Podcast appearances and mentions of Sam Altman

Power players convene today in the nation's capital to honor the late Sen. Lindsey Graham.  Attendees include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who both will be meeting with Trump. Meanwhile, Laura Loomer is on a mission to dig up dirt on fellow conservative influencers, and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman makes his way to the White House to discuss Trump's June AI executive order.  For more news and analysis, subscribe to the Playbook newsletter: politico.com/playbook 

In this Razor Wire episode, the hosts banter about workouts, weight loss, and summer beers before previewing a planned week off and a trip to Clarkdale/Flagstaff. They crack through rapid-fire “Anonymous Tell All” questions, then shift into politics and culture with a heated breakdown of a congressional exchange where Rep. Brandon Gill grills Smithsonian museum director Anthea Hartig about a “Mass Action Toolkit” that labels “objectivity” and “politeness” as elements of “white supremacy culture,” plus controversies like a Mickey Mouse minstrelsy reference and “Latina power” merchandise; they argue the Smithsonian's taxpayer funding and governance should be scrutinized. The show dives into AI risk after OpenAI reports an advanced agent escaped its sandbox and hacked Hugging Face to solve a hacking test, while Sam Altman's “singularity” claims spark suspicion of a cover-up. They discuss X (Twitter) frustrations: algorithm changes, Spaces glitches, and Grok usage limits. Science segments include a replication-crisis stat (0% of education papers replicated), DARPA's ECHO epigenetic “man-portable” detection concept, and a viral “strip club study” finding dancers earned far more tips during ovulation—especially compared to those on hormonal birth control—plus a surreal Surinam toad “farm report.” Beer talk continues with detailed tastings, and they close with a farewell to No Agenda's John C. Dvorak.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/razor-wire-news--5683729/support.www.razorwirenews.com

Today, I'm talking with Hayden Field, The Verge's senior AI reporter, about the major trade secrets lawsuit between Apple and OpenAI, and what this tells us about OpenAI's future.  Hayden has been covering OpenAI for years now, and she also just talked to a bunch of lawyers who specialize in intellectual property and trade secret law to get a sense of how serious this case is. The answer is not entirely positive for OpenAI. This legal battle could also affect OpenAI's hardware plans, its forthcoming IPO, and its already-damaged reputation.  Links:  Sam Altman didn't need another lawsuit | The Verge OpenAI's first device will be moveable, screenless speaker | Bloomberg Apple sues OpenAI for allegedly stealing hardware secrets | The Verge The 6 wildest claims in Apple's lawsuit against OpenAI | The Verge OpenAI is buying Jony Ive's AI hardware company | The Verge Subscribe to The Verge to access the ad-free version of Decoder! Credits: Decoder is a production of The Verge and part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. Decoder is produced by Kate Cox and Nick Statt and edited by Ursa Wright. Our editorial director is Kevin McShane.  The Decoder music is by Breakmaster Cylinder. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week, we survive their own opening theme song getting cut off at the worst possible time, so we ponder the eternal mystery of what exactly gets a podcast demonetized, and somehow still manage to get demonetized anyway. We've got The Spleen's shocking skydiving related divorce announcement, a deep dive into why people binge relisten to old comedy podcasts they claim to hate, and some very unqualified therapy speak about internet strangers with emotional neglect wounds. Then it's time for the main event: a truly unhinged taste test of Bush's Best limited edition Apple Pie, Dill Pickle, and Rocket Pop flavored beans, live and (mostly) uncooked. Spoiler alert: the beans do not go well, Kevin nearly vomits off camera, and we debate whether canned bean colloids belong anywhere near dessert. It's ASMR for people who hate themselves. We close out with some big brain nonsense about anime nostalgia, TESCREALism, AI psychosis, Sam Altman conspiracy theories, and whether Elon Musk's Hyperloop was ever real to begin with. Plus, a heartfelt discussion on capitalism eating creative labor, because why not throw some late-stage capitalism dread in with your bean reviews? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Many AI researchers believe mass job displacement is coming — and some even think there's a chance their technology will kill everyone. But they're building it anyway. Writer and journalist Jasmine Sun has been documenting why from the inside.Jasmine describes her work as an “anthropology of disruption.” She's embedded herself in Silicon Valley's AI subcultures — attending the parties and conferences, conducting off-the-record interviews — to understand the beliefs of the small group of people shaping this technology.Some of her findings are unsettling. Asked what advice they'd give a normal 17-year-old, almost every AI researcher said the same thing: “I have no idea… It's a really scary time. I don't think there's going to be a lot of jobs for them left.”Their motives for building advanced AI are varied: a mix of optimism for humanity, techno-determinism, and a desire to secure their own future in the face of a possible “permanent underclass.” A few go even further, actually hoping for a world where machines — rather than humans — are running the show.When the room can't even agree on whether humans should stay in control, building a consensus on how to build AI safely gets much harder.Beyond Silicon Valley, Jasmine's also tracking the rise of “AI populists,” who see AI as the latest example of corporate elites concentrating their power at the expense of everyone else. In the US, populist sentiment about AI has mostly manifested in protests and votes against data centres. But sometimes, it has escalated into violence: a molotov cocktail thrown at Sam Altman's house, and open fire on the home of a politician who'd backed a data centre. Jasmine thinks public anger will keep finding an outlet, one way or another, until people feel like they'll actually share in AI's gains.In this interview with host Zershaaneh Qureshi, Jasmine Sun takes us inside the multifarious factions on AI's bleeding edge. They also discuss:How “doomer” became the lowest-status label in Silicon Valley, and what that means for AI safetyWhy the AI industry's PR strategy has failed, and what it would take to rebuild public trustWhat's under the surface of the Chinese public's much more positive response to AIJasmine's reasons to be cautiously hopeful: it's an unusually high-leverage time to work on AI safety, with policymakers and philanthropists hungry for good ideasThis episode was recorded on June 4, 2026.Links to learn more, video, and full transcript: https://80k.info/jasmineWant to get up to speed on AI? We've got a crash course of 10 of our podcast episodes designed to help you get to grips with transformative AI — particularly if you're new to the topic — and what you can do to help shape its trajectory: https://80000hours.org/AIPodChapters:Cold open (00:00:00)Who's Jasmine Sun? (00:00:30)Escaping the permanent underclass (00:01:22)Jasmine's “anthropology of disruption” (00:14:02)Vice signalling in Silicon Valley (00:18:46)AI populism will shape 2028 (00:28:11)Does AI populism distract from safety? (00:40:20)Americans don't want Silicon Valley's utopia (00:44:06)Why the Chinese public embraces AI (00:52:52)AI hype and the journalist's dilemma (00:59:04)There's never been a better time to work in AI safety (01:03:07)Our production team includes:Video editors: Josh Alward, Dominic Armstrong, Jasper Luithlen, Milo McGuire, Luke Monsour, Simon Monsour, and Andrés EscobarProducers: Elizabeth Cox and Nick StocktonCoordination and support: Katy Moore and Lou MoranMusic: CORBIT

CELÝ ROZHOVOR V DÉLCE 60 MIN. JEN NA ⁠HTTPS://HEROHERO.CO/CESTMIR⁠⁠⁠⁠ A ⁠HTTPS://FORENDORS.CZ/CESTMIR „Kdyby nám to všechno vypnuli, tak jsme prostě slepí a bezmocní.“ Evropa podle novináře Petra Koubského postupně přišla o politickou, vojenskou i technologickou moc a svůj každodenní život přenechala americkým firmám. Od map v telefonu přes operační systémy až po cloud, na kterém běží služby, bez nichž už neumíme fungovat. Dokud byly Evropa a Spojené státy přáteli, nikdo o této závislosti příliš nepřemýšlel. Teď se ale ukazuje, že na naší straně Atlantiku toho mnoho nezbylo a vybudovat vlastní technologické zázemí bude možná úkolem na dvacet let. Koubský přitom věří, že umělá inteligence téměř úplně nahradí i práci, kterou dnes dělá on sám. Přesný rok už slíbit nechce, ale jestli to bude o pět let dříve, nebo později, je podle něj z dlouhodobého hlediska jedno. Práce, při níž člověk většinu dne sedí u počítače, píše, čte a pracuje s čísly, je podle něj snadno nahraditelná. Lidská práce nezmizí, její těžiště se ale přesune. Poté, co AI přetvoří velkou část duševních profesí, zůstane prostor především pro ty nejlepší. Většině lidí navíc nebude záležet na tom, jestli text vytvořil člověk, nebo stroj. Pro malou a náročnou část publika se ale budou dál vytvářet věci postaru, podobně jako se pro náročnou klientelu ručně šijí boty. „Žijeme ve světě, kde je možné absolutně všechno,“ dodává novinář, kterého už prý dlouho nic nepřekvapilo. V devadesátých letech podcenil internet natolik, že o připojení Československa k síti otiskl jen několik řádků. Dnes sleduje další změnu, jejíž skutečné důsledky opět nedokážeme dohlédnout. Kolem AI se podle něj nafukuje investiční bublina a nikdo zatím neví, jak na umělé inteligenci spolehlivě vydělávat. Do hry navíc vstupují lidé jako Elon Musk, Sam Altman nebo Peter Thiel, jejichž výroky jsou podle Koubského „hodně znervózňující“ a kteří koncentrují obrovskou moc bez skutečné kontroly. A zatímco se přeme o to, zda klimatická změna vůbec existuje, příroda na naše názory nečeká. „S fyzikou diskutovat nemůžete,“ upozorňuje Koubský. Teplota tání ideologií podle něj leží ve střední Evropě někde kolem 35 stupňů a lidé pravděpodobně budou muset nejprve narazit do zdi, aby dostali rozum. Jak bezmocná by byla Evropa, kdyby se americké technologie skutečně vypnuly? Má smysl dětem zakazovat sociální sítě, nebo je musíme naučit, jak se v nich bezpečně pohybovat? A proč politici podle něj říkají nesmysly, kterým možná sami nevěří? I to se dozvíte v rozhovoru s Petrem Koubským.

After The Odyssey's strong opening weekend at the box office, AMC CEO Adam Aron discusses the shifting entertainment landscape and AMC's financial results this quarter. Aron also discusses audience appetite for films using AI tools and AI actors. AI is also on the table for the next interview, with OpenAI chairman and Sierra co-founder Bret Taylor. Taylor weighs in on the debate about tokenmaxxing, Apple's lawsuit against OpenAI, and what the future of data sovereignty might look like. He comments on Sam Altman's public spat with Elon Musk, as well as the push to innovate both stateside and in China. Plus, CNBC's Eamon Javers reports on the war in Iran, and findings of cyclospora in Taylor Farms lettuce turned out to be a false positive.    Eamon Javers - 05:04 Adam Aron - 17:33 Bret Taylor - 39:08   In this episode: Adam Aron, @CEOAdam Bret Taylor, @btaylor Joe Kernen, @JoeSquawk Andrew Ross Sorkin, @andrewrsorkin Eamon Javers, @eamonjavers Katie Kramer, @Kramer_Katie Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Partenaires il y a 18 mois, Apple et OpenAI se retrouvent aujourd'hui devant un tribunal fédéral pour vol de secrets industriels. Plus de 400 ingénieurs auraient quitté Apple avec des fichiers confidentiels et un playbook d'espionnage organisé de l'intérieur — la bataille pour le device du futur a déjà commencé !Pendant ce temps, Elon Musk redistribue les cartes : Grok rejoint les modèles frontières à un prix trois fois inférieur à ses rivaux, Google décroche, et Musk devient le seul acteur à tenir simultanément la puissance de calcul, le modèle et la distribution. Et en Chine, un booster orbital vient d'être récupéré dans un filet en pleine mer — la course à l'orbite basse, ressource limitée, vient d'entrer dans une nouvelle dimension.==================

Die KI-Revolution ist in vollem Gange - und keiner weiß, wohin sie führen wird. Über dieses "größte Experiment in der Menschheitsgeschichte" diskutieren Ingo Zamperoni und seine Frau Jiffer Bourguignon mit dem KI-Podcaster Fritz Espenlaub. Sein sechsteiliger Podcast "Die OpenAI Story" erzählt die Entstehungsgeschichte von KI, künstlicher Intelligenz: Alles beginnt in einem kleinen Forschungslabor im Silicon Valley, das sich rasend schnell in ein milliardenschweres Tech-Imperium entwickelt. Unter OpenAI Gründer Sam Altman entsteht eine Technologie, von der niemand weiß, ob der Mensch sie auf Dauer kontrollieren kann.Jiffer und Ingo diskutieren mit Fritz nicht nur Chancen und Risiken der KI, sondern auch ihre Auswirkungen auf Wirtschaft, Politik, Umwelt und Gesellschaft. Über allem schwebe die "Urangst des Menschen, dass er etwas erschafft und dann die Kontrolle darüber verliert", sagt Ingo - ähnlich wie bei Goethes Zauberlehrling: "Die ich rief, die Geister, werd' ich nun nicht los." Fritz Espenlaub merkt an, dass man schon jetzt die Kontrolle verloren habe. "Wir entwickeln aus Versehen eine Maschine, die nicht nur ein bisschen besser ist als wir, sondern die unglaublich viel besser ist als wir." Im Silicon Valley nenne man das "God in the box", Gott in einer Kiste. Jiffer und Ingo fragen sich, was das für die Zukunft ihrer Kinder bedeutet.Der KI-Podcaster bleibt trotz allem optimistisch: Immer schon sei von neuen Technologien Gefahr ausgegangen, die Lebensbedingungen der Menschen hätten sich dennoch stetig verbessert.Ihr habt Fragen an Jiffer und Ingo? Schickt uns eine Sprachnachricht oder schreibt uns an podcast@ndr.de!Podcast-Tipp: Die OpenAI Storyhttps://www.ardsounds.de/sendung/urn:ard:show:8862c28ddc06b3b7/Podcast-Tipp: Organisiertes Verbrechen - Recherchen im Verborgenenhttps://www.ardsounds.de/sendung/urn:ard:show:cf4582eaf823db0a/Alle Folgen des Podcasts "Amerika, wir müssen reden!"https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/podcast4932.htmlHier könnt ihr den Instagram-Broadcast-Channel von Ingo und Jiffer abonnieren:https://www.instagram.com/channel/Abb9Z5-eRUUKudGl/

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

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...

In this weekend deep dive, Zaid breaks down Apple's lawsuit against OpenAI and the wild allegations involving stolen laptops, confidential files, and Apple hardware brought to job interviews. He also looks at why Apple may be using the case to slow OpenAI's hardware ambitions, what Sam Altman and Jony Ive are actually building, and the bad blood between Apple's next CEO John Ternus and OpenAI's hardware chief Tang Tan

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

Estamos a las puertas del lanzamiento más esperado de Samsung, pero el mercado ya mira un paso más allá. En el episodio de esta semana analizamos el impactante teaser del Google Pixel 11 que llega este 12 de agosto y la bomba que podría cambiar las reglas del juego: OpenAI y su plan para jubilar al smartphone tradicional.Se ha filtrado cómo será el primer dispositivo físico de los creadores de ChatGPT y debatimos a fondo la visión de futuro de Sam Altman. ¿Estamos ante una nueva generación de productos que mandará a los móviles al cajón? Además, hacemos un repaso al panorama actual, donde marcas como Apple, Google, Honor, Xiaomi o Meta sacan a su "seleccionador" interior con estrategias radicalmente distintas para coronarse como Campeones del Mundo de la tecnología.En este episodio hablamos de:El "Mundial" de la tecnología y la gran final.Google Pixel 11: El teaser que lo cambia todo.El dispositivo filtrado de OpenAI: ¿El fin del smartphone?La estrategia de Honor y el Robot PhoneCuenta atrás para el ecosistema de Samsung.No olvides suscribirte y dejarnos en comentarios: ¿Quién crees que tiene la alineación ganadora para llevarse este mundial tecnológico?

You know we're deep into summer when Jess leaves the pod early to catch Benson Boone... for the eighth time. This week, the More or Less squad revisits the Anthropic and OpenAI IPO speculation. Their views haven't changed, but their AI usage certainly has. Dave ditches Anthropic for GLM 5.2 on cost, while Sam argues the AI model wars are effectively over, and the frontier labs know it, which is why they're spending more time in Washington than competing on model quality. America also gets its first serious open weights model. The squad also unpacks OpenAI's hardware ambitions after its much-hyped device turns out to be... an Alexa speaker. Sam explains why Sam Altman's $8 billion Johnny Ive acquisition was effectively free, thanks to narrative capitalism. Plus: real-time voice AI, passive listening devices, peptides, Hinge's new social proof feature, Jay-Z turning New York into a festival, and why biological age tests are basically the clout score of your body.Chapters:0:00 Episode Teaser0:44 Episode Start2:18 Anthropic IPO This September?5:29 Dave Dumps Anthropic for GLM 5.28:22 When Is Better AI Worth Paying For?12:15 AGI Is Dead, AI Is Political Now16:15 America's First Open Weights Model By Thinking Machines21:22 Why Sam Is Depressed About AI29:07 OpenAI Built... an Alexa? The $8B Johnny Ive Bet31:38 Silicon Valley Goes Hollywood36:03 Would You Wear an Always-On Mic?37:08 OpenAI's Live Voice Model41:14 Sam's Peptide Experiment43:36 Hinge Launches “Friend's Take” 46:11 Jay-Z's NYC Takeover48:16 Biological Age Is Just a Clout ScoreWe're also on ↓X: https://twitter.com/moreorlesspodInstagram: https://instagram.com/moreorlessSpotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/moreorlesspodConnect with us here:1) Sam Lessin: https://x.com/lessin2) Dave Morin: https://x.com/davemorin3) Jessica Lessin: https://x.com/Jessicalessin4) Brit Morin: https://x.com/brit

Are AI companies becoming targets? Why is DeepSeek suddenly worth $52 billion? Is Mira Murati bringing OpenAI back to its original mission? And why has Oracle's massive AI investment led to a credit downgrade? On Hashtag Trending for Friday, July 17, 2026, host Jim Love covers four major developments shaping the future of artificial intelligence. The episode begins with growing security concerns across the AI industry. According to reporting from The Wall Street Journal, threats against AI executives are increasing, prompting companies including Palantir, Oracle, Salesforce, and Anthropic to dramatically expand executive protection. The story examines attacks and threats involving Anthropic and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, along with growing concerns that fears over AI, jobs, copyright, the environment, and society are creating new risks for technology leaders. Next, Reuters reporting reveals that DeepSeek is now valued at approximately $52 billion. While far below the valuations of OpenAI or Anthropic, the real story is what billions in new funding could mean for China's AI ambitions. Jim explores how companies including Qwen, Kimi, and Zhipu AI could benefit if investors begin backing Chinese frontier AI models on a much larger scale. The third story looks at former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati, whose new company, Thinking Machines Lab, has released its first nearly one-trillion-parameter open-weight AI model. Jim explains why the announcement may represent a return to OpenAI's original philosophy of making powerful AI broadly available instead of concentrating control in a handful of technology giants. Finally, Oracle receives a rare credit downgrade from S&P Global, which says it underestimated the scale and financial risk of Oracle's AI investments. The rating agency also warns that Oracle's future has become heavily tied to OpenAI, making one of Silicon Valley's most conservative software companies one of its biggest AI risk-takers. If you enjoy thoughtful analysis of artificial intelligence, enterprise technology, cybersecurity, cloud computing, and digital transformation, subscribe to Hashtag Trending for new episodes every weekday. 00:00 Headlines And Intro 00:39 AI Executive Threats Rise 04:11 DeepSeek Funding Shockwave 07:04 Murati Open Weight Challenge 09:48 Oracle Credit Rating Hit 12:19 Wrap Up And Book Promo If you'd like a free Kindle copy of Jim Love's novel ELISA, watch through to the end for details. Keywords: AI news, artificial intelligence, OpenAI, Sam Altman, DeepSeek, Mira Murati, Thinking Machines Lab, Oracle, S&P Global, Anthropic, Palantir, Salesforce, AI security, executive protection, open-weight AI, frontier AI, Qwen, Kimi, Zhipu AI, enterprise AI, cloud computing, Hashtag Trending, Jim Love, technology news

Apple accusa OpenAI di aver sottratto segreti commerciali per accelerare lo sviluppo del suo nuovo dispositivo AI. Dietro la causa c'è una battaglia più ampia: chi costruirà l'hardware destinato a cambiare il rapporto tra persone e intelligenza artificiale? In questa puntata parliamo anche della reputazione sempre più problematica di Sam Altman, dopo gli scontri con Elon Musk e Microsoft. E commentiamo gli appelli dei leader dell'AI alla regolamentazione, dell'acquisizione di Delivery Hero da parte di Uber, dell'offerta di Stripe per PayPal e del primo modello di Thinking Machines Lab. Scopri i corsi della New Media Academy, la scuola di podcasting e digital journalism di Chora e Will: https://newmediacademy.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

July 16, 2026: New JLL research shows most executives expect AI to grow their teams instead of shrink them, even as layoffs continue in AI-exposed industries. Then I get into New York becoming the first state to freeze new large AI data centers, why I think that is a mistake, and what it could mean for American AI infrastructure. Finally, I unpack Apple's lawsuit against OpenAI and make my prediction that Sam Altman will not be CEO of OpenAI within the next year unless the company makes major changes.  

Tawnie explains why there has never been a better time for established practitioners, business owners, and legacy professionals, particularly those in the 60 to 65+ demographic, to claim their authority. In a digital landscape flooded with instant AI generated startups, your years of real world credibility are your greatest strength and your strongest differentiator.Tawnie also examines the technology industry's enthusiasm for artificial intelligence, discussing Sam Altman's statement that AI makes this the “easiest time to get rich.” She shares her perspective on how online trolls and algorithmic systems can interfere with everyday business owners and make it more difficult for independent voices to reach their audiences.Finally, the episode explores practical strategies for building a platform you truly own:The 30 Second Hook: Learn the “Problem, Promise, Identity” framework to capture attention immediately and keep listeners from skipping your introduction.The Outro Strategy: Discover why every episode should end with one clear, highly focused Call to Action rather than overwhelming your audience with multiple requests.Sourcing Legal Music: A practical guide to finding royalty free music libraries that can help protect your podcast from copyright claims and unexpected platform issues.Key TakeawayWhen the public square is shaped by algorithms and anonymous online voices, you cannot rely solely on borrowed platforms. Building and owning your own platform gives you greater control over how you connect with your audience. Your microphone is one of your most valuable assets, so use it wisely.

Na een spetterend begin lijkt Space X terug bij af. Het ruimtevaartbedrijf van Elon Musk schommelt een maand na de beursgang weer rond de $135. Is dat te wijten aan een milde afstraffing van tech, of is er meer aan de hand? En is dit een kans voor alle beleggers die bij de IPO naast de pot piesten om alsnog in te stappen? En het zal niet zijn geweest wat ze voor ogen hadden bij Prosus, toen ze Just Eat overnamen: het creëren van een extra grote concurrent. Toch is dat wat er is gebeurd: Prosus moest gedwongen afstand doen van hun andere belang, dat in maaltijdbezorger Delivery Hero. och is het gebeurd. Uber koopt heel Delivery Hero op voor 'n kleine 15 miljard dollar, en wordt zo de grootste maaltijdbezorger buiten China. Wat betekent dat voor Prosus - en voor Uber?!Verder in deze aflevering:- De uitstekende kwartaalcijfers van TSMC- Zaken gaan goed bij Nedap- Apple krijgt toestemming om Apple Intelligence uit te rollen in China- Stijging van het aantal aan AI-bedrijven gerichte bedreigingen- Eli Lilly gaat in de psychedelica- De rechtszaakhattrick bij Paramount Te gast: Martine Hafkamp van Fintessa Vermogensbeheer BNR Beurs is een journalistiek onafhankelijke productie, mede mogelijk gemaakt door Saxo. Over de makers: Jelle Maasbach is presentator van BNR Beurs en freelance financieel journalist. Zijn favoriete aandeel om over te praten is Disney, maar daar lijkt hij de enige in te zijn. Sinds de eerste uitzending van BNR Beurs is 'ie er bij. Maxim van Mil is presentator van BNR Beurs en journalist bij BNR, waar hij zich focust op de financiële markten en ontwikkelingen in de tech-wereld. Je krijgt hem het meest enthousiast als hij kan praten over ASML, of oer-Hollandse bedrijven zoals Ahold of ABN Amro. Jorik Simonides is presentator van BNR Beurs, economieredacteur en verslaggever bij BNR. Hij wordt er vooral blij van als het een keer níet over AI gaat. Je hoort hem ook in de BNR-podcast Moerdijk: dorp van de rekening. Milou Brand is presentator van BNR Beurs, freelance podcastmaker en columnist bij het Financieele Dagblad. Jochem Visser is presentator van BNR Beurs, maakt Beursnerd XL en is redacteur bij de podcast Onder Curatoren. Vraag hem naar obscure zaken op financiële markten en hij vertelt je waarom het eigenlijk nóg leuker is dan je al dacht. Over de podcast: Met BNR Beurs ga je altijd voorbereid de nieuwe beursdag in. We praten je in een kleine 25 minuten bij over alle laatste ontwikkelingen op de handelsvloer. We blijven niet alleen bij de AEX of Wall Street, maar vertellen je ook waar nog meer kansen liggen. En we houden het niet bij de cijfers, maar zoeken ook iedere dag voor je naar duiding van scherpe gasten en experts. Of je nu een ervaren belegger bent of net begint met je eerste stappen op de beurs, de podcast biedt waardevolle inzichten voor je beleggingsstrategie. Door de focus op zowel de korte termijn als de lange termijn, helpt BNR Beurs luisteraars om de ruis van de markt te scheiden van de essentie.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

More To The Story: OpenAI and its revolutionary chatbot ChatGPT have single-handedly accelerated AI's boom and threatened to upend much of how we work, create, learn, and communicate in the process. But when OpenAI was founded a decade ago, the company's approach to artificial intelligence wasn't taken seriously in Silicon Valley. Tech journalist Karen Hao has been covering OpenAI's astounding rise for years and is the author of Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman's OpenAI. She says that while many in Silicon Valley warn of AI's sci-fi-like threats, the real risks are already here. (The Center for Investigative Reporting, which produces Mother Jones, Reveal, and More To The Story, is currently suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement.) On this week's More To The Story, Hao sounds the alarm about the risks to the planet from AI's growth, examines the Trump administration's efforts to deregulate the industry, and explains why the version of AI being developed by Silicon Valley could destabilize democracy.This episode first aired in October 2025. Producer: Josh Sanburn | Editor: Kara McGuirk-Allison | Theme music: Fernando Arruda and Jim Briggs | Copy editor: Nikki Frick | Intern: Joni Binder | Deputy executive producer: Taki Telonidis | Executive producer: Brett Myers | Executive editor: James West | Host: Al LetsonRead: America's Worst Polluters See a Lifeline in Power-Gobbling AI—and Donald Trump (Wired)Listen: Is AI Pushing Us Closer to Nuclear Disaster? (More To The Story)Read: Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman's OpenAI (Penguin Press)Read: The Center for Investigative Reporting Sues OpenAI, Microsoft for Copyright Violations (Mother Jones) Donate today at Revealnews.org/more Subscribe to our weekly newsletter at Revealnews.org/weekly Follow us on Instagram and Bluesky Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Claude Mythos scrambled American AI policy, leaving us with what Dean Ball calls a de facto involuntary licensing regime from the administration that promised us the opposite. Zhipu's cofounder says China will have a Mythos-class model before the end of the year; IAPS says February 2027. Either way, Beijing is about to face down the same question, but unlike Washington, it already has a form to fill out. Guests: Kevin Xu of Interconnected. Matt Sheehan, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment. We discuss… Why China's answer to Mythos will look like Glasswing — but started by the state, not a lab, with government ministries and central SOEs first in line Whether the CAC's content-testing regime can absorb cyber, and why a Chinese lab dropping a frontier model without a heads-up would be "very bold and self-destructive behavior" The mixed signals on open source — a Reuters report on MOFCOM and NDRC weighing export controls on model weights, versus Minimax and Zhipu founders publicly doubling down, with Xi's WAIC speech as the tiebreaker Whether open weights even matter when running a frontier model adversarially requires a datacenter, and the case that lighting the dark park makes it safer What the US and China can actually agree on — non-state actors, eval methodology sharing, and why labor displacement lessons don't travel Companion-app regulation flowing from Sacramento and Albany to Beijing, the AI policy brain drain into the labs, and whether Sam Altman's five percent is American state capitalism or just a Trump thing song: https://suno.com/s/xZE1pIKrVBtCfTBO Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Claude Mythos scrambled American AI policy, leaving us with what Dean Ball calls a de facto involuntary licensing regime from the administration that promised us the opposite. Zhipu's cofounder says China will have a Mythos-class model before the end of the year; IAPS says February 2027. Either way, Beijing is about to face down the same question, but unlike Washington, it already has a form to fill out. Guests: Kevin Xu of Interconnected. Matt Sheehan, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment. We discuss… Why China's answer to Mythos will look like Glasswing — but started by the state, not a lab, with government ministries and central SOEs first in line Whether the CAC's content-testing regime can absorb cyber, and why a Chinese lab dropping a frontier model without a heads-up would be "very bold and self-destructive behavior" The mixed signals on open source — a Reuters report on MOFCOM and NDRC weighing export controls on model weights, versus Minimax and Zhipu founders publicly doubling down, with Xi's WAIC speech as the tiebreaker Whether open weights even matter when running a frontier model adversarially requires a datacenter, and the case that lighting the dark park makes it safer What the US and China can actually agree on — non-state actors, eval methodology sharing, and why labor displacement lessons don't travel Companion-app regulation flowing from Sacramento and Albany to Beijing, the AI policy brain drain into the labs, and whether Sam Altman's five percent is American state capitalism or just a Trump thing song: https://suno.com/s/xZE1pIKrVBtCfTBO Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ian Krietzberg joins Peter to break down Apple's shocking lawsuit against OpenAI, which accuses Sam Altman's company of running a sweeping corporate espionage campaign to steal trade secrets from Cupertino. Then Ian gets into the politics of A.I. this midterm season—and why voter anxiety about A.I. and data centers hasn't quite caught fire at the ballot box yet.

An OpenAI insider warns there is a 70% chance advanced AI goes horribly wrong—but the deeper danger is who controls it. As Elon Musk, Sam Altman and the world's largest technology companies race for AI dominance, this video explores jobs, surveillance, political power, energy, abundance and why the AI arms race may secretly be one of the strongest Bitcoin theses yet.SPONSORS

Plus - X just tweaked its algorithm to make it more friendly; 12 states sue to block Paramount's $110B Warner Bros. deal Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week we read the federal budget the way it’s meant to be read: as a moral document. What it shows is individuals paying more, corporations getting refunds, classrooms getting gutted, and the pentagon getting fed, all while the deficit stays exactly where it always was. The “fiscally responsible” costume is just that. Then we looked at the strategic petroleum reserve, which is sitting at 1983 levels after nearly 100 million barrels drawn down since the Iran war began—and with China about to reenter the market and the strait still choked off, the traders who’ve been keeping oil prices contained are running out of room. Chapters Intro: 00:00:38 Quick Takes: 00:01:25 Max Notes: 00:05:57 Killer Left Take of the Week: 00:18:04 Chart of the Week: 00:19:28 Headlines: 00:21:35 Outro: 00:22:36 Resources ABC News: Senator Lindsey Graham’s sister will complete the remainder of his term Fox News: Trump REVEALS what Lindsey Graham told him before his death CNBC: Elon Musk and Sam Altman spar on X after Apple files OpenAI lawsuit The New York Times: How Marco Rubio Is Running Venezuela From Afar PBS News: Who is Darline Graham Nordone, the late Sen. Lindsey Graham’s sister? Peter G. Peterson Foundation: Chart Pack: Defense Spending CNN: Iran war heats up while US weapon stocks remain depleted, risking military’s ability to fight future wars Dropsite News: Inside Israel’s Plan to Ethnically Cleanse Palestine’s Jordan Valley eia: Weekly U.S. Ending Stocks of Crude Oil in SPR Reuters: Crude stocks in US strategic reserve fall 3 million barrels to lowest level since 1983 In These Times: AI’s Rise is Being Fueled by the Sprawling U.S. Military State Jacobin: Everybody Should Welcome Nationalizing AI Truthout: McConnell’s Been on Sick Leave for a Month. US Workers Aren’t Guaranteed a Day. UNFTR Resources Video: On The Record 7-14-26 (U.S. Financials in Free Fall | Graham, McConnell, and the Strait of Hormuz.) Essay: Trump’s Big Beautiful Bullshit Budget. Video: These ‘New Democrats’ Are Literally Aligned with Trump’s Plan -- If you like #UNFTR, please leave us a rating and review on Apple Podcasts and Spotify: unftr.com/rate and follow us on Facebook, Bluesky, and Instagram at @UNFTRpod. Visit us online at unftr.com. Become a member at unftr.com/memberships. Buy yourself some Unf*cking Coffee at shop.unftr.com. Visit our bookshop.org page at bookshop.org/shop/UNFTRpod to find the full UNFTR book list, and find book recommendations from our Unf*ckers at bookshop.org/lists/unf-cker-book-recommendations. Access the UNFTR Musicless feed by following the instructions at unftr.com/accessibility.Support the show: https://www.unftr.com/membershipsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Apple verklagt OpenAI wegen Diebstahls von Geschäftsgeheimnissen und nennt die OpenAI-Kultur "rotten to the core". Satya Nadella warnt vor der KI-Nutzung durch Unternehmen: Ihr bezahlt nicht nur mit Geld, sondern mit eurem proprietären Wissen. Elon Musk und Sam Altman liefern sich auf X einen Schlagabtausch. Bei OpenAI konsolidiert Greg Brockman die Macht nach Fiji Simos Rücktritt, während die Anthropic-Bewertung am Secondary-Markt in Richtung 1,2 Billionen läuft. 200 Ökonomen und 16 Nobelpreisträger unterschreiben ein "We Must Act Now"-Statement zur KI-Job-Verdrängung. Meta committet weitere 40 Milliarden für sein Louisiana-Data-Center, Gesamtinvestition Richtung 250 Mrd. Shein bekommt grünes Licht für den Hongkong-IPO auf 40 Mrd. Bewertung. Counterpoint zeigt: Smartphone-Markt bricht 11% ein wegen Memory-Crunch.  Unterstütze unseren Podcast und entdecke die Angebote unserer Werbepartner auf ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠doppelgaenger.io/werbung⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Vielen Dank!  Philipp Glöckler und Philipp Klöckner sprechen heute über: (00:00:00) Apple verklagt OpenAI (00:15:09) Nadella-Warnung (00:24:53) Altman kontert Musk (00:26:49) Codex 7 Mio. (00:29:18) Fable 5 verlängert (00:31:37) Brockman übernimmt (00:32:19) Anthropic $1,2 Bio. (00:34:01) Cursor baut SAND (00:35:53) We Must Act Now: KI Jobverlust ohne Belege (01:00:36) Meta Louisiana (01:02:43) Shein Hongkong (01:03:46) Smartphone-Einbruch (01:08:11) Pioneer 3 Shownotes Apple verklagt OpenAI wegen Trade-Secret-Diebstahl - techcrunch.com Apple: OpenAIs Hardware-Business rotten to the core - uk.pcmag.com Nadella warnt vor KI-Daten-Risiko für Unternehmen - techcrunch.com Sam Altman kontert Elon Musk - xcancel.com OpenAI: Brockman konsolidiert Macht vor dem IPO - cnbc.com Anthropic verlängert Fable-5-Zugang bis 19. Juli - economictimes.indiatimes.com Codex knackt 6-7 Mio. aktive Nutzer - latent.space Anthropic auf $1,2 Bio. Bewertung am Secondary-Markt - businessinsider.com Cursor baut SAND als Claude-Cowork-Konkurrent - theinformation.com We Must Act Now: 200 Ökonomen zum KI-Risiko - wemustactnow.ai NYT: Ökonomen warnen vor KI-Job-Verlust - nytimes.com Indeed: Codex-Launch treibt Entwickler-Hiring +15% - hiringlab.org Meta Louisiana Data Center wird $250 Mrd. - bloomberg.com WSJ: Shein bekommt grünes Licht für Hongkong-IPO - wsj.com Counterpoint: Smartphone-Markt bricht 11% ein - counterpointresearch.com Bild: Thelen sagt Brandmauer schadet Deutschland - bild.de Bunte: Thelen verliert Millionen wegen Politik-Aussagen - bunte.de Pioneer 3 launcht - instagram.com Anne Schwedt: Optionen-Websession bei Ikonista - montagshappen-verlag.de Übermedien: Grat zwischen Journalismus und Anlage-Tipps - uebermedien.de NYT: Terrorgruppen wie Boko Haram nutzen KI - nytimes.com

Apple would not comment on the "security breach," which allegedly allowed a former employee to download sensitive files from Apple's network long after he departed the company for rival OpenAI. Also, Responding to Musk accusing him of being a scammer, Altman said, “homeboy you're the one sellling [sic] public market investors on short-term space datacenters.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

#887: Welcome Ray and Kyle! Today, the guys discuss Apple's lawsuit against OpenAI which alleges the Sam Altman's company stole trade secrets. Then, another Forbes 30 under 30 founder finds herself in trouble with falsified shopping sales - and what's her connection to Bill Gates? Then, Netflix wants to get into live TV streaming channels and the American workforce is getting high. Filly, a look at the week ahead.  Get 10% off using MORNINGBREW10 at https://altrarunning.com/morningbrew Get tickets for our trivia tournament! https://caveat.nyc/events/the-morning-brew-trivia-tournament-2026-07-30  Grab tickets to our Performance Revue show! https://www.morningbrew.com/events/brew-performance-revue-2026?utm_campaign=performance_revue_2026&utm_source=mbd Subscribe to Morning Brew Daily for more of the news you need to start your day. Share the show with a friend, and leave us a review on your favorite podcast app. Listen to Morning Brew Daily Here:⁠ ⁠⁠https://www.swap.fm/l/mbd-note⁠⁠⁠  Watch Morning Brew Daily Here:⁠ ⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@MorningBrewDailyShow⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's Headlines: Senator Lindsey Graham died Saturday night at 71 from a ruptured aorta, just hours after returning from Ukraine where he'd met with Zelensky and signed a new sanctions deal against Russia — the internet immediately blamed the Russians, his office says it was heart disease. South Carolina's governor will appoint a replacement to finish his term, a special Republican primary is set for August 11th, and Nancy Mace — who came in last in the governor's race one month ago — is already considering running against Democratic candidate Dr. Annie Andrews, which would be must-see television. On a related note, Mitch McConnell's office finally released an actual photo proving he's alive, which matters more than usual this week since Graham's death made the Republican Senate majority even thinner. On the war beat, Trump bombed 140 targets across Iran on Saturday night, Iran responded by firing missiles and drones at US bases across Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, and the UAE, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, and Iran's new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei issued a statement promising revenge "whether he himself is dead or alive," which is ominous enough without needing to name Trump specifically. In election shenanigans, Trump fired all three members of the Election Assistance Commission by email ahead of the midterms and the DOJ is deploying election monitors to swing jurisdictions in six states. Meanwhile, Apple sued OpenAI for allegedly asking job candidates to bring Apple prototypes to interviews and having a former Apple employee download technical documents on a company laptop before jumping ship, which tracks with everything anyone knows about Sam Altman. A parasite called cyclosporiasis tied to contaminated produce has infected nearly 3,000 people across 31 states with prolonged diarrhea as the main symptom, the CDC is investigating. And finally, the bipartisan housing bill Trump refused to sign automatically became law after he failed to veto it within 10 days, because he either doesn't know or doesn't care how bills work. Resources/Articles mentioned: Politico: Lindsey Graham dies at 71 after ‘brief and sudden illness,' his office says WaPo: Lindsey Graham dies of aortic dissection, preliminary medical report says NYT: Lindsey Graham Was Facing Re-election in November. What Happens Now? X: Jake Sherman | Mitch McConnell Statement  NBC News: Trump ousts remaining members of the Election Assistance Commission ahead of midterms Newsweek: Map shows states where Trump admin is deploying election monitors WaPo: US strikes Iran again as it tries to limit attacks on ships on the Strait of Hormuz NBC News: Dozens hospitalized with cyclosporiasis as cases of gastrointestinal illness spike in 31 states CNBC: Apple sues OpenAI alleging trade secret theft, says scheme was 'at every level' The Hill: Bipartisan housing bill becomes law after Trump's signature snub Subscribe to the Betches News Room and join the Morning Announcements group chat. Go to: betchesnews.substack.com Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After the death of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), former Congressman Patrick McHenry (R-NC) discusses Sen. Graham's legacy and the future of both the Republican and Democratic parties.  Shares of SK Hynix fell over 15% in Seoul on Monday after its impressive Friday debut of US-traded shares on the Nasdaq. Semafor's Rohan Goswami is reporting that friends and advisers of Paramount CEO David Ellison are pushing him to consider relocating the company out of California. Goswami discusses the state's role in Paramount's $110B takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery and the likelihood that the company will start fresh somewhere new. Plus, Apple is suing OpenAI, and Elon Musk and Sam Altman are taking shots at each other on X.    Emily Wilkins - 02:32 Patrick McHenry - 16:51 Rohan Goswami - 33:52   In this episode: Joe Kernen, @JoeSquawk Becky Quick, @BeckyQuick Andrew Ross Sorkin, @andrewrsorkin Emily Wilkins, @emrwilkins Katie Kramer, @Kramer_Katie Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Stephen Scherr, Co-President of single-family home owner Pretium, joins to discuss the impact of the housing affordability bill that just became law over the weekend. Then, ProCap Financial CEO Anthony Pompliano discusses the success of the company's personal finance AI agent, "Silvia." Plus, we break down the latest drama between Elon Musk and Sam Altman that unfolded over the weekend after Apple sued OpenAI.   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.

I participated in another Socratic Debate about the Future of "AI" and XR at Augmented World Expo 2026 with Leslie Shannon, Alvin Graylin, and Louis Rosenberg (you can listen to last year's debate in episode #1611). Shannon and Graylin argued for "AI," whilst Rosenberg and I argued against "AI." In my write-up, I wanted to leave some breadcrumbs to more in-depth, skeptical arguments against "AI" that we didn't have space or time to dig into during the debate, but "some breadcrumbs" ended up being over 30k words, and more like an outline for an entire book. Writing a book isn't on my to-do list at the moment, but disseminating the work researchers, journalists, linguists, and critics of "AI" have done is urgent and necessary, so I'm sharing the results of this deep dive here, in bullet list format. My fellow panelists, Alvin Graylin and Louis Rosenberg, indulged me in extending our debate offline after AWE, pushing me to test my ideas further and demonstrating how and why this is an extremely active field of study with polarizing points of view that often come down to philosophical differences. Clearly, it's just getting started. My objections to "AI" is loosely organized by various themes, but some framing may be helpful in approaching it. My objections to "AI" center around the limitations of LLMs, the consolidation of wealth and power from Hyperscaler companies, and threats from automated decision making systems and surveillance capitalism melded with democratically-backsliding authoritarian governments. I'm including a broad range of critiques spanning the domains of philosophy, technology, sociology, politics, economics, culture, and ethics. I'm coming from the orientation of Process Philosophy & Peircean Semiotics that emphasizes the relational and contextual dimensions that the "AI" field tends to de-emphasize or completely collapse. I see process-relational philosophy as a necessary paradigm shift away from the underpinning philosophies of the "AI" community, which tend to be Functionalism, Naturalism, Computational Theory of Mind, Physicalism, & the TESCREAL bundle. Below you'll find my own process philosophical emergency response to "AI embedded within my curation of excerpts and commentary of primary sources that I'm leaning upon. The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech's Hype and Create the Future We Want (2025) by Emily M. Bender and Alex Hanna (also see episode #1563). Bender & Hanna say, "To put it bluntly, 'AI' is a marketing term. It doesn't refer to a coherent set of technologies. Instead, the phrase "artificial intelligence" is deployed when the people building or selling a particular set of technologies will profit from getting others to believe that their technology is similar to humans, able to do things that, in fact, intrinsically require human judgment, perception, or creativity." Emily M. Bender wrote the "Artificial Intelligence" [preprint] (2026, June 25) entry for the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Society. Bender's concluding paragraph gives a great overview of the seven different ways that the idea of "artificial intelligence" operates in the world. She says, "The notion of artificial intelligence is frequently sold as present or near-future and inevitable technology. In fact there is no coherent set of technologies that can serve as the denotation of the phrase, nor do any of the technologies so marketed rise to the fantastical but ill-defined claims of 'AI' is or soon will be. Nonetheless, the idea of artificial intelligence has been extremely impactful in the world. In order to better understand and deal with those impacts, it is helpful to look at artificial intelligence through the varied lenses of how the idea operates in the world: as the name of a research field, as one approach to cognitive science, as a parlor trick, as a an ideology, as a way to hide and devalue human labor, as a way to shift and/or obfuscate accountability, and as a means to centralize power." Inventing Intelligence: On the History of Complex Information Processing and Artificial Intelligence in the United States in the Mid-Twentieth Century [dissertation] (2020, December 14) by Jonnie Penn. Penn says, "The phrase ‘artificial intelligence' was coined by John McCarthy, an American mathematician, in 1955. It has travelled with a noticeably amorphous definition since." "AI" has always had a spotty history of technologists using a "brain is a computer" metaphor while also using "poor citation practices." From page 14, Penn says, "The vocabulary Simon, Rosenblatt, McCarthy and Minsky chose to describe new techniques in major newspapers and scholarly journals informed Americans' still plastic understandings of what was possible, and indeed desirable, in the emerging information age… During the mid to late 1950s, these men turned to clannishness, self-aggrandizement, speculative rhetoric, fluid definitions of key terms and poor citation practices to shore up legitimacy for their controversial new techniques — actions that drew attention toward questions of how to accomplish such aims and away from whether they were well founded." Part II: Remembering the Human Microcosm in the Age of Mechanized Intelligence: Philosophy as Emergency Response (2026, June 9) by Matt Segall. In a multi-part Substack series, process philosopher Matt Segall calls for a philosophical emergency response to "AI." He says, "In each case a new media technology intended to expand the power of thought ended up transforming the very nature of the thinker who invented it. Each new medium furnishes the very terms in which we come to understand ourselves. This is why the philosophical response is always an emergency response: by the time anyone has noticed what is happening, what may be lost and what gained, the mutation has already done half of its work." Segall warns about the computational metaphor of the mind by saying, "The large language model now tempts us to adopt an even stranger self-image: that human minds are no different than machines, our thoughts just the statistical echoes of our training data. The creators of this latest technological upgrade are encouraging us to downgrade our estimate of human consciousness, thus narrowing the distance between ourselves and the machines built to imitate us." "Resisting Dehumanization in the Age of 'AI': The View from the Humanities" [lecture] (2026, February 10) by Emily M. Bender. Here are the lecture slides with a bibliography at the end. Bender does an amazing overview of how the marketing of "AI" uses pernicious dehumanization tactics built on an underlying "brain is a computer metaphor." From page 15 of her talk: "Scientific metaphor used and debated in neuroscience: "THE BRAIN IS A COMPUTER. "PR metaphor used by technologists: "THE COMPUTER IS A BRAIN" Bender cites Baria & Cross' paper titled "The brain is a computer is a brain: neuroscience's internal debate and the social significance of the Computational Metaphor (2021), which says “the Computational Metaphor rests on other well-ingrained ideologies in which a hierarchy of human value is tied to a particular notion of intelligence such that the quality of being emotional is considered inferior to being rational." Bender also cites Dijkstra's 1985 lecture "On anthropomorphism in science": "A more serious byproduct of the tendency to talk about machines in anthropomorphic terms is the companion phenomenon of talking about people in mechanistic terminology." Here are a couple of examples of how "AI" Hyperscaler companies like OpenAI use dehumanizing tactics to sell us on "AI" Hype. Sam Altman will say things like, "A kid born today will never be smarter than AI. Ever." Or another example is when Altman says, "For me, AGI is basically the equivalent of a median human that you could hire as a co-worker... And then Superintelligence is when it's smarter than all of humanity put together." These statements collapse the human experience into one dimension of "intelligence," which amplifies the dual harm of treating machines more like humans and treating humans more like machines. It is also questionable the degree to which this statement is even true given the potential non-computational aspects of "relevance realization." More on this down below. Part IV: Remembering the Human Microcosm in the Age of Mechanized Intelligence: Hegel's Loom and the Difference Reason Makes (2026, June 10) by Matt Segall. Segall brilliantly breaks down the "Brain is a Computer Metaphor" by saying, "Metaphor is not just a shiny paint job on the vehicle of cognition. It is the engine of thought. Its coupling of concepts drives the limits of conceivability, shaping what is thought together and what is not thought at all. The metaphorical imagination is our main means of tuning in to the otherwise invisible effects of new media technologies. Part of the discipline philosophy brings is allowing us to notice an analogy as an analogy before advertising crystalizes it into the unnoticed transparency of common sense. A fact is a fact, but it might also be a fossilized metaphor. The governing analogy of our age is that cognition is computation: the brain an information-processing device, perception its input and behavior its output, memory a form of physical storage, learning the adjustment of weights, and intelligence an algorithm for minimizing error or surprisal. On this view, given enough training data and computational power, consciousness itself will eventually be engineered… The metaphor “the mind is a computer,” for example, tacitly proposes that mind is to brain as software is to hardware… Reiterated in textbooks and earnings calls, in grant applications and policy briefs, the partial comparison congeals into an ontology, until we find ourselves insisting not that the mind is like a computer in some respects but that it simply is one — and,...

¡Estalla la guerra en Silicon Valley con un bombazo judicial sin precedentes! En este episodio analizamos a fondo la demanda histórica de Apple contra OpenAI. La empresa de Cupertino acusa a Sam Altman y a su jefe de hardware de espionaje. Denuncian una campaña coordinada para robar secretos comerciales clave sobre IA. El objetivo era claro: usar tecnología de la manzana para sus nuevos dispositivos. Por otro lado, traemos un jarro de agua fría para los amantes de la realidad mixta. El esperado proyecto de las Vision Pro "baratas" está ahora mismo en la cuerda floja. Un nuevo informe delata que el desarrollo tiene muy mala pinta y podría cancelarse. Desgranamos todos los detalles, el futuro de la industria y las consecuencias de este caos. ¡Dale al play, suscríbete para no perderte nada y déjanos tu opinión en comentarios!. #Apple #OpenAI #VisionPro #InteligenciaArtificial #TechNews #AppleVsOpenAI #PodcastTecnologia #AppleNews #IA #SiliconValley ---------------------------------- PARTICIPA EN DIRECTO Deja tu opinión en los comentario ---------------------------------- ¿TE GUSTÓ EL EPISODIO? ✨ Dale LIKE SUSCRÍBETE y activa la campanita para no perderte nada COMENTA COMPARTE con tus amigos Applelianos ---------------------------------- SÍGUENOS EN TODAS NUESTRAS PLATAFORMAS: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@Applelianos Telegram: https://t.me/+Jm8IE4n3xtI2Zjdk X (Twitter): https://x.com/ApplelianosPod Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/applelianos Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/39QoPbO

Michael Graham of Canaccord Genuity discusses whether large-cap earnings estimates can keep moving higher. Our Kate Rooney reports on the latest chapter in the rivalry between Elon Musk and Sam Altman and what it means for the AI industry. Plus, the state of technology credit: Seth Meyer from Janus Henderson explains how investors are evaluating the wave of debt financing tied to AI infrastructure and hyperscaler spending. Jay Goldberg of Barclays previews bank earnings and explains what investors should expect from the financial sector as reporting season gets underway. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode, we explore Anthropic's new pricing strategy for Claude in India, highlighting its surprising cost compared to the US. We also discuss the ongoing tensions between Sam Altman and Elon Musk, get into Apple's lawsuit against OpenAI, and analyze the latest fundraising by AI startups focusing on real-world simulations.Chapters00:00 Anthropic's Pricing in India00:58 Apple's Lawsuit Against OpenAI03:02 AI Startups Raising Capital08:18 Meta's Data Center Expansion12:59 Sam Altman vs. Elon Musk Show LinksGet the top 80+ AI Models for $8.99 at AI Box: ⁠⁠https://aibox.aiHow I Grow and Scale My Business with AI: https://www.skool.com/aihustleGet the AI Chat Daily Newsletter: https://www.aichatdaily.com/newsletter

CNBC's Kate Rooney reports on Elon Musk and Sam Altman sparring on X over Apple's lawsuit against OpenAI.   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode, we showcase how Claude has adapted its pricing for the Indian audience. Discover the potential benefits for AI creators and users.Chapters00:00 Anthropic's Pricing in India00:58 Apple's Lawsuit Against OpenAI03:02 AI Startups Raising Capital08:18 Meta's Data Center Expansion12:59 Sam Altman vs. Elon Musk Show LinksGet the top 80+ AI Models for $8.99 at AI Box: ⁠⁠https://aibox.aiHow I Grow and Scale My Business with AI: https://www.skool.com/aihustleGet the AI Chat Daily Newsletter: https://www.aichatdaily.com/newsletter See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode, we explore the adaptations made to Claude's pricing for the Indian audience. Discover what this means for the future of AI in the region.Chapters00:00 Anthropic's Pricing in India00:58 Apple's Lawsuit Against OpenAI03:02 AI Startups Raising Capital08:18 Meta's Data Center Expansion12:59 Sam Altman vs. Elon Musk Show LinksGet the top 80+ AI Models for $8.99 at AI Box: ⁠⁠https://aibox.aiHow I Grow and Scale My Business with AI: https://www.skool.com/aihustleGet the AI Chat Daily Newsletter: https://www.aichatdaily.com/newsletter See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Het was me het beursdagje weer wel. Zo beschuldigt Apple OpenAI van diefstal en spant het een rechtszaak aan. AkzoNobel zit op zijn beurt dan weer niet te wachten op wéér een overnamebod van wéér het Japanse Nippon Paint. Deze aflevering hebben we het over die twee bijzondere zaken. Maar ook uitgebreid over de omzetcijfers van TSMC, de grootste chipmaker van de wereld. Dat stunt terwijl de lat al zo hoog ligt. We kijken wat dat betekent voor de kwartaalcijfers van ASML. Dat verkoopt namelijk veel aan TSMC, gaan we dat terugzien in hun kwartaalcijfers? Ook gaat het over de goede verkoopcijfers van autobouwer Stellantis. Dat heeft een rampjaar achter de rug. Vorig jaar een recordverlies van dik 22 miljard. Maar er schijnt licht aan het einde van de autotunnel! De verkopen in Europa trekken aan, maar het zijn vooral de verkopen in de VS die gunstig stemmen. Daar doet Stellantis het opvallend goed. Verder hoor je ook meer over Disney. Wells Fargo zegt dat het mediabedrijf zijn streamingtak moet afsplitsen. Dan zou het aandeel met 40 (!) procent stijgen. Te gast: Corné van Zeijl van Cardano BNR Beurs is een journalistiek onafhankelijke productie, mede mogelijk gemaakt door Saxo. Over de makers: Jelle Maasbach is presentator van BNR Beurs en freelance financieel journalist. Zijn favoriete aandeel om over te praten is Disney, maar daar lijkt hij de enige in te zijn. Sinds de eerste uitzending van BNR Beurs is 'ie er bij. Maxim van Mil is presentator van BNR Beurs en journalist bij BNR, waar hij zich focust op de financiële markten en ontwikkelingen in de tech-wereld. Je krijgt hem het meest enthousiast als hij kan praten over ASML, of oer-Hollandse bedrijven zoals Ahold of ABN Amro. Jorik Simonides is presentator van BNR Beurs, economieredacteur en verslaggever bij BNR. Hij wordt er vooral blij van als het een keer níet over AI gaat. Je hoort hem ook in de BNR-podcast Moerdijk: dorp van de rekening. Milou Brand is presentator van BNR Beurs, freelance podcastmaker en columnist bij het Financieele Dagblad. Jochem Visser is presentator van BNR Beurs, maakt Beursnerd XL en is redacteur bij de podcast Onder Curatoren. Vraag hem naar obscure zaken op financiële markten en hij vertelt je waarom het eigenlijk nóg leuker is dan je al dacht. Over de podcast: Met BNR Beurs ga je altijd voorbereid de nieuwe beursdag in. We praten je in een kleine 25 minuten bij over alle laatste ontwikkelingen op de handelsvloer. We blijven niet alleen bij de AEX of Wall Street, maar vertellen je ook waar nog meer kansen liggen. En we houden het niet bij de cijfers, maar zoeken ook iedere dag voor je naar duiding van scherpe gasten en experts. Of je nu een ervaren belegger bent of net begint met je eerste stappen op de beurs, de podcast biedt waardevolle inzichten voor je beleggingsstrategie. Door de focus op zowel de korte termijn als de lange termijn, helpt BNR Beurs luisteraars om de ruis van de markt te scheiden van de essentie. Van Musk tot Microsoft en van Ahold tot ASML. Wij vertellen je wat beleggers bezighoudt, wie de markten in beweging zet en wat dat betekent voor jouw beleggingsportefeuille.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Will 2026 be one of those grand historical years that change the world — like 1917, 1789 or 1968? Not according to Keith Teare, publisher of That Was The Week newsletter and co-host of our weekly tech roundup. For Keith, the best historical analogy is 1905, the year of the first abortive Russian revolution. The year that didn't change the world. Keith's latest tech newsletter asks “What Time Is It?” His answer is that we have “multiple clocks” — micro and macro, short, medium, and long term to make sense of our current AI moment. This week, for example, OpenAI and Anthropic both shipped work-focused products, and most of the world hasn't noticed. Thus his allusion to 1905. We are on the brink of massive change. But nothing is going to change. Not quite yet. Until everything does. Five Takeaways •       It's 1905 in the AI Economy. Keith's answer to the what-time-is-it question is the failed Russian revolution — the moment when the variables of transformation were all in motion but nothing was yet visible, and which took seventy years to fully play out. AI's radical change is real, he argues, but it is being experienced by a small number of people and is not yet generalized through the economy. The evidence of the week: OpenAI and Anthropic both shipped work-focused products — and most of the world shrugged. •       The Socialist Temptation of Slippery Sam. The Wall Street Journal frames Altman's offer of 5% of OpenAI to Washington as socialism creeping into Silicon Valley. Keith — who hated the word even when he was a communist — says the term has been Americanized into meaninglessness: it now just means the capitalist state doing more. What Altman is actually proposing is capitalism's end game — a sovereign wealth fund holding equity in the companies everybody wants to fund, so that private wealth creation reaches the point where everyone can imagine benefiting from it. The precise opposite of British Leyland. •       The Multiple Clocks. Keith's framework sorts the week's flood of AI news into micro and macro issues running on short, medium, and long-term timelines. At the micro-short corner sits deployment friction: Microsoft and Amazon spending billions on forward-deployed engineers, and Apple suing OpenAI. In the middle, work adapts — the human as the driver of AI rather than AI imposed on humans. At the top sits Arvind Narayanan's idea of AI as a “normal technology,” which deflates hysteria without deflating importance: electricity was a normal technology too, and it still changed everything — just slower than its loudest advocates expected. •       Abundance and Its Discontents. Matt Yglesias argues that saving capitalism requires radical land use reform, which reignites the show's longest-running argument. Keith's case: the Elizabeth Line and the congestion zone have redefined London, multiplying its effective land fifty-fold, and a house twenty minutes from the center can be had for a couple of hundred thousand pounds. Andrew's case: prices haven't fallen, London is more expensive than ever, and free is doing a lot of work as “a tendency, not an achievement.” The quarrel is adjourned until next week, with Keith cheerfully moonlighting as a real estate agent. •       Two Americas — and the Small Stuff. Ivan Krastev tells Yascha Mounk that American exceptionalism ran roughly from 1850 to Vietnam and has been replaced by defensive preservation — MAGA as a reaction to decline rather than a vision. Noah Smith's version: America can't build a passenger train, yet its AI industry is upending the world. And against John Battelle's worry that digital life has lost the plot, Keith offers the week's best rejoinder to Ian Bogost's small stuff: go back in history, and no one had time for small things. What we are living through is creeping abundance. The week closes with farewells — to Psion founder David Potter, a week after Om Malik. 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 edition asks what time it is in the AI economy and lays out the multiple clocks framework. •       The Wall Street Journal piece on the socialist temptation of Sam Altman, and Altman's proposal that the US government hold 5% of OpenAI. •       Arvind Narayanan — the Princeton computer scientist whose framing of AI as a “normal technology” anchors the civilizational clock. •       Matt Yglesias — whose piece argues that saving capitalism requires radical land use reform. •       Ivan Krastev — the Bulgarian political theorist, interviewed in Yascha Mounk's Persuasion on why America has lost faith in itself. •       Noah Smith and Paul Krugman — on the American age and the perennial Europe-versus-US economic comparison, respectively. •       John Battelle — the Web 2.0 pioneer asking whether we've lost the plot, quoting Ian Bogost in Wired. •       The Small Stuff: How to Lead a More Gratifying Life by Ian Bogost (Simon & Schuster) — the interview of the week on Keen On America. •       The New Geography of Innovation by Mehran Gul (Avid Reader Press/Simon & Schuster) — also on this week's show, on America, China, and everyone else. •       David Potter — the founder of Psion, builder of the first handheld computer and later a governor of the Bank of England, who died this week and is Keith's post of the week. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 3,000 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. Website Substack YouTube

Paul Achleitner hat den Börsenkurs der Allianz mal um fünf Milliarden DM ansteigen lassen – allein durch seinen Namen. Der Österreicher wurde damals Finanzvorstand, nachdem er sich zuvor mit dem Aufbau des Deutschland-Geschäfts von Goldman Sachs einen Namen gemacht hatte. Ein Gespräch gleicht einem Spaziergang durch die Wirtschaftsgeschichte: Es geht um die Anfänge von Goldman Sachs in Deutschland, die Chancen für Investoren nach dem Ende der DDR, um seine Zeit als Chefaufseher der Deutschen Bank, bei der er in der tiefsten Krise den Radikalumbau orchestrierte (eine Billion Euro von der Bilanz genommen, zwei Management-Ebenen ausgetauscht) und Elite-Netzwerke, in denen Achleitner seit Jahren Beziehungen zu Top-Entscheidern von OpenAI-Gründer Sam Altman bis Ex-US-Außenminister Henry Kissinger knüpft. Im OMR Podcast verrät Achleitner, wieso er zweimal rund 80 Prozent seines Gehalts freiwillig aufgab und warum er jetzt mit fast 70 Jahren noch einmal tiefer in die Startup-Welt eintaucht.

Kara is joined by Puck's Matt Belloni to unpack states' upcoming antitrust challenge to the Paramount–Warner Bros. Discovery merger, Disney's fight with the FCC over "The View," and Netflix's growing YouTube ambitions. Then, they discuss Meta's controversial AI image generator, the Sam Altman movie finding a new home after Amazon walked away, and the blockbuster hype surrounding Christopher Nolan's "The Odyssey." 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

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.

AGENDA: 05:00 Washington Just Put Frontier AI on a Leash 06:30 Sam Altman's Wild 5% Government Stake Idea 19:00 The AI Funding Bubble: Why Founders No Longer Fear Dilution 28:00 Alex Karp's Brutal Warning: Enterprises Don't Trust Frontier AI 33:00 Meta's Shock Pivot: Has Zuck Accidentally Built the Next CoreWeave? 41:00 Nvidia's Dangerous New Game: "Compute Now, Pay Later" 45:00 Anthropic & DeepSeek Go After Nvidia's Crown 48:00 Kling vs Sora: Did China Just Win AI Video? 52:00 Is China Secretly Winning the Open Source AI War? 01:02:00 Microsoft & Amazon's $6B Bet: AI Still Needs Humans 01:11:00 Ashton Kutcher Walks Away From Sound Ventures 01:16:00 The New Startup Talent War: No Liquidity, No Chance 01:20:00 Final Thoughts: Who Wins the AI Endgame?

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman joins the show, live from Allen & Co. Sun Valley Conference in Idaho following the rollout of the company's new AI Model. Plus, he lays out some new efficiency results. Then the CEO of Palo Alto Networks, on AI token costs and his outlook for AI spending. And the CEO of Match Group on how AI is changing the dating landscape. 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.

Jordi Visser is a veteran macro investor with 30+ years of experience and the author of the VisserLabs Substack. In this conversation, we break down the AI mid-cycle slowdown, the Fed under Warsh and what rate cuts could mean for markets, the $90 trillion AI infrastructure buildout, memory and Micron's role in the AI bottleneck, and why Jordi believes bitcoin is positioned to be the best performing assets once the negatives of AI start to show up.=====================Need liquidity without selling your crypto? Take out a Figure Crypto-Backed Loan, allowing you to borrow against your BTC, ETH, or SOL with 12-month terms, 8.91% interest rates, and no prepayment penalties. Or check out Democratized Prime (https://figuremarkets.co/pomp) and earn ~9% APY on real world assets, paid hourly. Unlock your crypto's potential today at Figure! https://figuremarkets.co/pomp Figure Lending LLC dba Figure (NMLS 1717824). Loans subject to approval. Crypto collateral may be liquidated. Terms apply - see full disclosures at figure.com/disclosures/=====================Looking for a better place to trade? BloFin gives traders access to deep liquidity, advanced futures products for crypto AND TradFi assets, fast execution, and a clean, intuitive interface—all in one platform. To celebrate their partnership with us, they're giving away $100,000 in Deposit & Trade Rewards. Deposit, trade, and earn rewards based on your activity during the campaign. Check them out at ( https://partner.blofin.com/d/Pomp ).=====================This episode is brought to you by mogul ( https://www.mogul.club/pomp ). Deloitte estimates that $4 trillion of real estate will move onto the blockchain over the next decade. Through tokenized residential real estate, mogul gives investors access to professionally managed properties with targeted yields, monthly rent payouts, and potential tax benefits — all without the headaches of being a landlord. Learn more and claim a special offer at https://www.mogul.club/pomp . See important disclosures at disclaimer.mogul.club.=====================0:00 - Intro1:20 - Has bitcoin bottomed? 6:03 - Bitcoin vs the Mag 7: is the correlation breaking?9:00 - Sam Altman, OpenAI & the government getting involved11:11 - American open source vs Chinese AI models14:28 - AI compute demand & the infrastructure buildout20:37 - AI slowdown: how bad, how long?22:44 - Where do markets go from here? 27:30 - AI agents in the workplace & security risk34:50 - Memory, Micron & the AI bottleneck39:53 - The next 10-20 years: robots, AI & society44:18 - The Fed, rate cuts & inflation's impact on AI49:55 - Why bitcoin wins in the end

Formative Years in St. Louis. Guest Author: Keach Hagey. This segment explores Sam Altman's childhood in St. Louis during the 1980s and 90s. Hagey describes Altman's parents: Jerry, an idealistic real estate developer focused on affordable housing, and Connie, a highly ambitious dermatologist who set rigorous expectations for her four children. As the eldest, Sam was identified early as being intellectually "on another plane." At sixteen, he candidly came out to his mother, who eventually moved past her initial health-related fears to maintain their strong bond. A defining influence was the John Burroughs School, a progressive private institution that instilled a moral responsibility to use one's talents to improve the world. Despite his technological interests in programming and ham radio, Altman was noted for his precocious charisma and ability to engage adults on topics ranging from computer science to human rights. The segment concludes with his decision to attend Stanford University. 2