechCrunchKimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier IntelligenceKimi | Kimi | July 16, 2026Kimi introduces Kimi K3 as an open 3T-class frontier model aimed at coding, knowledge work, reasoning, multimodality, and long-context agentic use. The source describes the model as a 2.8T-parameter system built on Kimi Delta Attention and Attention Residuals, with native multimodality and a 1M-token context window. It says Moonshot AI plans to release model weights by July 27.The post presents K3 through benchmark and use-case sections rather than as a general product announcement. It reports results across coding, productivity, agentic, and multimodal evaluations, including DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Program Bench, SWE Marathon, FrontierSWE, PostTrain Bench, OfficeQA Pro, SpreadsheetBench 2, MCP Atlas, AutomationBench, BrowseComp, GDPval-AA v2, AA-Briefcase, MMMU-Pro, MathVision, BabyVision, OmniDocBench, and PerceptionBench. The source says all reported K3 results use maximum reasoning effort with temperature and top-p set to 1.0, and that different benchmark comparisons use KimiCode, Claude Code, or Codex harnesses depending on the test.Kimi's caveats are unusually concrete. The limitations section says K3 was trained in preserved thinking-history mode, so quality may become unstable if an agent harness does not pass historical thinking content correctly or if an ongoing session switches to K3 midstream. It also says K3's emphasis on long-horizon tasks can make it excessively proactive when it encounters minor issues or ambiguous intent, and recommends imposing explicit behavioral constraints for applications that require strict boundaries. The post adds that K3 remains behind Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in user experience despite being competitive overall.Read moreVenture CapitalThree Years InAuthor: Tomasz Tunguz Published: July 10, 2026Tomasz Tunguz marks Theory Ventures' third anniversary by arguing that AI's central market effect is time compression. In his telling, model release cycles, company revenue milestones, enterprise adoption, and venture categories have all accelerated. Seed, Series A, and Series B still exist as financing labels, but they no longer cleanly describe company maturity when some seed rounds are larger than IPOs and the best AI companies can mature much earlier than prior software companies.The killer detail is the shift from models to inference. Tunguz argues that inference has become the dominant AI market because workloads and buyer preferences are fragmenting: video, batch, local, agentic, and real-time tasks each create different infrastructure needs. He compares this to databases splitting into OLTP, OLAP, vector, and streaming categories, with AI pushing the same specialization into inference infrastructure.The pull is that Theory sees the AI-native venture firm as part of the same pattern. The firm says it has analyzed twice as many investment opportunities with three investors working alongside a nine-person intelligence organization, using agents and research systems to map markets, source companies, and support diligence. The piece is both a market map and a statement about how venture itself is being rebuilt by the technology it funds.Read more: LinkedInVenture Has Rarely Looked More BifurcatedAuthor: Beezer Clarkson Published: July 14, 2026Beezer Clarkson points to PitchBook's Q2 report as evidence that the U.S. venture market has split into two very different realities. AI now accounts for more than 60 percent of all U.S. venture deal value, meaning the headline market can look active and well-funded even while much of the non-AI market is dealing with a much colder liquidity and fundraising environment.The thread uses that split as the setup for Clarkson's latest Origins episode with Alec Litowitz, founder of Magnetar and QStar Capital and one of Citadel's original founding partners. Clarkson says markets like this are periods of genuine uncertainty, not merely ordinary risk, which is why Litowitz's Adaptability Quotient framework is relevant.The embedded clip makes the liquidity point concrete. Litowitz says DPI is “the resolution of uncertainty” because it converts an uncertain investment into actual cash returned to LPs. In his framing, a realized dollar is a real mark, while TVPI remains uncertain until it is realized.The killer detail is the distinction between pricing risk and resolving uncertainty. Litowitz's perspective matters because QStar is a SpaceX investor and Clarkson says the conversation happened just before one of venture's most consequential IPOs. The episode's stated questions are why venture remains a way to gain exposure to innovation, how AI is changing what is investable, why liquidity is ultimately a function of time, and why uncertainty requires a different decision framework from risk.Read more: XThe Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active NowAuthor: Ilya Strebulaev Published: July 10, 2026Ilya Strebulaev ranks angels, angel groups, accelerators, and incubators by lifetime U.S. unicorn investments, counting checks written before a company reached unicorn status. The top of the combined list is dominated by organizations: Y Combinator leads with 113 unicorn investments, followed by Plug and Play at 52 and 500 Global at 41. Sand Hill Angels is the highest-ranked angel group at 31.The killer detail is how quickly the list changes below the biggest accelerators. Strebulaev says 271 of the 304 investors in the Top 200 are individuals, or 89%. In the top 100, individuals are 91%. That makes the market underneath the large accelerator counts look much more personal: mostly operators and individual angels writing early checks from their own networks.The pull is the ranking's own caveat. Strebulaev writes that every lifetime leaderboard has a blind spot because many of the unicorns behind those totals were founded a decade or more ago, and some angels have since moved into formal funds, slowed down, or stopped investing. His post therefore separates lifetime performance from recent cohorts, including companies founded in 2015 or later and 2020 or later. For founders or allocators making current decisions, that distinction matters: a career record and a current record are not the same measure.Read more: Ilya StrebulaevAre Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?Author: Contrary Published: July 16, 2026Contrary argues that prediction markets' current boom depends on whether platforms can prove they are more than regulated gambling with exchange-style branding. Kalshi and Polymarket have reached mass cultural, investor, and regulatory attention, but the article says the underlying idea is old: academic markets, corporate forecasting tools, Intrade, PredictIt, and other predecessors all struggled with the same linked problems of liquidity, legality, and user appeal.The killer detail is the comparison with sportsbooks. Prediction markets present themselves as peer-to-peer, transparent, and non-house-based, but sports contracts reportedly account for more than 90 percent of Kalshi trading, and the article says the platforms keep a much thinner slice of volume than sportsbooks. A market can therefore show sports-betting-scale handle while generating far less revenue.The pull is that the product's hardest problem may be distribution of wins. If a small group of sharp traders captures most profits while casual users lose interest, prediction markets may become valuable data feeds and professional tools before they become durable consumer networks.Read more: SourceRegulationExclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College CampusesAuthor: Adrian Carrasquillo Published: July 11, 2026Adrian Carrasquillo reports that college campuses are becoming a new front in the fight over immigration enforcement because automatic license plate readers can turn ordinary campus security infrastructure into searchable location data. His thesis is that Flock Safety's camera network, even without direct ICE or DHS contracts, can feed deportation enforcement through local police partnerships and data-sharing practices.The killer detail is the campaign target. The Emergency Campaign to Support Higher Education, working with Schools Drop ICE, is focusing on 75 colleges and universities publicly identified as having Flock contracts. Flock says it has no ICE or DHS contracts, but activists argue the risk comes through local agencies that coordinate with federal authorities and run searches on their behalf.The pull is broader than immigration. Carrasquillo notes that license plate readers have already been abused by officers for stalking, and that Flock's AI search features can identify more than plates, including bumper stickers. A campus safety tool can become a political surveillance system when the data layer is searchable.Read more: The BulwarkThe Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.Author: Todd Phillips Published: July 12, 2026Todd Phillips argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter damaged independent agencies by ending for-cause removal protections, but did not leave Congress powerless. The ruling weakens the old model in which commissioners at bodies such as the FTC, NLRB, CPSC, SEC, and CFTC could be insulated from dismissal over policy disagreements. Phillips says the next fight is whether presidents can turn nominally bipartisan commissions into one-party instruments.The killer detail is the procedural fix: quorum rules. Phillips proposes that Congress require bipartisan slates of commissioners to be seated before independent agencies can act. A president

Welche Social Media-Plattform versammelt eigentlich die größten Demokratiebefürworter? Nun, die Antwort wird euch überraschen. Apropos überraschen: Wir machen einen Deepdive in die Welt der Whistleblower, müssen uns die Roben anziehen und wissen etwas über europäische Algorithmen. Ha! Und Lebensbeichten gibt es auch noch. Wheeeeee! ➡️ Bloomberg über den KGM-Prozess und ihre Rolle: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-07-03/google-and-meta-lost-a-landmark-trial-to-kaley-but-kept-her-as-a-user ➡️ Die New York Times - Twitter wäre in dieser Woche 20 geworden: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/15/technology/twitter-x-20-years.html ➡️ Gavin im “Browser History”-Podcast über Twitter: https://gavinkarlmeier.de/t/84uetk ➡️ Mit der "Haken Dran"-Community ins Gespräch kommen könnt ihr am besten im Discord: http://hakendran.org ✔️ Jetzt abstimmen für den Grauen Haken 2026 und den Goldenen Haken 2026 - am besten per Mail an grauerhaken@hakendran.org

Get the 200+ Page Optimal Living Daily Workbook (PDF) — Free. Want to turn today's episode into an actionable plan? Join the Optimal Living Weekly newsletter and I'll send you our 200-page digital workbook immediately. It's packed with the best takeaways from the show, formatted for easy reading and implementation at home. Get your free PDF workbook here: ⁠⁠https://oldpodcast.eo.page/join⁠ Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 4086: Shirley shares a practical framework for cutting through overwhelm by identifying what matters most, then aligning your relationships, thoughts, and daily decisions with those priorities. Her simple exercises can help you gain clarity, reduce mental clutter, and create more space for the things that truly matter in this season of your life. Read along with the original article(s) here: https://daringliving.com/how-to-simplify-focus-in-your-life/ Quotes to ponder: "Know what's important to you and use that as your focus in this phase in your life." "Everything is your decision, and what you choose to think about it." "Instead of trying to change others or make them see you a certain way, what if you can simplify the relationship to building genuine connections and be interested to learn about them and hear what others have to say?" Episode references: Mark Zuckerberg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg Steve Jobs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Podcasting is lousy with guests who peddle advice about starting businesses, building careers, and living full lives. Few of these gurus have actually accomplished anything. Fewer still have advice that comes anywhere close to revelatory. Mark Pincus is the rare exception. The founder of 10 companies, Mark is best known for Zynga, the gaming juggernaut behind FarmVille and Words With Friends. At its peak, Zynga was valued at more than $12 billion and accounted for 20% of Facebook's page views. It was so big, in fact, that Mark Zuckerberg once admitted to Mark Pincus, “Zynga is the only company that is capable of being an actual Facebook competitor.” Across his 30-year career, Mark — Pincus, not Zuck — developed a cheat code for building products people love and living a life anyone would admire, and that cheat code winds its way through his new book, Life at the Speed of Play. Today, he shares how he learned to trust his gut, why most founders build too much and test too little, and how failure taught him to move faster, pivot sooner, and search for real signals instead of hope.

Here they come again: Billionaires, wailing that Congress must – MUST! – act immediately to slash the monthly Social Security checks that middle-class and poor retirees count on.Plutocratic elites and their anti-government ideologues periodically erupt in outrage that elderly Americans who've earned retirement benefits are depleting the Social Security Trust Fund. So, they exclaim, government must cut the payments these old folks are getting.But wait – it's not “the government's money.” It belongs to the retirees themselves. They've paid monthly payroll taxes into the fund for years on the guarantee that they would later draw benefits out.Maybe so, bark opponents, but the money well is going dry, so the only way to “save” the program is to chop payments owed to beneficiaries.In three words: That's a lie.What the superwealthy don't want us to notice is that the Social Security tax is spectacularly unfair. If your yearly income is less than $185,000 (which includes 95% of us) – every penny of your earnings is subject to retirement tax. But if you're paid a million a year, or a billion, or even more – everything over $185,000 is tax free. Sweet!Wait, there's more. Instead of being paid wages, most über-wealthy people draw their annual income from a Wall Street scheme called “unrealized capital gains.” Big surprise – those gains are totally exempted from our nation's retirement tax.This is Jim Hightower saying… So, let's make Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos, and other tax-dodging billionaires pay on all of their income like the rest of us do. That's only fair. Then America can increase benefits so everyone can have a dignified retirement. Now that's true fairness!Do something!To get involved with the fight to make sure Social Security and other social safety net programs stay strong, check out Social Security Works at socialsecurityworks.org.Jim Hightower's Lowdown is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jimhightower.substack.com/subscribe

AGENDA: 00:00 – Apple SUES OpenAI: Did They Steal Apple's Biggest Secrets? 05:10 – Is OpenAI's $6BN Hardware Bet Already Dead? 12:50 – Zuckerberg Is Back: Meta Finally Takes On OpenAI 18:05 – The AI Spending Bubble Nobody Is Talking About 23:45 – Claude Is Coming for Designers, Product Managers & Figma 27:15 – Anthropic's $50BN Explosion: Have We Already Hit AI's TAM? 36:00 – The $26BN AI IPO Powering the Entire Industry 40:00 – Seed Investing Is Dead? Jason Calacanis Changes Strategy 57:00 – SaaS Is in Trouble: AI Is Accelerating Terminal Decay 01:15:00 – Why Greylock Said No to Billions of Extra Dollars  

Get the 200+ Page Optimal Living Daily Workbook (PDF) — Free. Want to turn today's episode into an actionable plan? Join the Optimal Living Weekly newsletter and I'll send you our 200-page digital workbook immediately. It's packed with the best takeaways from the show, formatted for easy reading and implementation at home. Get your free PDF workbook here: ⁠⁠https://oldpodcast.eo.page/join⁠ Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 4086: Shirley shares a practical framework for cutting through overwhelm by identifying what matters most, then aligning your relationships, thoughts, and daily decisions with those priorities. Her simple exercises can help you gain clarity, reduce mental clutter, and create more space for the things that truly matter in this season of your life. Read along with the original article(s) here: https://daringliving.com/how-to-simplify-focus-in-your-life/ Quotes to ponder: "Know what's important to you and use that as your focus in this phase in your life." "Everything is your decision, and what you choose to think about it." "Instead of trying to change others or make them see you a certain way, what if you can simplify the relationship to building genuine connections and be interested to learn about them and hear what others have to say?" Episode references: Mark Zuckerberg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg Steve Jobs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Get the 200+ Page Optimal Living Daily Workbook (PDF) — Free. Want to turn today's episode into an actionable plan? Join the Optimal Living Weekly newsletter and I'll send you our 200-page digital workbook immediately. It's packed with the best takeaways from the show, formatted for easy reading and implementation at home. Get your free PDF workbook here: ⁠⁠https://oldpodcast.eo.page/join⁠ Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 4086: Shirley shares a practical framework for cutting through overwhelm by identifying what matters most, then aligning your relationships, thoughts, and daily decisions with those priorities. Her simple exercises can help you gain clarity, reduce mental clutter, and create more space for the things that truly matter in this season of your life. Read along with the original article(s) here: https://daringliving.com/how-to-simplify-focus-in-your-life/ Quotes to ponder: "Know what's important to you and use that as your focus in this phase in your life." "Everything is your decision, and what you choose to think about it." "Instead of trying to change others or make them see you a certain way, what if you can simplify the relationship to building genuine connections and be interested to learn about them and hear what others have to say?" Episode references: Mark Zuckerberg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg Steve Jobs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's Mark's birthday pick again! We all litigate this proto-Matrix goth weirdo epic and talk about the Matrix-sized elephant in the room as well as how evil the main character might be, and how weird his CGI powers are. Jennifer Connelly is back on the end of a pier again and Richard O'Brien is doing the time warp but to you instead of with you, sort of like Mark Zuckerberg but more attractive.Support us at our podcasting network, Podcastio Podcastius at https://www.patreon.com/podcastiopodcastius.  You'll get early episodes of this and out other podcasts, along with a live chat here and there.Speaking of our other podcasts - seriously, you could only listen to various other configurations of us:Luke Loves Pokemon: https://lukelovespkmn.transistor.fm/Time Enough Podcast (Twilight Zone): https://timeenoughpodcast.transistor.fm/Game Game Show (a game show gaming games): https://gamegameshow.transistor.fm/Occult Disney: https://occultdisney.transistor.fm/Podcast: 1999 (where Mark and Matt rap about 70's tv sci-fi): https://podcast1999.transistor.fm/And Matt makes music here:https://rovingsagemedia.bandcamp.com/Coming Soon: CatwomanThe Lion KingThe Usual Suspects

When Mark Lanier and his young client Kaley faced Meta and Google in an LA courtroom earlier this year, it seemed a bigger battle than David v Goliath. Lanier, however, was determined to prove the companies had not just stumbled into a youth mental health crisis, but had helped to engineer it. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/infocus

David Stout is the founder of WebAI, an artificial intelligence company publicly valued at $2.5 billion. After growing up on a Michigan ranch, he launched a web services company in college that generated more than $750,000 annually before leaving school to pursue AI.In this episode, David explains how a $400 loan, repeated investor rejection, and a relentless focus on on-device intelligence shaped WebAI's rise. He also discusses AI ownership, data centers, leadership, faith, recruiting elite talent, and the future of specialized artificial intelligence.Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Suggest Guests For Our Podcast: https://forms.gle/ytt6a9jxe8YwzsGD6 Guff Guff Pass join the Sushant Pradhan Podcast for an entertaining and insightful conversation covering everything from UFC, Road to UFC, Nepali fighters, AI, Nepal Crime Branch, Kathmandu, superstitions, government, geopolitics, Iran War, Conor McGregor, and much more. The discussion begins with stories from Grasslands Festival, Nepali artists performing in the USA, Nepalese communities abroad, underrated Nepali MMA fighters, stress management, health myths, Chitwan adventures, monks, superstition, and Nepal's changing society. The conversation then shifts towards UFC, Nepal Crime Branch, Kumari traditions, Hinduism in the USA, Japan, AI, Kathmandu's paradox, marathon culture, digital tracking, World Cup, Hitler, Iran War, Gen Z revolution, skincare, sunscreen, technology, films, Mark Zuckerberg, Road to UFC preparation, and the future of Nepal. If you enjoy long-form conversations about Nepal, UFC, AI, current affairs, sports, technology, history, and culture, this episode is packed with interesting perspectives and hilarious moments. Don't forget to Like, Comment, Share, and Subscribe for more episodes of the Sushant Pradhan Podcast. GET CONNECTED WITH: Guff Guff Pass YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5qSUnLZnRB84bvKhNtxagQ Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/guffguffpass/ Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/guffguffpass/ Tiktok - https://www.tiktok.com/@guffguffpass Diwiz Piya Lama x Tej Bajracharya x Rishabh Shirneth Thakuri Diwiz Piya Lama Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/diwizpiyalama/ Tiktok - https://www.tiktok.com/@diwizpiyalama Tej Bajracharya Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/tedo___/ Rishabh Shirneth Thakuri Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/rishabhsthakuri/ Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/RishabhSThakuri  

Jim Love covers four major technology stories shaping the future of AI, investing, and digital society. A new Verasight survey finds growing public support for stronger AI regulation and Senator Bernie Sanders' proposed American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, including a one-time 50% stock tax on the largest AI companies to create an estimated $7 trillion public wealth fund. New York becomes the first U.S. state to pause new hyperscale AI data center approvals while it develops new environmental and energy rules, reflecting growing grassroots resistance to massive AI infrastructure projects in North America and beyond. The episode also examines the sharp decline in SpaceX shares following their IPO, along with major losses for IBM and Oracle, asking whether investors are beginning to rethink the enormous cost of the AI buildout. Finally, a Fortune report reveals a striking trend among technology's biggest names. Many of the people who built today's digital world—including Peter Thiel, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Evan Spiegel, and even Mark Zuckerberg—have chosen to limit their own children's exposure to smartphones and social media. Timestamps 00:00 Headlines and Intro 00:40 AI Wealth Fund Push 02:36 Oversight and Trust Gap 05:37 New York Data Center Moratorium 06:22 Global Pushback on AI Buildouts 07:55 SpaceX Slides After IPO 08:51 IBM, Oracle and the AI Investment Question 10:24 Why Tech Leaders Limit Their Kids' Screen Time 12:24 Wrap Up and Support the Show Topics Covered AI regulation Bernie Sanders AI Sovereign Wealth Fund OpenAI Anthropic Artificial Intelligence New York data center moratorium AI data centers SpaceX stock IBM earnings Oracle stock Larry Ellison Nvidia AI investing Social media and children Peter Thiel Bill Gates Mark Zuckerberg Technology news Tech podcast Hashtag Trending

In this action-packed, combined workshop session of The Second Act Executive, host Tawnie Wolf cuts through the noise of digital censorship, algorithmic engagement metrics, and institutional investor overreach to explain why building an independent, sovereign line of communication is non-negotiable for business leaders today. Grab your notebook and dive straight into the design curriculum as Tawnie breaks down the psychology of mobile legibility, color choice, and how to successfully leverage AI tools alongside Canva to create cover art that commands attention. Finally, the episode shines an inspirational spotlight on the official pre-order launch of her son's new book, Asher the Chief Ranger. His beautiful story serves as a powerful reminder that every voice matters, tracing the journey of a young Native American child navigating a speech delay while learning how to embrace his identity in a modern society. Inspired by his heroes, tech builders Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, and discovering that his mother has penned speeches for many people, including Barack Obama, Asher learns how to truly find and exercise his voice. It's a testament to the fact that you can do hard things and the world is waiting for your story. Tune in for tonight's core homework assignment and learn how to submit your progress directly!

19-årige Mark Zuckerberg sidder på sit dorm room på Harvard University og udvikler en digital platform... mest for at kunne rate de kvindelige medstuderendes udseende. På få år bliver platformen, Facebook, til internettets store demokratiske samlingspunkt. Men undervejs går noget galt. Pludselig påvirker Facebook demokratiske valg, og den negative effekt, algoritmerne har på især unge mennesker, står klart for enhver. Zuckerbergs idealer bliver pressede, så pressede, at han til sidst allierer sig med overmagten, Donald Trump. Men hvem er manden bag Facebook egentlig? Er Mark Zuckerberg en ægte MAGA-ideolog indeni? Eller er han bare en kold forretningsmand, der vil gøre alt for at bevare Facebooks magt i verden? Resten af afsnittene om Techbosserne, som udover teknologisk magt nu også har fået både økonomisk og politisk indflydelse i USA, kan du høre i vores nye app Politiken Lyd. Politiken Lyd er vores helt nye abonnement med eksklusive podcasts og artikler i én app. Prøv 3 måneder for 99 kr. her. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Small company stocks were up nearly 22% in the first six months of 2026. Emerging markets were up 24%. Meanwhile, plenty of people sat on the sidelines convinced those asset classes were dead, chased last year's winners, or just didn't know what they owned. Joe, OG, and Len Penzo break down the first-half scorecard, explain why the lesson isn't about timing -- it's about diversification -- and walk through what an investment policy statement actually is and why having one would have kept most people out of trouble.What You'll Walk Away WithThe first-half 2026 scorecard: Russell 2000 up 21.9%, MSCI Emerging Markets up 24%, S&P 500 up 9.6%, and why the breadth of the rally matters more than the headline numberWhy OG's one-sentence takeaway -- "the plan always works" -- is both right and incomplete, and what Len's personal experience this year adds to the conversationWhat an investment policy statement actually is: the one-page written decision tree that protects you from making bad moves when markets spike or crashWhy the market closes at an all-time high roughly 30% of the time -- and what that means for the "I'm waiting for it to come down" crowdHow to x-ray your portfolio: the specific inventory OG recommends taking before you make any changesWhy you should rebalance all at once rather than filling in holes slowly -- and the one asterisk that applies before you do anything in a taxable accountLen on the mining sector: why GDX returned 154% last year and is down 10% this year -- and exactly what that pattern teaches about chasing returnsWhy trying to explain your investment plan to another human being is the best stress test you haveThe allowance micro-economy problem: what happens when you pay kids per task and they start pricing everything in units of dog poopJessica's win from the Basement: how one Stacker helped her 25-year-old cousin sign up for her first 401(k), get the full company match, and choose index fundsWhy This Matters NowThe second half of 2026 starts now. If you don't know what you own, why you own it, or what you'd do if it dropped 30%, this is the episode to act on before the next six months get away from you.From the BasementJoe, OG, and Len Penzo review the first half of 2026, build a case for why diversification beats prediction every time, and explain what an investment policy statement is and how to write one. Doug celebrates the Hollywood sign's origin as a real estate advertisement and shares two things social media actually taught us -- including a TikTok comedian voicing the thoughts in Mark Zuckerberg's ear during a very long beef discussion. Len's annual sandwich survey is about a month away. True Money Stories is climbing the Amazon charts.Resources MentionedTrue Money Stories by Len Penzo -- available on Amazon; lenpenzo.comLen Penzo dot com -- lenpenzo.com; 3,000 articles, 18 years of personal finance writingStacking Benjamins Field Kit -- stackingbenjamins.com/fieldkitStacking Benjamins Newsletter (The 201) -- stackingbenjamins.com/201Stacking Benjamins Community -- stackingbenjamins.com/basementOG financial planning calendar -- stackingbenjamins.com/ogSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Carl Quintanilla, David Faber and Sara Eisen discussed a historic day for SK Hynix: The South Korean chip provider making its U.S. debut on the Nasdaq, raising more than $26 billion — the largest share sale ever by a non-U.S. company. The anchors also reacted to Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh's picks to serve on task forces: Members include venture capitalist Marc Andreessen and former Walmart CEO Doug McMillon. Also in focus: Why Meta shares jumped, Mark Zuckerberg's message on compute, Melius' Ben Reitzes joins the show to talk chips and the AI trade, Delta beats on earnings, Apple's record run, Netflix reportedly exploring live TV and bundles, President Trump says he won't sign the bipartisan housing bill that is set to become law.   Squawk on the Street Disclaimer Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Story of the Week (DR):Social Media's 'Big Tobacco Moment': Meta Faces $1.4 Trillion Fine for Allegedly Fueling Teen Suicide and AddictionMeta is being sued by 33 US states, led by California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey.12 blue/12 red/9 purpleThe states allege that Meta deliberately designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to children and teens, fueling a youth mental health crisis (including anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide).They also accuse Meta of violating child privacy laws by collecting data from children under 13 without parental consent.Meta warned a federal court that it could face up to $1.4T in penalties if the states prevail at the upcoming trial (set for August 18, 2026). Meta extrapolated this massive figure—which is roughly equivalent to the company's entire stock market value—based on the methodology proposed by the lead states for calculating damages.Meta calls the penalty "outlandish" and "unsubstantiated," arguing it has no precedent in consumer protection history: 'A sanction of that size has no analog in the history of consumer protection enforcement.' The company accuses the states of improperly multiplying penalties (e.g., stacking fines based on daily usage time). Meta denies the allegations, asserting its platforms have extensive safety tools and that the claims are unmoored from actual unfair practices.‘I Don't Think I'm Ever Going to Stop,' Says Mark Zuckerberg. Even With 'Infinite Money,' He Has No Plans to Retreat to His Massive Hawaii EstateMeta found to breach EU laws with 'addictive' Instagram, Facebook designsInstagram and Facebook's “addictive” designs have put Meta in breach of the European Union's digital laws, the EU concluded Friday in a preliminary report.The tech giant violated the EU's Digital Services Act by failing to adequately consider the risks associated with design features that affected the physical well-being of its users, including minors and vulnerable adults, the European Commission said.These features include infinite scroll, which constantly shows fresh content, autoplay, push notifications and highly personalized recommendation systems — feeding users' compulsion to continue using platforms and putting them into “autopilot mode.”The EU Commission also accused Meta of ignoring available information about how much time young people are spending on Instagram or Facebook at night, and how different types of content formats, from reels to stories, could lead to excessive use of its services.Meta said, “We disagree with these preliminary findings.”New Zealand Moves To Ban Climate Change Litigation. Will The U.S. Follow?New Zealand has proposed a bill to limit the ability of individuals to sue high greenhouse gas emitters over the impacts of climate change, relying instead on the enforcement measures taken by the government. The bill appears poised to pass.The women who wouldn't let climate data disappear MMAfter losing their jobs at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Rebecca Lindsey, her sister Mary and colleague Anna Eshelman teamed up to rebuild a pivotal resource the Trump administration took offlineRebecca Lindsey, a technical writer for NASA–one of 280,000 federal workers fired by Musk/Trump, joined forces with former NOAA employees Anna Eshelman, and Mary Lindsey, her older sister, to become the core team behind the deactivated site's successor, Climate.us, preserving over 15 years of key climate data and resources.Elon Musk says he always wanted his SpaceX employees to get rich — and now thousands of them are millionairesElon Musk's 'Chainsaw for Bureaucracy' Just Left an $11 Billion Budget Hole as Trump Rehires StaffThe trove features key maps, educational materials and climate indicator reports, including the now-deleted Fifth National Climate Assessment, the government's most comprehensive analysis of climate change that was at risk of being lost to the publicJersey Mike's $12 billion IPO filing reveals a $50 million payday for the founder's stepson and a $41 million jetFamily members of founder Peter Cancro were employed Jersey Mike's in various roles and received compensation in excess of $120,000 from the Company as follows for the years ended December 28, 2025 and December 31, 2024 and 2023:John Cancro, Mr. Cancro's brother, received total compensation of approximately $20,019,231, $519,231 and $500,000, respectively;Paul J. Cancro, Mr. Cancro's son, received total compensation of approximately $8,001, $216,022 and $208,023, respectively;Robert Cancro, Mr. Cancro's son, received total compensation of approximately $38,462, $1,038,462 and $1,000,000, respectively;Tatiana Cancro, Mr. Cancro's wife, received total compensation of approximately $11,538, $311,539 and $300,000, respectively;Caroline Jones, Mr. Cancro's daughter, received total compensation of approximately $38,462, $1,038,462 and $1,000,000, respectively;Alexandra Powers, Mr. Cancro's sister-in-law, received total compensation of approximately $0, $1,165,437 and $0;Daniel Powers, Mr. Cancro's brother-in-law, received total compensation of approximately $30,213,462, $1,793,952 and $0;John Tesauro Jr., Mr. Cancro's brother-in-law, received total compensation of approximately $0, $0 and $2,429,628, respectively;Phillip Sivolobov, Mr. Cancro's stepson, received total compensation of approximately $50,011,538, $311,539 and $276,923, respectively.GRAND TOTAL: $112MStepson Phillip got $51M, brother John got $21MOther Peter Cancro schwag in 2025:Got a $41 million jet and an additional fixed amount of $166,666.66 per month in light of the business expenses incurred by Mr. Cancro related to air transportation to travel from time to time for business purposes.Lease agreements valued at $1M in rent (leases go to 2030) Controlled company: Blackstone (will control more than 50% of voting power)Board: 8 directorsBlackstone:Chair Nigel Travis (also chair of Abercrombie & Fitch)David N. KestnbaumDevon L. RinkerMichael J. StaubFounder/former CEO/chair: Peter CancroCEO Charles R. MorrisonCheryl S. Miller, director on two controlled companies:Tyson FoodsOld Dominion Freight Line (Congdon brothers)Fran Horowitz, CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch (where chair serves as chair)Goodliest of the Week (MM/DR):DR: Amazon, Walmart and Other Large Employers Could Face New Costs As New Jersey Targets Companies With Medicaid Workers— Will Other States Follow?DR: UBS says rich people will be younger, female and openly queer thanks to the Great Wealth TransferMM: Meta Buried Research Linking Instagram To Teen Harm While Facing $1.4 Trillion Penalty That Could Erase Its Entire WorthMM: ESG!Madison Square Garden Kept a List of Gay CelebritiesAn internal Madison Square Garden database of VIPs labels Joe a “medium risk,” one of roughly 400 celebrities given a risk score.If you're a celebrity and you're marked with a risk score—even as a low risk—it means “you've done something in the publicity world, the social media world, that has caught the attention of the wrong people,” the source continues.The talent database also tracks some celebrities' race, gender identity, and sexual orientation; 93 entries are marked as “LGBTQIA.”MM: California vs. Elon Musk: Tesla Snubbed as New EV Incentives Boost Rivian, Lucid MM DRAssholiest of the Week (MM):Billionaire amplificationKen Griffin says everyone is misinterpreting the AI revolution — and wishes Zohran and Bernie would ‘read a damn history book for once'“[Capitalism is] the greatest success story in the history of humanity,” Griffin said, urging the self-identified socialist politicians, “whether it's Bernie Sanders, whether it's Mamdani,” to “read a damn history book for once and then tell us how to run our country.”Jeff Bezos 'Made All of Our Lives So Much Better,' Says Billionaire Investor Tim Draper"Amazon has made all of our lives so much better," Draper said.Draper said he has benefited from what Bezos has done, and that's a part of the world economy that isn't spoken about enough."Those geniuses who create this incredible world for us are benefiting all of us."40 Epstein-Tied Billionaires Have Injected $1.6B Into US Elections, Report FindsThese are the millionaires and billionaires pledging to fund Trump accountsZuckMeta AI Data Centre Contractor Triggers Biohazard Scare After Flushing Rare Bacterium Into Public SewersMeta Platforms To Build $9 Billion A.I. Data Centre In CanadaThe $145 Billion Lie? Zuckerberg's Leaked Town Hall Audio Exposes Massive AI Failures After Mass LayoffsMeta jumps into AI coding market in effort to chase Anthropic and OpenAIWhat person in their right mind would trust Zuckerberg with their coding?Hollywood Vs Zuckerberg: CAA Warns Meta's AI Image Tool Needs A Major Privacy Overhaul‘I Don't Think I'm Ever Going to Stop,' Says Mark Zuckerberg. Even With 'Infinite Money,' He Has No Plans to Retreat to His Massive Hawaii EstateJeff Sonnenfeld - DRIn defense of Musk, SpaceX, and dual class shares“the rigid formulas of proxy advisors create a perverse, socially destructive incentive: hoard your wealth like an oligarch to maintain your good governance rating, or give it away and risk losing your company”“The proxy advisors want a world governed by rigid mathematical formulas because auditing a checklist is easy. Evaluating human character, industry dynamics, track records of success and failure, and the capacity for visionary leadership is hard. But it is exactly that hard work of judgment which is vital. When it comes to dual-class shares, it is time for the critics to step out of the theoretical vacuum and look at the real-world scoreboards”Headliniest of the WeekDR: OpenAI Wants a $1 Trillion Valuation. But College Students Are Testing At The Level Of 10-Year-Olds AND Suspecting AI cheating, Ivy League prof ordered an in-person final; scores fell 50%MM: ‘Waymo Takes Revenge, Dropping Drunk Teens Directly Into Squad of CopsMM: West Virginia spent $3M to create university program to fight ‘woke ideology.' One student is enrolledWho Won the Week?DR: Free Float's new platformAnd blowhard Jeffrey Sonnenfeld for arguing that dualclass owners are necessary because the dualclass mechanism allows them to sell shares and maintain voting power so they can “cure diseases, endow universities, and combat poverty” MM: Free Float data: Elon Musk and the age of the corporate leviathanAbove a certain size the ordinary rules of governance apparently cease to apply.Of the 16 listed firms worth more than $1trn, seven are shareholder fundamentalists.None has an elaborate statement of corporate purpose, since they are mostly content making heaps of moneyFree Float says Nvidia, Amazon, Broadcom, Micron are all TOTALITARIANNext are the corporate paternalists, who believe that the problem with shareholder democracy is that its voters do not know what is best for them.Free Float says Berkshire, Google, Meta are all TOTALITARIANThe final clan presents the strongest argument against the end of corporate history: individual shareholders consent to hand over all of their rights to the world's richest man, who then governs as he sees fit.Free Float says SpaceX, Tesla are TOTALITARIANBasically, it's nice of the economist to recognize everything Free Float says every weekPredictionsDR: Jeff Sonnenfeld writes something on Fortune that triggers meMM: Jeff Sonnenfeld writes something on Fortune that triggers Damion

On today's show Andrew and Ben begin with a look at the state of Meta. Topics include: Mark Zuckerberg's sins of commission vs. omission as a messenger, Meta's AI opportunity, directionally correct investments, the problems with Meta as a cloud provider, and the absence of religion in Menlo Park. From there: Why Microsoft should move on from the XBOX era, and the shift in gaming habits that doomed Game Pass from the outset. At the end: OpenAI introduces GPT-Live, a question about the cost of Ben's vibe coding adventure spawns a digression on future token costs, the cost of youth sports, American soccer and learning Chinese, tech weirdos and the future of normie app building, and Ben gets castigated for bringing a Starlink on vacation.

Hide your kids and grab your bourbon, because The Chad & Cheese Podcast is back! Joel is finally home from his pretentious European tour—blaming jet lag for being completely rusty—and Emi is here to keep him from totally derailing. Together, they are tackling a corporate landscape that looks like a beautiful car crash. They're dissecting the massive corporate marriages of Korn Ferry buying AMS and Handshake grabbing Uplimit—are these brilliant strategic moves or absolute train wrecks? Next, they dive into the giant AI oopsies of the week, laughing as Ford frantically rehires 350 human engineers because their robots built junk, and Mark Zuckerberg publicly admits Meta totally misjudged the AI hype train. They also break down why The Wall Street Journal says Gen X is getting absolutely crushed by unemployment, why Scott Galloway thinks working from home is ruining America's youth, and whether a fully robot-operated hotel in China is a budget dream or a horror movie. Tune in for the travel stories, the savage HR gossip, and the brutal return of Joel's awful dad jokes! Website: https://www.chadcheese.com/ Make sure you check FREE Stuff: https://www.chadcheese.com/free Subscribe for an audio version: https://www.chadcheese.com/subscribe

On The Matt Gaetz Show on OANN, Pickax CEO Jeff Dornik responds to reports linking wastewater contamination near Mark Zuckerberg's Meta and its $800 million Project Cosmo data center in Cheyenne, Wyoming, back to Meta's cooling system, after officials found a rare bacteria named in the segment as cubriotis gilriotidae and the city adopted a new policy prohibiting certain data center wastewater discharges. Dornik warns that communities are being asked to live next to massive data center warehouses while the long-term health impact of water exposure, power lines, EMF and low humming remains unknown.Follow OANN on Pickax - https://pickax.com/oannFollow Jeff Dornik on Pickax - https://pickax.com/jeffdornikBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-jeff-dornik-show--4788100/support.Follow The Jeff Dornik Show on Apple Podcasts and leave a 5-star review. That's how we reach more people and bypass Big Tech suppression.Watch LIVE daily at 7pm ET on Rumble and subscribe so you never miss a show:https://rumble.com/c/jeffdornikBig Tech is silencing truth while harvesting your data to feed the machine. That's why I built Pickax, a free speech platform where creators own their content and your voice isn't controlled. Join now:https://pickax.com/?referralCode=y7wxvwq&refSource=copy

This week, the world finally discovers what we've been saying for years: Gen X wasn't forgotten—we were quietly keeping the entire damn machine running. New Census numbers show America's 45-to-64 crowd is shrinking fast, which means the people who know where all the bodies are buried (and why you never reboot that one production server) are disappearing without a replacement bench. Meanwhile, Meta continues its speedrun toward becoming history's most aggressively unlikeable company, staring down a potential $1.4 trillion lawsuit over social media addiction while simultaneously launching AI features that happily remix your Instagram photos unless you remember to opt out of Zuckerberg's latest privacy experiment. Because nothing says "we've learned our lesson" quite like doubling down.The AI circus somehow gets even weirder. Illinois actually passed meaningful AI safety legislation—an event so rare it qualifies as science fiction—while Sam Altman reportedly floated the idea of AI companies handing the U.S. government an ownership stake. Anthropic published another paper that's already inspiring breathless declarations that Claude is "thinking," because apparently matrix multiplication now counts as an inner monologue. Cloudflare finally decided websites shouldn't have to give away their content for free to AI crawlers, researchers discovered AI agents could consume enough electricity to make Google Search look like a bicycle generator, and Amazon's Mechanical Turk is being replaced by the very AI it spent two decades secretly training. Progress: where everyone works harder, gets paid less, and the power grid cries.Elsewhere in Tech Hell™, Waymo robotaxis turned San Francisco traffic into an even bigger parking lot, Google lost another multibillion-dollar antitrust appeal in Europe, the FCC found fresh ways to make internet bills less transparent, and Midjourney is demanding Hollywood explain its own AI habits in court. We also dig into a disturbing lawsuit involving Grok-generated abuse imagery and what it says about AI guardrails, explain how to stop Meta from feeding your Instagram into its latest AI experiments, discuss why tech workers increasingly feel AI isn't replacing them so much as making them miserable faster, and close things out with the usual Media Candy, Apps & Doodads, and library recommendations to help you survive another week inside the techno-dystopian fever dream we apparently call "the future."Sponsors:Private Internet Access - Go to GOG.Show/vpn and sign up today. For a limited time only, you can get OUR favorite VPN for as little as $2.03 a month.SetApp - With a single monthly subscription you get 240+ apps for your Mac. Go to SetApp and get started today!!!1Password - Get a great deal on the only password manager recommended by Grumpy Old Geeks! gog.show/1passwordShow notes at https://gog.show/754Watch on YouTube at https://youtu.be/xnhzMxu1JNASHOW NOTESAmerica's missing middle: The shrinking 45-64 populationMeta is facing $1.4 trillion in state lawsuits over social media addictionMeta just launched a new AI generator, Muse Image, and users are already pushing back over use of their photosIllinois Drops the Hammer on AI CompaniesOpenAI reportedly wants all AI companies to give the US government a stake in their businessesLawsuit: Man used Grok to make 7K sex images of stepdaughter, then shot himselfMidjourney wants the Hollywood studios that sued it to show the court how they use AIAnthropic Releases Paper About Claude's Mental ‘Workspace.' Don't Read It UncriticallyCloudflare will filter out web crawlers that serve AI companiesWhen It Comes to Energy Use, AI Agents Could Make Chatbots Look Like Pocket CalculatorsAmazon's ‘Artificial Artificial Intelligence' Is Being Eaten by AIDrivers Trapped for Hours in Hopeless Gridlock as Waymos Brick on Major HolidayGoogle loses final appeal over $4.7 billion EU Android antitrust fineFCC to end Biden-era rule that forces ISPs to list all their feesGetty Images is canceling its $3.7 billion Shutterstock merger due to UK restrictionsFootage Shows Cop Stalking Woman He Met on a TV Set After Surveilling Her With a License Plate ReaderMeta says it will disable the camera on its glasses if you tamper with the recording LEDMeta tests ‘super sensing' AI glasses that can capture every momentHow tech workers are feeling in 2026: a workforce splitting in twoSiloSugarDune: Part Three | Official TrailerAI golem Tilly Norwood is reportedly 'starring' in a feature-length movieLuckyNormalHow to claim a WhatsApp usernameHow to Stop Meta AI From Processing Your Instagram ContentGold Rush (First Contact) by Peter CawdronSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Scott Galloway sits down with TBPN creators John Coogan and Jordi Hays to unpack how they turned a daily tech show into one of the fastest-growing businesses in media — and ultimately, OpenAI's first acquisition. They discuss why most podcasts get advertising wrong, how a small but influential audience can be worth more than mass reach, and why they built TBPN like a startup. Plus, they debate OpenAI vs. Anthropic and what Mark Zuckerberg's obsession with the next big thing reveals about the future of tech. Want to listen to this and other episodes ad-free? You can, if you subscribe at profgmedia.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As part of our summer replay series, we're revisiting one of our favorite conversations from the past year. Mark Zuckerberg and Dr. Priscilla Chan join Ben Horowitz, Vineeta Agarwala, and Erik Torenberg to discuss the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative's ambitious effort to help cure, prevent, and manage disease by the end of the century. Rather than funding individual breakthroughs, CZI is focused on building the tools and infrastructure that can accelerate scientific discovery across entire fields. The conversation explores Biohub, Cell Atlas, virtual cell models, open biological datasets, and the growing role of AI in helping researchers better understand human biology. They discuss why biology still lacks a "periodic table of elements," how AI could help scientists test hypotheses before running expensive experiments, and why pairing frontier biology with frontier AI may unlock a new era of medical discovery.   Resources: Follow Mark Zuckerberg on X: https://x.com/finkd Follow Dr. Priscilla Chan on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/priscillachan Follow Ben Horowitz on X: https://x.com/bhorowitz Follow Vineeta Agarwala on X: https://x.com/vintweeta Stay Updated:Find a16z on YouTube: YouTubeFind 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.

Whether it's the sensory joy of homemade gelato or the privacy risks baked into AI-powered apps, the conversation spotlights how technology is transforming even the simplest moments—and why it's not always for the better. OpenAI gets permission to roll out GPT-5.6 to the public on July 9 Beijing is looking at curbing overseas access to China's top AI models, sources say OpenAI floats giving Trump administration 5 percent cut of AI boom Mark Zuckerberg tells staff that AI agents haven't progressed as quickly as he'd hoped Meta money grab is a plea to investors: Stick with us Meta just launched a new AI generator, Muse Image, and users are already pushing back over use of their photos Meta tests 'super sensing' AI glasses that can capture every moment Google's AI buildout drove 37% increase in electricity use in 2025 Nvidia's Kyber AI rack slips to 2028, and one circuit board is to blame Cloudflare will filter out web crawlers that serve AI companies A Twist in This Year's Strangest Literary AI Scandal Midjourney wants Hollywood studios to reveal the details of their AI usage Brown Professor Suspects Majority of His Class Used AI to Cheat Reid Hoffman: Introducing Tokens to the Future: Token Grants to AI Builders Tilly Norwood to Lead New Movie 'Misaligned,' Marking Feature Debut for AI 'Actor' MaximeRivest/riddle: The diary of Tom Riddle for the reMarkable Paper Pro — write with your pen, the page drinks your ink and answers in a flowing hand lfnovo/open-notebook: An Open Source implementation of Notebook LM with more flexibility and features GuideAlong Hosts: Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis, and Paris Martineau Guest: Ian Bogost 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 audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: blackhat.com/us-26 and use code TWIT helixsleep.com/machines gusto.com/machines

Whether it's the sensory joy of homemade gelato or the privacy risks baked into AI-powered apps, the conversation spotlights how technology is transforming even the simplest moments—and why it's not always for the better. OpenAI gets permission to roll out GPT-5.6 to the public on July 9 Beijing is looking at curbing overseas access to China's top AI models, sources say OpenAI floats giving Trump administration 5 percent cut of AI boom Mark Zuckerberg tells staff that AI agents haven't progressed as quickly as he'd hoped Meta money grab is a plea to investors: Stick with us Meta just launched a new AI generator, Muse Image, and users are already pushing back over use of their photos Meta tests 'super sensing' AI glasses that can capture every moment Google's AI buildout drove 37% increase in electricity use in 2025 Nvidia's Kyber AI rack slips to 2028, and one circuit board is to blame Cloudflare will filter out web crawlers that serve AI companies A Twist in This Year's Strangest Literary AI Scandal Midjourney wants Hollywood studios to reveal the details of their AI usage Brown Professor Suspects Majority of His Class Used AI to Cheat Reid Hoffman: Introducing Tokens to the Future: Token Grants to AI Builders Tilly Norwood to Lead New Movie 'Misaligned,' Marking Feature Debut for AI 'Actor' MaximeRivest/riddle: The diary of Tom Riddle for the reMarkable Paper Pro — write with your pen, the page drinks your ink and answers in a flowing hand lfnovo/open-notebook: An Open Source implementation of Notebook LM with more flexibility and features GuideAlong Hosts: Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis, and Paris Martineau Guest: Ian Bogost 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 audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: blackhat.com/us-26 and use code TWIT helixsleep.com/machines gusto.com/machines

The tech world is bracing for an absolute earthquake!

Whether it's the sensory joy of homemade gelato or the privacy risks baked into AI-powered apps, the conversation spotlights how technology is transforming even the simplest moments—and why it's not always for the better. OpenAI gets permission to roll out GPT-5.6 to the public on July 9 Beijing is looking at curbing overseas access to China's top AI models, sources say OpenAI floats giving Trump administration 5 percent cut of AI boom Mark Zuckerberg tells staff that AI agents haven't progressed as quickly as he'd hoped Meta money grab is a plea to investors: Stick with us Meta just launched a new AI generator, Muse Image, and users are already pushing back over use of their photos Meta tests 'super sensing' AI glasses that can capture every moment Google's AI buildout drove 37% increase in electricity use in 2025 Nvidia's Kyber AI rack slips to 2028, and one circuit board is to blame Cloudflare will filter out web crawlers that serve AI companies A Twist in This Year's Strangest Literary AI Scandal Midjourney wants Hollywood studios to reveal the details of their AI usage Brown Professor Suspects Majority of His Class Used AI to Cheat Reid Hoffman: Introducing Tokens to the Future: Token Grants to AI Builders Tilly Norwood to Lead New Movie 'Misaligned,' Marking Feature Debut for AI 'Actor' MaximeRivest/riddle: The diary of Tom Riddle for the reMarkable Paper Pro — write with your pen, the page drinks your ink and answers in a flowing hand lfnovo/open-notebook: An Open Source implementation of Notebook LM with more flexibility and features GuideAlong Hosts: Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis, and Paris Martineau Guest: Ian Bogost 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 audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: blackhat.com/us-26 and use code TWIT helixsleep.com/machines gusto.com/machines

Whether it's the sensory joy of homemade gelato or the privacy risks baked into AI-powered apps, the conversation spotlights how technology is transforming even the simplest moments—and why it's not always for the better. OpenAI gets permission to roll out GPT-5.6 to the public on July 9 Beijing is looking at curbing overseas access to China's top AI models, sources say OpenAI floats giving Trump administration 5 percent cut of AI boom Mark Zuckerberg tells staff that AI agents haven't progressed as quickly as he'd hoped Meta money grab is a plea to investors: Stick with us Meta just launched a new AI generator, Muse Image, and users are already pushing back over use of their photos Meta tests 'super sensing' AI glasses that can capture every moment Google's AI buildout drove 37% increase in electricity use in 2025 Nvidia's Kyber AI rack slips to 2028, and one circuit board is to blame Cloudflare will filter out web crawlers that serve AI companies A Twist in This Year's Strangest Literary AI Scandal Midjourney wants Hollywood studios to reveal the details of their AI usage Brown Professor Suspects Majority of His Class Used AI to Cheat Reid Hoffman: Introducing Tokens to the Future: Token Grants to AI Builders Tilly Norwood to Lead New Movie 'Misaligned,' Marking Feature Debut for AI 'Actor' MaximeRivest/riddle: The diary of Tom Riddle for the reMarkable Paper Pro — write with your pen, the page drinks your ink and answers in a flowing hand lfnovo/open-notebook: An Open Source implementation of Notebook LM with more flexibility and features GuideAlong Hosts: Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis, and Paris Martineau Guest: Ian Bogost 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 audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: blackhat.com/us-26 and use code TWIT helixsleep.com/machines gusto.com/machines

Kylie Jenner and Mark Zuckerberg are trying to rebrand Meta Glasses as some kind of girlboss fashion accessory, even though women are the ones most likely to be the victims of their invasive technology. While Meta plows forward with this new collaboration, the glasses continue to be abused by users taking advantage of its covert filming capabilities, often by filming women without their knowledge and posting it online. On today's episode, host Kate Lindsay is joined by A Bit Fruity host Matt Bernstein to discuss why sinister companies keep giving themselves girlboss makeovers—but also why it's not working. This podcast is produced by Vic Whitley-Berry, Daisy Rosario, and Kate Lindsay.Get tickets to our live show here! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Kylie Jenner and Mark Zuckerberg are trying to rebrand Meta Glasses as some kind of girlboss fashion accessory, even though women are the ones most likely to be the victims of their invasive technology. While Meta plows forward with this new collaboration, the glasses continue to be abused by users taking advantage of its covert filming capabilities, often by filming women without their knowledge and posting it online. On today's episode, host Kate Lindsay is joined by A Bit Fruity host Matt Bernstein to discuss why sinister companies keep giving themselves girlboss makeovers—but also why it's not working. This podcast is produced by Vic Whitley-Berry, Daisy Rosario, and Kate Lindsay.Get tickets to our live show here! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Kylie Jenner and Mark Zuckerberg are trying to rebrand Meta Glasses as some kind of girlboss fashion accessory, even though women are the ones most likely to be the victims of their invasive technology. While Meta plows forward with this new collaboration, the glasses continue to be abused by users taking advantage of its covert filming capabilities, often by filming women without their knowledge and posting it online. On today's episode, host Kate Lindsay is joined by A Bit Fruity host Matt Bernstein to discuss why sinister companies keep giving themselves girlboss makeovers—but also why it's not working. This podcast is produced by Vic Whitley-Berry, Daisy Rosario, and Kate Lindsay.Get tickets to our live show here!Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Your AI won't rescue you. It reveals you. Chris opens with a personal note, real stories of AI-obsessed bosses, and the question that defines your career: where does AI end and you begin? Chris McAlister goes live every Wednesday at lunch. This week, with The 3% Shift hitting shelves in six days: the personal letter he wrote to his email list about why the ground is moving under leaders, the real-world examples from the "bosses obsessed with AI are making everyone miserable" article, and the thesis the book is built on. New technology, same human heart. The tool that promises to change everything always runs into the same unchanged thing inside us. AI won't rescue you from the leadership work. It will show you exactly what leadership work you've been dodging. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Are we living through the dawn of a permanent Surveillance Summer?SUPPORT MY WORK: Buy a paid subscription to my newsletter at usermag.co           Support my work on Patreon: http://patreon.com/taylorlorenz     Kylie Jenner is the new face of Meta's AI smart glasses and suddenly, mass surveillance is a fashion trend. Influencers are declaring a "hot surveillance summer," West Village fashion girlies are posting AI glasses selfies, and for thousands of people (not me! lol), cameras on your face have officially gone from creepy to chic. How did we get here?  In this episode, I sit down with iconic fashion journalist Amy Odell, author of the Back Row newsletter covering fashion, culture, and power, to unpack how Big Tech used the fashion industry to normalize wearable surveillance. We trace the full history of smart glasses, from the Google Glass disaster and Snapchat Spectacles vending machines to Ray-Ban Stories, Oakley Meta glasses, and the rhinestone-studded AI glasses taking over your feed. We discuss why the Kylie AI glasses are a turning point for wearable tech, and how this could be the moment personalized AI surveillance becomes permanently woven into public life. Subscribe to Amy's newsletter here: https://www.backrow.net/  We get into: ▸ Why Meta chose Kylie Jenner as the face of its AI glasses campaign ▸ How Mark Zuckerberg rehabbed his image through influencer interviews ▸ The "hot surveillance summer" discourse and why some women are embracing being recorded ▸ How fashion makes surveillance tech palatable — from GoPro to AI hair clips ▸ Meta's facial recognition plans, data harvesting, and what it means for privacy ▸ The Meta Gala, OpenAI's fashion world infiltration, and Snap's $2,000 AR flop ▸ How anti-phone and anti-screen sentiment is fueling the rise of ambient computing, AI pendants, pins, and camera-equipped AirPods ▸ Who actually owns the data Meta's AI glasses collect 

Kara is joined by guest co-host, the one and only Anthony Scaramucci. Kara and The Mooch break down Trump inserting himself into the World Cup, and his latest line of attack: communism. Then, Trump Accounts are officially launched. Despite the name, are they actually a good idea? Plus, DOGE officially ends, Zuckerberg gets real about Meta's AI progress, and why Taylor Swift's wedding was better than Jeff Bezos'. Watch this episode on the ⁠⁠Pivot YouTube channel⁠⁠.Follow us on Instagram and Threads at ⁠⁠@pivotpodcastofficial⁠⁠.Follow us on Bluesky at ⁠⁠@pivotpod.bsky.social⁠⁠Follow us on TikTok at ⁠⁠@pivotpodcast⁠⁠.Send us your questions by calling us at 855-51-PIVOT, or email Pivot@voxmedia.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I know so many of you—especially those running e-commerce stores—are constantly looking for ways to get more eyeballs on your products. That is exactly why I am thrilled to bring you today's guest. Tara Zirker is the absolute queen of ad experts, highly recommended to me by people I deeply trust. She is the founder of the Successful Ads Club, and today, she is breaking down the exact rules of digital advertising so you can stop wasting money and start scaling. If you've ever felt like you're just writing a blind check to Mark Zuckerberg every month with zero conversions, this episode is a breath of fresh air. Key Takeaways From This Episode: The Reality of "Facebook" Ads: When you run Facebook ads, you're actually logging into Meta's backend. If you give Meta full control, about 60% to 80% of your budget automatically allocates to Instagram anyway. But don't sleep on Facebook—it has become the number one platform for customer acquisition over the last couple of years. The Magic Number for Outsourcing: Don't hand over your ad account keys too early! Tara notes that across the industry, it rarely makes financial sense to hire an agency until you are spending $5,000 to $10,000 a month in-house. Good e-comm agencies charge starting retainers in that same $5k–$10k range. If you outsource too early to a cheap agency, they will spend your budget trying to "learn" your specific account's nuances anyway. The Power of In-House Ownership: As founders and owners, we have to understand our own metrics before we hand them off. When you're spending around $5k a month, maintaining your ads should only take you 2 to 3 hours per month once it's up and running. Tara recommends bringing a team member along (like a social manager or VA) to learn the ropes with you. The Meta Algorithm Update: Meta rolled out a massive algorithm update called Andromeda (on its way to an even newer algorithm called GEM). Essentially, Meta has layered an organic-style algorithm onto paid ads. If your ads get high engagement and excitement, the algorithm rewards your account. If they are "blah," you get penalized. Unstick Your Account with Creative Diversity: The key to winning the ad game right now is creative diversity. If your account feels stuck, mix it up with static ads, carousels, memes, GIFs, collages, videos, and UGC (User Generated Content). In Tara's Words... "Advertising is something you can win at if you know the rules. In fact, it is virtually impossible to not win once you understand how the game works. The value of a great media buyer is to scale the winners and get rid of the losers quickly, because the losers are what waste all your money." Connect with Tara: Want to get your hands dirty and finally figure out your digital marketing fate? Tara has an incredible free training coming up where she dives deep into the mistakes business owners make on Meta and how to fix them. Sign Up for Tara's Free Class Here! (https://successfuladsclub.com/freetraining) Website: Successful Ads Club (https://www.successfuladsclub.com) Instagram: @tarazirker Ready to make your Facebook and Instagram ads actually work for your business? Tara Zirker's Successful Ads Accelerator walks you through building and running profitable ad campaigns step by step — no agency or years of experience required. Over 3,000 entrepreneurs have used her proven system to launch campaigns and get results the same day. You can get your first month for just $37 using my affiliate link: https://www.successfuladsclub.com/ShareTheLove?ref=95340 Work with Me - https://www.ciarastockeland.com/work-with-meVisit the Bookstore - https://www.ciarastockeland.com/bookstoreSign Up for Free Weekly Tips and Trainings - https://www.ciarastockeland.com/subscribe

If you’re looking for the Taylor wedding debrief you’re in the wrong place. That’s in the special Emergency episode we dropped this morning, so scroll back, or click here. Here, we unpack Prince William’s appearance on a very brotherly podcast, and Harry’s latest U-turn on his trip home. Also - is 18 too young to carry a nation’s football hopes? Protective mums and former footballers say yes. Lucas Herrington says no. And, Albo made a mess of a classic gotcha game while trying to stay relevant on a podcast. Kylie Minogue isn’t always the answer. And, “glassholes”. They’re everywhere. Join the waitlist for Very Peri, Mamamia's exclusive perimenopause series launching very soon. 25 world-leading experts, over 20 on-demand sessions, instant access. We’ve sorted through the noise so you don't have to. Go to veryperi.com.au today. You hot? Same. What To Listen To Next: Listen to Amelia's Zuckerberg story: Facebook User #60: Amelia Lester’s Wild Origin Story Listen to our latest episode: Emergency Meeting: Taylor Wedding Debrief With Holly & Mia Listen: The Influencer Who Disappeared & An Outlouder Made Clare Cry Listen: 9 Questions To Ask Before Going 'No Contact' Listen: ‘Old Money’ Face & The Fight Millennials Are Having With Their Parents Listen: “Emotional Blackmail” An Update On Harry’s Visit Home Listen: A ‘Food Free’ House & Everything We Know About Taylor’s Wedding Connect your subscription to Apple Podcasts Check out the Mamamia Out Loud newsletter. Discover more Mamamia Podcasts here including the very latest episode of Parenting Out Loud, the parenting podcast for people who don't listen to... parenting podcasts. SUBSCRIBE here: Support independent women's media You can now watch our show in full length video on the Apple Podcast app - make sure your phone is up to date and we can't wait for you to see Mamamia Out Loud on Apple What to read: 'I've also been called "difficult". I'm done apologising for it.' Every single Taylor and Travis wedding update you missed since the big day. Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce are officially married. This is what we know. Prince William just gave his most candid interview. One comment lands like a message to his brother. THE END BITS: Check out our merch at MamamiaOutLoud.com GET IN TOUCH: Feedback? We’re listening. Send us an email at outloud@mamamia.com.au Share your story, feedback, or dilemma! Send us a voice message. Join our Facebook group Mamamia Outlouders to talk about the show. Follow us on Instagram @mamamiaoutloud and on Tiktok @mamamiaoutloud Mamamia acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the Land on which we have recorded this podcast.Become a Mamamia subscriber: https://www.mamamia.com.au/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of The Circuit, Ben and Jay break down the recent volatility and AI fatigue hitting semiconductor stocks. They analyze how retail "tourists" and passive index funds might be driving market valuations ahead of actual fundamentals. The hosts also unpack the rumors surrounding Meta reportedly leasing data center capacity to Google, debating whether Mark Zuckerberg's broad AI vision is struggling to align with the company's core advertising model, or if the company is simply bartering excess compute for access to coding tools like Gemini. Finally, the conversation shifts to the evolving foundry landscape, highlighting Infineon's new 300mm fab in Germany and Samsung's strategic use of its memory business to win new logic deals. They conclude with a warning about the unprecedented pricing power and margin expansion currently rippling through the entire semiconductor supply chain

What drives a man to turn down half a million pounds at 18, test Mark Zuckerberg's sincerity over dinner, and wonder aloud if he can win a second Nobel Prize? For Demis Hassabis, co-founder and CEO of Google DeepMind, the answer is a lifelong pursuit of artificial general intelligence — and an unshakeable belief that the technology he's creating will change everything about what it means to be human. Oz speaks with journalist and author Sebastian Mallaby about his new book, The Infinity Machine: Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence, tracing Demis's extraordinary journey from chess prodigy to the man at the center of the most consequential technological race of our time. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Group Chat is back, and this one's a masterclass in how the internet actually works now. The guys sit down with Max Peterson, the 23 year old who built a seven figure clipping empire, paying out over $3 million to 38,000 clippers. Max breaks down how brands like Taco Bell turn podcasts and events into millions of views. Then the crew gets into Meta's surprise new business, Elon's rumored iPhone killer, and why Nike might be the most fixable company in America. This week's Group Chat covers: From posting memes at 12 to running clipping campaigns for Taco Bell and major brands Max Peterson's come up: bootstrapping a seven-figure business on $2,500 The new American dream making $30K a month just posting clips How clipping works and why every brand will soon have to pay for it Meta's surprise pivot selling its excess AI compute like AWS, and why the stock popped The investing lesson hiding in plain sight: when Zuckerberg tells you the plan, believe him SpaceX's rumored phone Starlink connected, slimmer than the iPhone, and coming for Apple Why Elon might be the only one who can actually dethrone the iPhone Bending Spoons' IPO and the business of buying dying brands (AOL, Vimeo, Evernote) Nike's big miss the US Men's Soccer merch fumble and how to fix the brand Michael Burry shorting Nvidia and Tesla, and the Substack doom grift The $40M Sam Altman movie Amazon shelved because no one wants to upset OpenAI Plus World Cup fever, team USA mania, and why history keeps repeating itself in marketing. Drop us a 5-star rating and a review if you're rocking with the show.