The AI execs are warning us about AI The Vergecast

The AI execs are warning us about AI | The Vergecast 🔗 **Source:** [The AI execs are warning us about AI | The Vergecast](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eED4jiufTWg) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [ai-safety, surveillance-tech, platform-governance] > author: The Verge > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eED4jiufTWg > date created: 2024-02-14 15:30 > > # 🏷️ Title: The AI execs are warning us about AI | The Vergecast >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Monitor surveillance camera policy developments — Ring Search Party rollout #surveillance - [H2] Track AI safety personnel departures — industry trend analysis #ai-safety - [H3] Research fake OpenAI hardware ad origins — crypto scam detection #misinformation ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - [The Vergecast](https://www.theverge.com/the-vergecast) - [Ring Search Party Feature](https://ring.com) ## 📝 Summary - The Vergecast discusses Ring's controversial Search Party feature and a series of AI executives leaving companies while warning about AI dangers - Ring's Search Party uses neighborhood surveillance cameras with AI to find lost pets, raising dystopian surveillance concerns - Multiple high-profile AI safety researchers have recently left companies like OpenAI and Anthropic, issuing warnings about AI capabilities - A fake OpenAI hardware ad featuring AI Alexander Skarsgård went viral, highlighting public skepticism about AI hardware promises - The hosts examine how individual surveillance choices affect community privacy and the lack of regulatory frameworks ## 📖 Main Content The episode covers two major tech controversies. First, Ring's new Search Party feature, marketed as a way to find lost dogs, uses AI to scan neighborhood cameras automatically. While presented as benevolent, the technology creates a pervasive surveillance network that affects non-consenting neighbors. The hosts discuss how individual privacy choices impact others and the absence of regulatory guardrails. Second, a wave of AI safety researchers are leaving major companies while issuing increasingly dire warnings. Unlike typical corporate departures, these executives claim AI capabilities may pose existential risks, with some suggesting the technology approaches consciousness. This coincides with OpenAI adding advertising to ChatGPT and scaling back safety initiatives. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/eED4jiufTWg?t=0) — [H1] Episode introduction and Epstein coverage feedback - Key idea: Audience wants continued coverage of Epstein's digital influence operations - Evidence: "People desperately want David and I to talk about real estate... qualitative feedback from actual people said 'Please do the stories'" #### ⏱️ [05:30](https://youtu.be/eED4jiufTWg?t=330) — [H2] Epstein's sophisticated SEO manipulation campaigns - Key idea: Jeffrey Epstein employed teams to manage his digital reputation through offensive SEO tactics - Evidence: "Jeffrey Epstein cared about SEO a lot... He employed people to go on Wikipedia and clean up his bio. He did offensive SEO" #### ⏱️ [12:45](https://youtu.be/eED4jiufTWg?t=765) — [H2] Epstein's connections to 4chan and political manipulation - Key idea: Documentation shows direct links between Epstein, 4chan leadership, and early culture war weaponization - Evidence: "There's a straight line in Epstein's support for eugenics... you can see, yep, they definitely met" #### ⏱️ [18:20](https://youtu.be/eED4jiufTWg?t=1100) — [H1] Ring's Search Party feature introduction - Key idea: Ring's AI-powered neighborhood camera network ostensibly helps find lost pets - Evidence: "One post of a dog's photo in the Ring app starts outdoor cameras looking for a match" #### ⏱️ [25:10](https://youtu.be/eED4jiufTWg?t=1510) — [H2] Ring founder's explicit surveillance mission - Key idea: Jamie Siminoff has consistently positioned Ring as crime-fighting surveillance from inception - Evidence: "Since the first day he's been like this is to fight crime... his pitch has been surveillance from the beginning" #### ⏱️ [32:15](https://youtu.be/eED4jiufTWg?t=1935) — [H2] Individual surveillance choices affect community privacy - Key idea: Personal decisions about surveillance cameras create societywide impacts without community consent - Evidence: "My cameras can invade your rights, but me turning that on has no impact on me" #### ⏱️ [38:40](https://youtu.be/eED4jiufTWg?t=2320) — [H2] Nancy Guthrie case reveals data retention practices - Key idea: Google's "residual data" recovery shows unclear data deletion practices across platforms - Evidence: "Google assigned some engineers to go get it... recovered the footage from residual data located in back-end systems" #### ⏱️ [45:30](https://youtu.be/eED4jiufTWg?t=2730) — [H2] Need for privacy law regulation - Key idea: Regulatory frameworks could provide middle path between surveillance benefits and privacy protection - Evidence: "You could write a privacy law... you can't light this up all the time" #### ⏱️ [52:20](https://youtu.be/eED4jiufTWg?t=3140) — [H1] Fake OpenAI hardware ad goes viral - Key idea: Sophisticated fake advertisement featuring AI Alexander Skarsgård highlights public skepticism about AI hardware - Evidence: "Alexander Scarsgard wearing... sort of openear headphones and playing with this little orb called dime. Again, all of this is fake" #### ⏱️ [58:10](https://youtu.be/eED4jiufTWg?t=3490) — [H2] OpenAI hardware delays and market skepticism - Key idea: OpenAI's actual hardware launch pushed to next year amid growing consumer doubt - Evidence: "The all knowing voice assistant that can do things for you is a long way away" #### ⏱️ [64:45](https://youtu.be/eED4jiufTWg?t=3885) — [H1] Wave of AI executive departures with warnings - Key idea: Multiple high-profile AI safety researchers leaving companies while issuing increasingly dire warnings - Evidence: "The world is in peril... we appear to be approaching a threshold where our wisdom must grow in equal measure" #### ⏱️ [72:30](https://youtu.be/eED4jiufTWg?t=4350) — [H2] Anthropic potentially believes Claude is conscious - Key idea: Evidence suggests Anthropic leadership treats Claude as potentially conscious, affecting safety approaches - Evidence: "I think anthropic thinks Claude is alive... they keep talking about it like it's alive" #### ⏱️ [79:15](https://youtu.be/eED4jiufTWg?t=4755) — [H2] Historical pattern of tech whistleblowers being proven right - Key idea: Tech industry whistleblowers like Tristan Harris have been consistently vindicated over time - Evidence: "We should have believed Tristan Harris quicker than we did... he eventually helped make a documentary" ## 📚 References - [Ring Search Party](https://ring.com) - [The Verge Epstein Coverage](https://www.theverge.com) - [Anthropic Claude](https://www.anthropic.com) - [The Social Dilemma](https://www.thesocialdilemma.com) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - Ring's new AI feature lets neighborhood cameras automatically search for lost pets, but creates surveillance infrastructure affecting non-consenting neighbors - A series of AI safety researchers are quitting major companies while warning that AI capabilities may pose existential risks - A fake OpenAI hardware advertisement went viral, revealing public skepticism about AI hardware promises and delayed product timelines ## 📰 Newsletter This week brought concerning developments in surveillance technology and AI safety. Ring's new Search Party feature uses AI to scan neighborhood cameras for lost pets - sounds helpful until you realize it creates an automated surveillance network affecting everyone, not just users who opted in. Meanwhile, AI safety researchers are leaving companies like OpenAI and Anthropic in growing numbers, warning that we're approaching dangerous capability thresholds without adequate safeguards. The fake OpenAI hardware ad that fooled many this week highlights how desperately curious (and skeptical) people are about AI hardware promises. As these technologies reshape our digital landscape, we need stronger privacy laws and safety frameworks - not just better products. Resources: [Learn WordPress](https://learn.wordpress.org/), [Developer Docs](https://developer.wordpress.org/), [WP-CLI](https://wp-cli.org/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Education: Workshop on surveillance technology implications for developers - Developer experience: Privacy-by-design documentation improvements - Community management: Facilitate discussions on ethical tech development #### Community - Maintainers: Develop governance templates for ethical AI usage - Contributors: Create first-issue programs focused on privacy tools - Ecosystem: Cross-project coordination on surveillance resistance #### WordPress - Core: Implement privacy-focused defaults in camera/media handling - Security: Audit third-party integrations for surveillance capabilities - Documentation: Create guides on privacy-preserving development practices ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Surveillance technology adoption creates network effects where individual choices compound into societal changes - AI safety researchers departing companies indicates genuine capability concerns rather than mere career positioning - Public skepticism of AI hardware reflects broader distrust of tech company promises about revolutionary products - Companies deliberately start surveillance features with sympathetic use cases (pets) to normalize broader applications ### 📊 Methodology - Analyze correlation between surveillance technology deployment and privacy law development across jurisdictions - Track AI safety personnel departures and subsequent public statements for pattern analysis - Study historical tech whistleblower accuracy rates to calibrate current warnings ### ❓ Questions - How can privacy laws adapt to automated surveillance networks that span multiple private properties? - What threshold of AI capability would justify the level of alarm being expressed by departing researchers? - How do companies balance legitimate safety concerns with competitive pressures in AI development? ### 🔮 Future Research - Longitudinal study of neighborhood surveillance adoption and community privacy norms - Analysis of AI safety researcher predictions versus actual capability developments - Cross-cultural comparison of surveillance technology acceptance and regulation ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Developers need frameworks for evaluating surveillance impact of their applications - Policy: Urgent need for privacy laws addressing automated surveillance networks - Security: Individual security choices increasingly affect community-wide privacy - Education: Public needs better understanding of how surveillance technologies compound - Funding: AI safety research may require independent funding sources separate from capability development ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: 11th grade (Flesch-Kincaid) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Screenshots of Ring app interface, fake hardware ad - Improve: Surveillance network diagrams, data flow visualizations #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Full podcast audio available - Improve: Chapter markers for key topics, audio summaries #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Clear definitions of technical terms, analogies - Improve: Glossary of surveillance and AI terminology #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Discussion of hands-on Ring camera experience - Improve: Interactive privacy settings checklist, hands-on privacy tools #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Clear cause-and-effect reasoning about surveillance impacts - Improve: Decision trees for privacy choices, risk assessment frameworks #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Community discussion prompts about neighborhood privacy - Improve: Group exercises for privacy norm setting, community guidelines #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Individual reflection on personal surveillance choices - Improve: Self-assessment privacy audit, personal action planning worksheets #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Connections to broader societal surveillance ecosystem - Improve: Environmental metaphors for data pollution, ecosystem thinking ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear heading structure, descriptive episode sections - Improve: Alt text for visual references, ARIA labels for complex content #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard podcast player controls - Improve: Keyboard shortcuts for chapter navigation, transcript search #### Contrast and readability - Present: High contrast text in show notes - Improve: Adjustable font sizes, dark mode options #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Responsive design for various screen sizes - Improve: Better mobile transcript formatting, zoom support #### Media and captions - Present: Full transcript available - Improve: Synchronized captions, downloadable transcript formats #### Forms and interactions - Present: Basic feedback mechanisms - Improve: Accessible comment forms, screen reader friendly sharing ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: US-focused surveillance law discussion - Improve: International privacy law comparisons, global surveillance examples #### Inclusive language - Present: Generally inclusive terminology - Improve: More diverse examples beyond pet ownership, varied family structures #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Clear section breaks, consistent structure - Improve: Content warnings for surveillance anxiety, summary bullet points #### Representation - Present: Multiple perspectives on privacy trade-offs - Improve: Voices from different socioeconomic backgrounds, varied neighborhood types #### Psychological safety - Present: Respectful framing of privacy concerns - Improve: Resources for surveillance anxiety, community support guidance ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Clear logical progression from individual choices to collective surveillance outcomes - Inductive strength: Pattern recognition in AI safety researcher behavior and historical tech whistleblowing - Causal reasoning: Well-supported links between surveillance infrastructure and privacy erosion - Analogical strength: Effective comparisons to historical privacy law development #### Fallacies - Slippery slope: Assumption that pet-finding features automatically lead to dystopian surveillance - addressed by noting company's explicit crime-fighting mission - Appeal to authority: Heavy reliance on departing AI researchers' warnings - balanced by acknowledging potential financial incentives #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Conversational but serious, acknowledging complexity while maintaining clear positions on privacy rights ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No significant denial patterns detected - Attack: No attacks on privacy advocates or whistleblowers - Reverse victim/offender: No reversal patterns present - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Balanced presentation of surveillance benefits and harms without manipulative framing ## 🎯 Conclusion The convergence of automated surveillance infrastructure and concerning AI capability developments requires immediate attention to regulatory frameworks and safety measures. While individual privacy choices increasingly affect entire communities, and AI researchers sound alarms about existential risks, the absence of adequate policy responses leaves society vulnerable to both surveillance overreach and potentially dangerous AI deployment. The fake OpenAI hardware ad's viral success demonstrates public skepticism about AI promises, even as real surveillance tools like Ring's Search Party deploy with minimal oversight. Moving forward, we need privacy laws that address networked surveillance effects and AI safety frameworks that can keep pace with rapidly advancing capabilities. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad Purpose: Stage CEE units that become Literature notes. Split level: H3 ### [H1] Surveillance networks create community-wide privacy impacts > [!quote] [The AI execs are warning us about AI](https://youtu.be/eED4jiufTWg) by [[The Verge]] via [[YouTube]]. Published 2024-02-14. Accessed 2024-02-14. > "My cameras can invade your rights, but me turning that on has no impact on me." Individual surveillance device choices compound into societal surveillance infrastructure affecting non-consenting community members. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/eED4jiufTWg?t --- ## Full Transcript [00:02] Welcome to the Vergecast, the flagship [00:04] podcast of slightly dystopian pet [00:06] finders. I'm your friend David Pierce. [00:08] The optell's here. Hey buddy, [00:09] >> what's up? How do you feel about using [00:11] the full surveillance industry to find [00:13] your pets? [00:15] >> This is why I don't have pets. Get them [00:16] out of my face. Too complicated. Too The [00:19] moral quandry of pet ownership is We do [00:21] a lot of moral quandry on the show. I I [00:23] will say I you know, do you really own a [00:26] dog? Let's talk about it. [00:30] Yeah, you just you you don't you just [00:32] let it poop inside your house for a [00:33] while. Uh at least that's my current [00:35] experience. Um lots going on this week. [00:38] Uh we have some Super Bowl follow-up to [00:40] do. Um the Packers weren't in it because [00:42] they never are. So that sucks for you. [00:44] >> Patriots did lose, which was important, [00:45] I think, for America. [00:46] >> Agreed. The world is a little brighter [00:48] now that the Patriots lost the Super [00:50] Bowl. Uh we have a lot of surveillance [00:53] camera stuff to talk about. We have some [00:54] OpenAI news to talk about. We have some [00:56] hardware that doesn't exist. We have [00:57] some hardware that might someday exist. [00:59] We have lots to talk about, but um I [01:01] think we should probably start the same [01:04] place we started last week, which is [01:05] unfortunately [01:07] with the Epstein files. Um we you asked [01:11] in particular uh people to give us [01:13] feedback on how we how we're talking [01:15] about this stuff, how we're covering [01:16] this stuff, what they want to see, [01:17] what's interesting, what did you hear, [01:19] what what have the vibes been like? I [01:21] >> I would divide this feedback into two [01:22] discrete categories. [01:24] >> Okay. There's the one I care about a lot [01:26] which is the actual people talking to [01:27] us. So you can you just look at the [01:30] comments on YouTube. You can you you [01:31] shouldn't look at our email directly Pam [01:33] Bondi but you I will tell you what is in [01:35] our email and it's people emailing us [01:37] and saying keep doing this. It's [01:39] important. We appreciate your approach [01:40] to it. We want the stories your your [01:44] quandry about the source and the [01:47] mechanism by which the material is being [01:49] released. You can set that aside. We [01:51] understand. [01:52] >> Sure. So, we're going to keep talking [01:53] about it. Then there is just the data [01:56] and the data says people desperately [01:59] want David and I to talk about real [02:01] estate. Like the numbers are higher and [02:04] we can't quite explain why. Uh we don't [02:07] do a lot of datadriven content [02:09] decision-making at the Verge, which is [02:11] why I haven't started a fully automated [02:14] like Android bot farm in overseas to [02:17] manipulate YouTube. I should [02:20] >> every good content creator who cares [02:22] about their numbers does this. [02:23] >> You've come to meetings with that idea. [02:25] >> Yeah. Can somebody buy a hundred Android [02:27] phones and just do a bot farm for me? [02:30] That would be great. Um we don't do a [02:32] lot of that here. Famously, our [02:33] reporters don't get paid fees. Like all [02:35] the stuff we don't do. Um but in this in [02:37] this case, it was particularly notable [02:38] that there was the qualitative feedback [02:40] from actual people that we care about a [02:41] lot that said, "Please do the stories." [02:43] And then there was just the straight [02:45] views [02:46] >> and downloads on the podcast. And so, [02:48] all right, that's enough signal. I will [02:50] I I'll mention two that are important to [02:52] me. Two Epstein stories we covered this [02:53] week that are are very important to me [02:55] that I think are very virgin in their [02:57] scope. One, and this has come out in [03:01] every version of the Epstein files that [03:03] has been released so far. Uh Jeffrey [03:06] Epstein cared about SEO a lot, just a [03:09] lot. And he employed people to manage [03:12] his Google presence. He employed people [03:14] to go on Wikipedia and clean up his bio. [03:17] He did offensive SEO. He He was all over [03:20] it. His digital footprint was a thing he [03:22] cared about. And he had people [03:24] constantly emailing him telling him how [03:27] they were cleaning up his digital [03:28] footprint. [03:29] >> Right. And to be clear, by cleaning up, [03:30] you mean um Jeffrey Epstein is a [03:33] criminal and a pedophile, was at the top [03:35] of the rankings. Yep. [03:37] >> And Jeffrey Epstein spent a lot of time [03:39] and energy and money trying to move that [03:41] down in the rankings. [03:42] >> Yes. And he he was seating stories with [03:45] oppositional links again. [03:47] monitoring Wikipedia and making sure [03:49] Wikipedia there's like edit wars about [03:50] his entry, taking out negative [03:52] information about himself from the [03:54] internet. [03:54] >> There are a bunch of really fascinating [03:55] back and forths uh with reporters from [03:59] people on in his orbit uh who are [04:01] basically like yelling at reporters and [04:03] threatening them in order to get them to [04:05] remove stuff from stories and then [04:06] reporting it back to Epstein saying look [04:08] we did it. We got we got your name out [04:10] of this story. [04:10] >> Mia S and our team has a great story [04:12] about this. There's one back and forth [04:14] in particular where the report back says [04:16] they didn't know I was working for you. [04:18] They don't know that we're talking. And [04:19] so you just see there's this we kind of [04:21] hint at it all the time, right? We spend [04:23] a lot of time talking to comms people [04:24] and PR people. And I there I I love [04:28] writing a spicy response to what is [04:30] obviously like a secret legal demand and [04:32] then looping our lawyers on it. It's one [04:34] of the funner parts of my job that no [04:36] one ever gets to see. I really do enjoy [04:38] it. There's a lot of that in our world [04:40] that you all never see. you should never [04:43] see, right? We're just pushing back on [04:44] people who want to shade our stories in [04:46] some way. And then you see how [04:49] effectively Jeffrey Epste was using that [04:51] as a weapon, not just to shade the [04:53] coverage, but connecting the dot all the [04:55] way to his own search results to SEO. [04:57] And so that's just a straightforwardly [04:59] story. And Mia did a great job. We I [05:02] we've been making Mia cover SEO for a [05:04] while. She's the one who wrote all the [05:05] content goblin stories for us about like [05:07] the SEO industry, the last days of disco [05:09] before AI showed up. uh we did that was [05:11] a huge package she did for us. She saw [05:13] this and was like, "Oh, I I see what's [05:15] happening here." So, the story is great [05:16] because she has so much depth. [05:17] >> Yeah. And I think on on that front, the [05:19] we talked a bunch last week about how [05:22] one of the odd things about these files [05:25] is how just sort of plainly they lay [05:27] bare how all of this stuff works, right? [05:29] Right? Like we talked a lot about Steven [05:31] Sinowski who was running Windows at [05:32] Microsoft and his negotiations for his [05:35] package when he left Microsoft is like [05:37] it's the sort of thing nobody ever talks [05:39] about in the way that they are willing [05:40] to email their colleagues about it. And [05:41] so you just see a different version of [05:43] it. And there, this was so striking to [05:45] me for the same reason that you see with [05:48] no um no spin, no no nothing, just a [05:52] perfectly completely laid bare plan for [05:56] how to spin up a bunch of essentially [05:59] fake websites designed to launder [06:00] somebody's reputation. And there's Mia [06:03] has has links and an explanation to this [06:04] about like somebody who is basically [06:07] buying and hosting domain names, [06:08] starting fake websites, filling them [06:10] with a specific kind of content all in [06:12] the name of gaming the SEO algorithms to [06:15] move stuff up and down to their liking. [06:16] And the this is I would remind you a [06:19] game that Google has said for decades is [06:21] unwinable and doesn't exist and no one [06:23] is trying to do it [06:24] >> and and it is just so fabulously clear [06:28] that this is a game that everybody plays [06:29] and can win with enough money and [06:31] resources and it's just this is the sort [06:33] of thing you you just don't get to see [06:35] it laid out in front of you like this. [06:38] >> Yeah. You never get to see the vendor [06:39] talking directly to the client saying I [06:40] spent all this money here's exactly what [06:42] we did and here's how well it worked. [06:43] >> Yeah. And you know that's a gold mine if [06:45] you are researching the dynamics of [06:47] information on the internet. So that's [06:48] one big story. Again Mia did an [06:50] incredible job here just because we [06:51] forced her to cover SEO for a year like [06:54] her her understanding that space I think [06:56] really comes through in this story. So [06:57] that's one. The other one that I I would [06:59] point people to. Last week I mentioned [07:02] sort of in passing that Epstein had a [07:04] connection to 4chan and in [07:06] particular/pole the politics board. And [07:08] so we were we thought about who can [07:11] explain this? There's so much history. [07:12] So we asked Cat Tenbar, who used to be [07:14] an amazing misinformation, [07:16] disinformation reporter at NBC News. She [07:18] now writes a newsletter called Spitfire [07:19] News, which is very good. You should [07:21] subscribe to it. Um, so we asked her to [07:23] just write about the connections between [07:25] Epstein, Christopher P, who ran 4chan, [07:29] whose name is Moot, his handle, and [07:31] Pull, and the dynamics between all of [07:33] that, between Gamergate, between the [07:35] first Trump campaign. And you can see [07:37] there's a straight line in Epstein's [07:40] support for eugenics and his hatred of [07:43] women and his his weird ideas about just [07:46] how to destabilize the country. There's [07:49] a lot of Steve Bannon in the mix who [07:51] understood early that you could [07:52] weaponize foreign culture and make turn [07:54] it into the culture war and then turn [07:56] that into politics and then here we are [07:58] in 2026. So it's it's not as as straight [08:00] of a line as people have painted. You [08:01] you can't say that they had a meeting [08:03] and the next day the thing happened, but [08:05] in the emails you can see, yep, they [08:08] definitely met. Abs said, "I really like [08:10] this guy. I think he's so bright. I [08:12] drove him home." And then a series of [08:14] things unfolded where everyone's goals [08:17] were being met. And that to me is maybe [08:20] the most undercovered story of our time [08:23] that, you know, there's always this push [08:25] that you shouldn't take what happens on [08:26] the internet seriously. The Twitter [08:28] isn't real life. And to some extent [08:30] that's real like like the reality outs [08:34] like the truth outs for people. They go [08:35] live their lives. They move their meat [08:37] sacks of their bodies around in real [08:38] space. You can't tweet everything and [08:41] you can't overcome the metaphysics of [08:43] reality with Twitter. But boy, you can [08:45] come close. [08:47] >> Yeah. And you can see like just as [08:50] you're saying about SEO, you see them [08:52] talking about it nakedly, openly, [08:54] cynically, pushing the ball forward [08:57] while everyone else is, you know, saying [08:59] very sincere things about the nature of [09:01] content moderation and like the the [09:03] systems are being gamed at every level [09:06] and Epstein's right in the middle of it. [09:07] So that story is also I think very good, [09:09] very virgin. Um Cat did a great job. So [09:12] those are the two I wanted to call this [09:13] week. We're going to have more. uh again [09:15] the you know I value people writing to [09:18] us and saying things to us more than I [09:19] value the data but in this case it's bo [09:21] it's both like clearly both uh says that [09:25] we should cover this more there there's [09:26] more to be said here and in particular [09:29] Epstein as a as a force in the digital [09:32] world is like overwhelming [09:35] >> you you can just see that he he clocked [09:37] it he figured it out early and then all [09:40] of these people came to him for advice [09:43] and then his money influenced a bunch of [09:46] platform dynamics and tech dynamics [09:47] across the board. [09:49] >> Yeah. And that this group understood the [09:52] power of the internet to move their own [09:56] awful worldviews into the norm in like [09:59] really structured and deliberate ways. [10:02] Like you read that thing from from Ryan [10:04] Brick last week who writes the garbage [10:06] newsletter who's basically saying, "I've [10:07] been covering misinformation and the [10:09] alt-right for decades and I'm realizing [10:10] that I may have just been following [10:11] Jeffrey Epste." [10:14] The more we learn about these files, the [10:15] more it feels like that is the case. [10:17] >> Yeah, it's in there. And you know, [10:18] there's there's more to come, assuming [10:21] our Department of Justice does the thing [10:22] they're legally mandated to do by [10:25] >> um there's more to come. I I suspect [10:27] we're going to be covering this for for [10:29] quite a while. [10:30] >> Yeah. And I think uh folks should go [10:32] read the stories. We'll we'll link them [10:33] in the show notes, but the Yeah. the the [10:35] particulars of how all of this works, I [10:38] think, is it continues to be the hardest [10:40] thing to mine of all of this. And our [10:42] team has been doing a really good job [10:43] because there's just so much. And like [10:44] we talked about last week, it's just [10:46] this unordered dump of PDFs. And if you [10:50] want to, you can read almost anything [10:52] you want into it, right? And so trying [10:53] to go through and be like, okay, what is [10:55] what is real? What is conspiracy? What [10:58] is stuff that Jeffrey Epste who had a [11:00] lot of reasons to vastly overstate his [11:03] own importance? [11:06] It's it's hard to parcel out, but there [11:07] is just like the the raw data of this. [11:10] the more we start to put the pieces [11:12] together is like a very different [11:15] version of the history of sort of the [11:17] modern internet than I think people are [11:20] used to. [11:21] >> And that's even just looking at through [11:22] the slice of what's here. Like we don't [11:24] we don't know what happened at the [11:24] parties. We don't know what happened at [11:25] the dinners. We don't know what happened [11:26] on the island. We don't know what [11:27] happened on the plane. Like we don't [11:28] know what happened on the phone. [11:30] >> There's just a universe of stuff we [11:32] don't know. But what we can just see [11:34] paints a very different picture of the [11:36] history of the culture and the internet [11:38] colliding in this specific way. [11:40] >> Yeah. Yeah. Um [11:42] >> Oh, by the way, I I have one for you. Uh [11:43] you and I were talking about this [11:45] briefly on the show last week and then [11:47] we talked about it afterwards and I went [11:48] out and assigned it. Um the equal signs. [11:51] >> Oh, yeah. [11:52] >> In the weird the weird things are that [11:54] feel like censored redactions but like [11:56] kind of clearly aren't. We're chasing [11:58] that down. I'm not going to give it [11:59] away, but I think by next week we will [12:01] have a a good answer. We will have a [12:03] story about what's going on with the [12:04] equal signs. [12:05] >> Oh, that's awesome. I'm so glad you [12:06] assigned that story. [12:07] >> Yeah, I was like, I'm do we're I'm I'm [12:10] the king now. [12:12] Like, am I the editor-inchief? Can I [12:14] just do this? [12:15] >> That's what happens. That's all that's [12:17] what all my meetings are like. Can I do [12:18] this? [12:20] >> To be clear, everyone most of the time [12:21] people say no and then Eli does it [12:23] anyway. That's the dynamic here. I had a [12:26] I had a I had a good call today with a [12:28] longtime tech exec uh and he was he was [12:31] saying the way to think about oclaw and [12:35] these AI agents is like what if like [12:38] don't think about it like you have one [12:40] employee think about like you have a a [12:41] whole team and like how much more in [12:44] control you would feel and I was like I [12:46] don't know man I have a whole team I [12:47] look at my phone I'm always like what [12:49] happened now [12:51] what are you talking about [12:53] >> yeah Yeah. Uh, all right. Let's let's [12:56] move on for this. We're going to keep [12:57] covering the Epstein stuff. Um, I think [12:59] this story is a long ways from being [13:02] over, uh, even in our zone. So, we'll [13:05] keep talking about it, but for now, um, [13:07] let's talk about a different kind of a [13:10] scandal, [13:10] >> surveillance, a different scandal. Um, [13:13] so the the the beginning of this, I [13:15] think, is there was a a Super Bowl ad [13:17] that Ring ran um about a feature called [13:21] Search Party. And I'm I'm going to [13:23] describe this in the most milktoast way [13:25] and then we're going to get into it. Uh [13:27] search party is a feature that is [13:30] designed to help people find their dogs. [13:32] That's it. If you if your dog runs away, [13:35] you can activate the whole neighborhood [13:36] of cameras to help you find your dog. Um [13:40] I'm just going to share my screen with [13:41] you real quick and I'm going to play [13:42] this ad because it's 30 seconds long and [13:44] it I just watched it again and it is [13:46] just it's it is really something [13:48] special. [13:49] >> This is Milo. [13:50] >> Pets are family. [13:52] But every year, 10 million go missing. [13:54] And the way we look for them hasn't [13:56] changed in years. [13:59] Until now. One post of a dog's photo in [14:01] the Ring app starts outdoor cameras [14:03] looking for a match. Search Party from [14:05] Ring uses AI to help families find lost [14:07] dogs. Since launch, more than a dog a [14:09] day has been reunited with their family. [14:11] Be a hero in your neighborhood with [14:12] Search Party. Available to everyone for [14:15] free right now. Join the neighborhood at [14:18] ring.com. [14:19] So Neil, I don't I don't see the [14:21] problem. What a what a lovely ad about [14:22] how to find your dog. I don't [14:25] uh so Jamie was on Decoder not so long [14:28] ago talking about this and I would [14:30] characterize that conversation is very [14:31] pleasant. I like Jamie. He's very smart [14:33] and also just a me for an hour being [14:36] like, is this dystopia? Are you [14:37] describing dystopia? Uh and we just went [14:39] back and forth on that. And do you have [14:42] a Ring camera? [14:43] >> Uh I do. We we were grandfathered into [14:47] the one on our front door when we bought [14:48] this house. And it has actually been a [14:51] really interesting process of deciding [14:53] whether we want to keep it. It's [14:56] fascinating to me that this is a moral [14:57] quandry. We have Ring cameras in our [14:58] house. They're they're good. They is a [15:00] product. They work and that's fine. Um [15:04] do you have the neighbors app or do you [15:05] have neighbors notifications turned on [15:06] in the Ring app? [15:07] >> No, I turn I turned them off because it [15:09] made me feel icky to be completely [15:10] honest. [15:11] >> So I we have them on. Again, I don't [15:12] think you should feel moral quandry [15:14] about this. Like, I'm very curious. You [15:15] know, I have the get out of jail free [15:17] card of like, I'm a tech reporter. Like, [15:18] I have to pay attention. But like, it's [15:20] fine. You can just turn them on. It's [15:21] anonymized. And at least where I live, [15:24] there are only two things that show up [15:26] in the neighbors app. Was that an [15:28] explosion? By far and away. Number one. [15:30] Just all day long, people asking if [15:32] things are explosions. Couldn't tell you [15:34] why, but that is it. [15:36] >> Are they ever explosions [15:38] >> sometimes? Okay. [15:41] Like every like once a year there's an [15:43] explosion. [15:44] >> Okay. [15:45] >> Right. Like I don't know what to tell [15:47] you. Once a year at the ConEd plant a [15:50] transformer blows, you know, like [15:51] >> the rest of the time it's like nope big [15:53] truck. [15:53] >> Yep. It's it's it's almost always big [15:55] truck or nothing. Like nothing is a [15:57] shockingly popular answer. Um and then [16:00] the replies are always like you know [16:02] hilarious lies like yes it was an [16:03] explosion. Like go in your basement now. [16:05] Like I actually asked Jamie about this. [16:06] He's like yep. A lot of people asking [16:08] about explosions in the data. Okay. [16:10] >> And then the other thing is my dog is [16:12] lost. [16:14] >> That's it. That's all day long people [16:15] like I lost my dog or like I saw a dog, [16:18] here's a dog, here's a pet, whatever. [16:20] Um, and so you can see how anyone [16:24] looking at what people are talking about [16:25] and sharing their footage about would [16:27] get to we should just automate the [16:30] process of saying we see a dog. [16:32] >> Sure. I and I just want to I just want [16:34] to say that like if you are your [16:38] concerns about the surveillance [16:39] apparatus are valid like that's [16:42] everyone's listening to this they're [16:43] already yelling at me. [16:44] >> I'm just saying the the logical like [16:48] outside of the world we live in [16:50] conclusion from why do people hit share [16:53] on video footage in our app. [16:55] >> Sure. [16:55] >> One again I I cannot overstate this is [16:58] is this an explosion? [17:01] like if they could solve that problem, [17:02] maybe they they should have started [17:03] there honestly. Uh and then two is my [17:06] dog is lost or I saw a dog and you can [17:08] see how you would just get there. You [17:09] would just very quickly arrive at we [17:11] should push a button and let people be [17:13] like here are some dogs, [17:14] >> right? Sure. [17:15] >> And and I I don't I I'm only pointing [17:18] that out because it it is the reality of [17:20] the platform. That's the thing people [17:21] are doing. [17:22] >> It's also the sort of feature that in a [17:24] in a vacuum no one's going to have a [17:26] problem with, right? Like, can I all at [17:29] once reach out to all of my neighbors to [17:30] see if any of them have found my dog? [17:33] Near 100% approval rate on the that that [17:37] idea that big. [17:38] >> And again, this is what people are [17:39] already doing in the app. Now, in [17:40] different neighborhoods, boy, do you run [17:43] into different things people are doing [17:45] that cause all kinds of problems, right? [17:47] Did you is this an explosion? Did you [17:49] see my dog? Right. On the scale of [17:51] moral, [17:52] >> we got a lot of this is a teenager in a [17:54] hoodie. They're probably a criminal. [17:55] >> There you go. Um, I saw a guy looking at [17:57] my car is comes up in the data that um [18:01] I'm mad [18:03] >> the delivery person for my food order [18:06] did didn't look like a citizen is one [18:07] that is rising in the rankings. Like [18:09] this is all bad stuff that you can do [18:11] once you have this level of [18:13] surveillance. And Ring has been in the [18:16] mix of this problem since the day it was [18:19] founded because Jaime who again smart [18:22] person was founded the company you know [18:24] famously founded it on on Shark Tank as [18:27] Doorbot like very compelling story very [18:30] compelling actor founder talk all the [18:32] whole thing since the first day he's [18:35] been like this is to fight crime. [18:37] >> Yeah he's never wavered he's never been [18:39] he's never he didn't find it wasn't like [18:41] he had to find product market fit. He's [18:43] like, "Why did I make this video camera [18:44] to fight crime?" Like straight up, his [18:47] pitch has been surveillance from the [18:48] beginning. And on to decoder and to Gen [18:51] 2, the last time we talked to Gen Tui at [18:52] the launch of the last round of [18:54] Doorbells, he's like, "If you put enough [18:55] of these in certain neighborhoods, we [18:57] will zero out crime." And he and I spent [18:59] an hour talking about that. And next [19:00] week, we'll have a decoder episode just [19:02] like really unpacking that conversation [19:03] one more time. Um, so I won't go into it [19:05] too much here, but he and I spent an [19:06] hour being like, "What do you mean if [19:09] you have enough cameras, you roll zero [19:10] car?" What is the mechanism by which [19:12] these cameras will bring crime to zero? [19:16] And the answer is well people will know [19:18] there are cameras they will misbehave [19:20] and you know to some extent it's we're [19:21] going to share the footage with law [19:23] enforcement. [19:24] No please. That that gives Junov so much [19:28] less credit than he should get for the [19:30] aggressiveness with which he wants to [19:32] give all of your They keep signing deals [19:34] with police officer with police [19:36] departments. Like this is a feature not [19:38] a bug. Like actually can I can I play [19:40] you can I play you one more 30 second [19:42] thing? So uh Wise a smart home [19:46] competitor to uh to Ring which [19:49] hilariously has a whole bunch of its own [19:51] like security issues and privacy issues. [19:54] Uh got a lot of credit after this Ring [19:57] ad came out and sparked a lot of [19:59] people's fears because immediately like [20:00] you look at that ad and it's like oh [20:02] replace dogs with anything else and this [20:04] is a horrifying dystopian hellscape that [20:06] you've just described. Um, I I am [20:09] confident there is a reason that Ring [20:12] launched this feature with dogs. Do you [20:13] know what I mean? But anyway, so Wise [20:14] makes this thing. Let me just play you [20:16] this 30 seconds because I think it is it [20:18] is a useful and important piece of the [20:21] equation here. This is Milo. Pets are [20:23] family, but every year 10 million of [20:25] them go missing. And the ways we look [20:26] for them haven't changed in years, [20:28] except for all of these. But what if we [20:30] could make finding one lost dog require [20:32] the computational power of a small [20:34] dictator-led nation? search party from [20:37] real. [20:37] >> All right, you get the idea. [20:38] >> I get the idea. Can I just point out [20:40] Wise has had massive security issues. [20:42] >> Yeah. Don't strangers can control your [20:44] Wise cams over the internet. [20:47] >> Here, let me Yeah, I'll just like [20:49] cameras outside your house. Yeah, you [20:50] got weird surveillance problems. We're [20:51] going to talk about how complicated all [20:52] that will make you feel. Do not put [20:54] cameras in your house. [20:55] >> Don't do it. [20:56] >> Completely agree. The number of like [20:58] feel-good clips I watch of like babies [21:00] breaking out of their cribs and going to [21:02] the the kitchen to like get juice. It's [21:04] like first you feel great. You're like, [21:05] "This is very funny. That baby jumps out [21:07] of your crib." You're like, "Why is [21:07] there a camera in your house?" [21:08] >> Mhm. [21:09] >> Why is there an internet camera in your [21:10] house? Why is there one in your kitchen? [21:11] Why is there one in your living room? [21:12] Why is there one all the way from the [21:13] baby's crib to the kid? What are you [21:14] doing? And there's no way to like reach [21:16] through your phone and disconnect the [21:18] camera, but I want there to [21:21] Neili and I will come to your house and [21:23] slightly disconnect all of your cameras. [21:25] I have a lot to say about the fact that [21:26] the baby monitor camera that we bought [21:28] got discontinued and now the only one [21:29] you can buy from the same brand has a [21:32] Wi-Fi option embedded in it and they [21:33] they know it's bad so there's a hardware [21:35] switch in the camera. [21:36] >> Oh, wild. [21:36] >> But I'm like I don't I don't even want [21:38] Don't put a camera in your house. [21:39] >> Yeah, [21:39] >> just don't do that. [21:40] >> But anyway, to to the point of this ad [21:42] like I I think if you're Jamie and Ring [21:46] that wise video is not a good burn [21:49] because you're like, "Yeah, that [21:50] actually is exactly what we're trying. [21:51] >> That's what we're doing." Yeah. They [21:52] again, he will tell you. He will. He He [21:56] >> Look, I like people who are honest. [21:57] Yeah. [21:58] >> Right. And Jamie is very honest. He's [21:59] like, "I started this company to fight [22:01] crime. I'm going to do it with pervasive [22:03] video surveillance." [22:04] >> He's not hiding the ball. [22:06] >> No. [22:06] >> I think he's a little annoyed that the [22:08] the nature of law enforcement and how [22:10] people feel about the police using their [22:12] data right now are radically different [22:14] than when he founded Ring in like 2012 [22:16] or 2013. It was it was back then, right? [22:19] The nature of all this has changed, but [22:21] his point of view has not. But again, [22:22] all of this stuff is a it's it's a [22:24] feature, not a bug, right? Like, and I [22:26] think to your point about them being [22:27] honest, I think I think the challenge [22:30] here is that everyone is able to make [22:33] those decisions for themselves, right? [22:35] Like I is is the possibility of is [22:39] lowering the possibility of someone [22:40] breaking into your house worth the [22:43] intrusiveness of having a camera? I [22:45] think reasonable people can disagree on [22:47] where you land on that. The other thing [22:50] that's happening is my camera is also [22:52] watching you. And so what we've now [22:54] created is this big societywide problem [22:56] that not all of society gets to [22:58] participate in. And I think that has [23:00] been the part that Ring has not done a [23:03] good job of reckoning with. It's like, [23:04] sure, are would I consent to you [23:07] lighting up my camera in order to find [23:09] your dog? Sure. Fine. Is it unbelievably [23:13] obvious to me what opting me into that [23:16] automatically does and what you can very [23:19] clearly do next with that exact same [23:21] techn like yes of course. And do we as [23:26] reasonable consumers in the year 2026 [23:28] have any reason to believe tech [23:29] executives when they tell us they'll [23:31] never do the bad thing? No. So, like I'm [23:33] at this point now where I I I struggle [23:35] with this because I don't know how to [23:39] reckon with the fact that my block is [23:41] filled with these things. And if my dog [23:42] ever gets out, I will be grateful for [23:44] the fact that most people on my block [23:46] probably didn't know to turn this [23:47] feature off. [23:48] >> But I also sort of feel like I should go [23:50] door to door and tell everybody to turn [23:51] this feature off. [23:52] >> I have this theory about just what is [23:55] happening in our politics right now. It [23:57] was uh I think about it a lot. Right now [24:01] we are convinced like culturally [24:04] convinced that our actions do not affect [24:06] other people. You just see it [24:08] everywhere. You see it in there's a rise [24:10] in measles cases. Why? Because we've [24:12] decided our actions don't affect other [24:14] people even though they very clearly do [24:15] like all over the place. [24:16] >> And Ring cameras are an incredible [24:19] example of this where the cameras on my [24:21] house are fine. They're fine. Sure. And [24:24] I can turn them on and off and whatever. [24:26] But they are, to your point, they're [24:28] taking video of you. And so my cameras [24:32] can invade your rights, but me turning [24:34] that on has no impact on me. So here's [24:36] this button in, you know, an app [24:39] distributed by Amazon on the hardware [24:41] that Amazon owns where you have like a a [24:44] moral quandry that is should I affect [24:46] someone else's rights? And I I would [24:48] just say American culture in 2026 [24:51] does not equip people to think about [24:53] that. Well, [24:54] >> yeah. True. Like it just it's just that [24:57] you kind of you see once you like start [24:59] looking for it like do you believe that [25:02] all of us working together is a better [25:04] solution or problem than everyone [25:05] working individually like do my actions [25:07] affect you and should that have any [25:09] impact on how I behave there just no no [25:12] the answer is no one wants to think [25:13] about it like please open Tik Tok and [25:15] move on and you just I think this button [25:18] is very challenging for people for that [25:19] reason because your your individual [25:22] decision will never affect you [25:23] >> right [25:24] >> it will affect other and the collective [25:26] decisions of other people will affect [25:28] you. But you you you have no agency here [25:31] really. And I don't know how to [25:33] reconcile that. But to your point, if [25:34] you lose your dog, maybe this will be [25:36] helpful. There's a reason they're [25:37] starting with dogs. At the same time, [25:39] Savannah Guthri's mother was kidnapped. [25:41] >> Yeah. [25:42] >> And everyone was like, "Where's the [25:44] doorbell footage?" And she didn't have a [25:46] Nest subscription on her Nest Cam, and [25:48] everyone thought it was lost. And it [25:49] turns out that the way the nest cams [25:51] work meant some data was sent to Google [25:54] at some point and Google was able to [25:56] recover it. We should talk about the [25:58] mechanics of that because that's equally [26:00] confusing. But the fact that the FBI [26:03] then released the footage that Google [26:04] had was, I would say, widely celebrated. [26:07] >> Yeah. This was this was deemed to be a [26:09] win by Nest and by law enforcement and [26:12] by the existence of these cameras. And [26:14] you know, somewhere Jamie Simmonoff is [26:15] like, "I told you this is what this is [26:18] what this is for." But I to me it's like [26:23] I don't know. I I I have I also reacted [26:26] to both of those things the ways you [26:27] just described. And I think having those [26:29] you can't hold both those ideas in your [26:31] head at the same time. You just can't [26:32] have it both ways. either this stuff is [26:36] is too problematic and too invasive and [26:38] we need ways to roll it back and not [26:42] have it be this kind of incredible [26:43] ongoing permanently stored surveillance [26:46] complex that can find anybody at any [26:47] time or it's awesome that this piece of [26:51] information about what happened at Nancy [26:52] Guthrie is coming out and might help [26:53] solve a crime. You I you can't have it [26:56] both ways. [26:57] >> Well, you can you can chart one middle [26:58] path, [27:00] >> can you? You can. So, you know, 20 years [27:02] ago, uh, CCTV cameras became absolutely [27:06] prevalent in England, like this a [27:09] 20-year-old story, like and there was a [27:11] controversy about just the number of [27:13] private CCTV cameras. [27:15] >> And this is like the old technology, [27:16] right? This isn't even like digital [27:18] internet technology. This is closed [27:20] circuit. There's tapes in the back of [27:21] the convenience store. [27:23] >> Um, and they were everywhere. And there [27:25] was a privacy debate in that country at [27:26] that time. and you end up with a series [27:29] of regulations and laws and social norms [27:33] and I don't know that it has worked out [27:35] it's any different but there is one [27:37] other path right which is to say we [27:39] should have privacy laws like the way [27:41] the government accesses the private [27:43] surveillance footage on everyone's front [27:44] door is regulated in some way and [27:46] transparent in some way and there's [27:47] things the police can't do and that is [27:49] just not where we are in America as a [27:51] society right now like we are not going [27:53] to have some wholesome debate about what [27:56] it means that everyone has a camera and [27:58] the cops want all the footage all the [27:59] time. Especially because so many people [28:01] no longer trust the intentions, the [28:04] methods, or even their interactions with [28:07] the police. Like just that's not where [28:10] we are, [28:10] >> right? [28:10] >> So the idea that you're going to have [28:11] some good faith debate outside of a [28:14] high-profile true crime story, it seems [28:18] lost, right? So now these companies are [28:19] just going to do whatever they want and [28:20] it seems like what they're going to do [28:21] is chase the check. And the United [28:23] States government is going to write a [28:25] lot of checks. [28:26] >> Yeah. House by house we are neatly [28:27] solving a law enforcement problem. [28:29] >> Yeah, there's the one middle path. I and [28:31] you could write that law. You could [28:32] write a privacy law, right? You could [28:34] say you can't light this up all the [28:35] time. There's there's a million ways to [28:36] do this. And maybe not everyone will be [28:38] happy with any of those ways. I I think [28:40] the failure is no one is even proposing [28:42] them. And even if you did propose them, [28:44] uh no one believes that any of them will [28:45] pass into law or be effective. [28:46] >> Right. What do you make of the the Nancy [28:48] Guthrie thing before we move on and get [28:50] out of this? You know, I I keep hearing [28:53] a lot of cliches like you're only paying [28:55] for access to your data, but it is true [28:57] that the Google cameras work differently [29:00] than the Ring cameras work differently [29:01] than the Wise cameras work differently [29:02] than the Arlo cameras. And Google system [29:05] in particular, we don't know which [29:07] camera she had. So, this is can like [29:10] depending on which generation of Nest [29:12] camera you had that it works slightly [29:14] differently, [29:15] >> but it it seems very much like you [29:18] always get a few days of data for free. [29:20] by a few days of video history for free. [29:23] And so there was emotion alert. The data [29:25] was sent to Google and it just didn't [29:26] get overwritten. And so the only real [29:28] insight we have into what happened here [29:30] uh was of course from Cash Patel who's [29:33] not a reliable narrator uh who said they [29:36] recovered the footage from quote [29:38] residual data located in back-end [29:39] systems. I think Google should explain [29:42] exactly what that means. Yeah. I I I [29:44] think you have a right to know if you're [29:45] a Nest customer exactly how residual [29:48] your data is to what level on what [29:50] backend systems. Um but our best guess [29:54] given the way the Nest camera system [29:56] works is that the video went up because [29:59] you do get some amount for free and it [30:01] just had not been overwritten and given [30:03] the the high-profile nature of this [30:05] case, Google assigned some engineers to [30:07] go get it. I don't know this. I'm just [30:09] saying this is the logical result of [30:11] what they're saying. Yes, [30:12] >> I think Google should absolutely have to [30:14] explain if your data goes away. And [30:16] Ring, you know, again, they're trying to [30:19] claw their way back into everyone's good [30:20] graces said to Jen, "We have no idea [30:22] what the words residual data mean [30:24] because that's not how their system [30:25] works, [30:26] >> right?" And I believe them, right? Like [30:27] it's it's purely a system architecture [30:29] question what you're doing here. But but [30:32] yeah, I agree. I mean, the the way [30:34] Google and the FBI make it sound is that [30:37] it was like it like this is like the [30:39] 1970s and somebody like left the VHS in [30:42] the room without meaning to. And that is [30:44] like if if that is how it works, that's [30:48] because Google made a deliberate choice [30:50] in how it stores and eventually deletes [30:53] and eventually overwrites the data on [30:56] its servers. And a the idea that that [30:59] data still existed and b that it was [31:02] clearly in relatively short orderable [31:04] retrievable [31:06] by Google [31:08] is just wild. And again, like I I I [31:12] think it is possible in this case to [31:13] both think it's good that this [31:14] information is out there and I'm I'm [31:16] glad that there is this clue as to what [31:18] happened in anti Guthrie. It is also [31:19] like deeply weird and alarming that this [31:23] was possible. [31:25] >> Yeah. I mean, again, I think all of [31:26] these companies owe us way more [31:28] explanations about what's going on with [31:29] their data. I think they should be [31:31] required to give us those explanations [31:32] by law. That's what a privacy law would [31:35] do. Yeah. And I think law enforcement [31:37] needs far more guard rails how they [31:39] access our data. And that is especially [31:41] under the Trump administration. That's a [31:44] long way away from being reality. There [31:45] are no more guardrails for these [31:46] companies. And so, yep, I have a problem [31:48] with Ring, but I also have a problem [31:49] with Clear View AI. Sure. Like I I have [31:52] a lot of problems with a lot of the [31:54] systems are being deployed against us. I [31:56] I'm not making apologies for Ring. I [31:58] just think I know that company and what [32:00] they care about. They're they're [32:02] designed to be like we will stop crime [32:04] with video surveillance. And so, you [32:06] know, yes, every camera kind of works [32:08] this way. Yes, you can complicate this [32:10] by talking about Nancy Gothrie, but if [32:12] you don't want to participate in that [32:13] mission, you can actually make a market [32:15] decision, right? You can be like, I'm [32:17] going to buy one from a company that [32:18] isn't like we're here to zero out crime. [32:21] That is that is a choice you can make [32:22] with your dollars. But if you're the [32:24] Door Dasher who has to go up to [32:26] someone's door to bring them food and [32:28] they get to take a picture of you and [32:30] post it wondering if you're a citizen, [32:32] you you have made zero market decisions. [32:35] >> Yeah. And and this is what I mean. Your [32:37] your choices affect other people and [32:39] really not yourself. And that's a weird [32:42] thing. That's a weird problem in app [32:43] design. Yeah. [32:44] >> Right. How are you going to communicate [32:45] this in in a switch box in an app? It is [32:48] also just a weird problem in our society [32:50] right now that no one really has the [32:52] tools to evaluate that kind of choice. [32:54] And you're actually pushed away from [32:56] thinking about those choices in that [32:57] way. Right now, [32:59] again, this is big and small, but once [33:01] you see it, it's everywhere. And these [33:02] cameras are like a particular [33:04] instantiation of that that just happen [33:06] to be a gadget. So, we're good to talk [33:07] about guys. [33:08] >> Yeah, indeed. All right, we should we [33:11] should get off of this. I think uh we [33:13] will we will keep coming back to all of [33:15] this. I'm going to go make sure the [33:16] camera on my ring is not running. Uh, [33:18] but we should take a break and then [33:19] we're going to go back. We're going to [33:19] talk about some some other gadgets that [33:22] don't exist and some other gadgets that [33:23] might. We'll be right back. [33:27] Support for the show comes from one [33:29] password. You might think that because [33:31] you're a small business, cyber criminals [33:33] won't waste their time on you, but the [33:35] reality is that small businesses are [33:37] actually the perfect target for bad [33:39] actors. But the good news is that even [33:41] the smallest teams can foil cyber crime. [33:44] One Password can help small teams manage [33:46] the number one risk bad actors exploit, [33:49] weak passwords. One Password provides [33:51] centralized management to make sure your [33:53] company's login secure. They provide [33:56] turnkey solutions that can be rolled out [33:58] in hours, whether you have dedicated IT [34:00] staff or not. One Password is designed [34:03] to meet small teams where they are, but [34:05] it's also built to grow with your [34:07] company. However complex your security [34:09] needs may get, One Password will stay [34:11] with you every step of the way. You can [34:14] take the first step to better security [34:15] by securing your team's credentials. [34:18] Find out more at onepass.com/vercast [34:22] and start securing every login. [34:28] Support for the show comes from L'Oreal [34:30] Group using the latest advancements in [34:32] science and tech to create personalized [34:34] beauty solutions for all. The global [34:36] beauty leader recently introduced two [34:38] breakthrough technologies that bring the [34:40] power of light to hair care and [34:42] skincare. Light straight and multi-yler [34:45] and the new LED face mask, both of which [34:47] were recognized as CES 2026 innovation [34:50] award honores. Learn more about both [34:52] technologies on laurel.com. [34:55] L'Oreal Group create the beauty that [34:57] moves the world. [35:03] >> All right, we're back. We have, believe [35:06] it or not, Eli, one more Super Bowl ad [35:08] to talk about, but it both is and is not [35:10] a Super Bowl ad. The the Schroinger [35:12] Super Bowl ad that we're going to talk [35:14] about. We've talked a lot on the show [35:15] and we've been waiting for OpenAI to [35:17] release its hardware. OpenAI is working [35:19] on something with Johnny IV, uh, [35:22] potentially many somethings. There has [35:24] been rumors, there's been reporting, [35:25] there's been a lot of stuff out there. [35:26] And then uh this week there was a a [35:30] weird leak that started as a Reddit [35:32] thread from a supposedly disgruntled [35:34] employee explaining why they were mad [35:36] that their Super Bowl ad about OpenAI [35:39] hardware didn't go on the Super Bowl and [35:42] then they quote unquote leaked this ad. [35:45] Have you seen this? [35:46] >> This is a crypto scam. Can we just start [35:48] with I I'm not 100% cryptoscam positive, [35:52] you know, but I I've seen a lot of [35:54] photoshops in my time. This is a crypto [35:57] scam. [35:57] >> When in doubt, cryptoscam is is a non [36:00] incorrect way to live your life at this [36:02] point in time, [36:03] >> especially the way it worked cuz they [36:04] they leaked it and there was like what? [36:06] There was like a file name on a server [36:08] and then someone was like, I've [36:10] discovered the file name on a server. It [36:11] got all the way to Alexis O'Haney being [36:13] like Reddit, cracked it again. [36:14] >> Yeah. [36:15] >> Cryptoscam. All of that just reads [36:16] crypto scam to me. I'm not sure where [36:18] the crypto scam was. [36:20] >> Yeah, true. [36:22] >> But just that sequence of events where a [36:24] bunch of people were a little too smart, [36:26] a little too fast. Crypto scam. [36:28] >> Somewhere in there. Elon Musk asked you [36:30] for your Bitcoin is is like that's [36:32] that's the turn. Um, but the the ad I [36:35] think is sort of fascinating. It's [36:36] Alexander Scarsgard uh wearing [36:39] >> it's AI Alexander Scarsgard. [36:42] >> Sorry. Fake Alexander Scarsgard. Very [36:44] convincing. fake Alexander Scarsgard [36:46] wearing what what look like uh sort of [36:48] openear headphones and where and playing [36:52] with this little orb called dime. Again, [36:55] all of this is fake. Everyone at OpenAI [36:57] has said it's fake to the point where it [37:00] would be wild for this to be true. [37:03] >> No, it's definitely fake. The whole [37:05] thing is fake all the way up and down. [37:06] Um, but this this ad ostensibly showing [37:10] OpenAI's hardware really kind of caught [37:12] on in a really funny way. Did you [37:14] believe this ad the first time you saw [37:15] it? [37:16] >> No. [37:16] >> No. [37:17] >> No. No. No. Because again, look, I've [37:20] seen a lot of Photoshops. [37:22] >> Like the my scam detection ability is is [37:26] under threat every day because of [ __ ] [37:28] But the the thing here where there was [37:30] like a Reddit post for an account that [37:32] had never existed before and then the [37:34] people in the Reddit figured it out so [37:36] fast and then there was a full ad that [37:39] was leaked with a celebrity in it that [37:41] wasn't run because OpenAI chickened out [37:43] because of the meta executives who work [37:44] like you just look at all that like none [37:46] of that happened right like 0% of this [37:50] went down especially if you have ever [37:52] watched Johnny IV introduce a product [37:55] ever in history which we have done a lot [37:58] He does not make an ad where nothing is [38:00] said. [38:02] >> True. And there's a moment at the very [38:03] end where AI Alexander Scarsgard picks [38:06] this thing up and and does a sort of [38:08] like checking his teeth face into it [38:10] that is just so immediately tonally [38:13] incorrect that it's like this. Why would [38:14] why would even the person trying to fake [38:16] this out do this? This was apparently a [38:18] pretty elaborate procedure to try and [38:21] fake this. They were they were sending [38:23] uh they were sending people like [38:25] proposals to to feature this ad. Really [38:29] interesting thing. But uh I I just found [38:31] this whole ad so fascinating. And it [38:33] very clearly to me points to [38:36] people are so desperately curious a what [38:40] any of this AI hardware is going to be [38:43] and b they're so deeply skeptical of [38:45] this being anything that immediately [38:48] there was this very funny feedback that [38:49] was like of course this is real and of [38:50] course it's this stupid. [38:53] >> So I read this more and we should talk [38:55] about the AI industry as a whole. I read [38:57] this more as um [39:00] like OpenAI's own actual ad during the [39:02] Super Bowl wasn't any good and the [39:04] anthropic ads were really good on [39:06] Twitter and then in a room where people [39:09] were actually watching the Super Bowl. [39:10] They played nothing. They felt [39:11] >> none of it hit in a room. [39:13] >> None of it like you just no one's paying [39:15] enough attention to these ads. Like the [39:16] best ad was the Coinbase ad where they [39:19] just did karaoke to Backstreet Boys. [39:21] >> Yep. [39:21] >> Because it at least got everyone's [39:22] attention. And then you know what [39:23] happened when they showed the Coinbase [39:24] logo? At least in the party I was at, [39:26] everyone groaned and said, "Fuck [39:27] Coinbase." [39:29] >> Sounds about right. [39:30] >> But everyone sang a Backstreet Boy song [39:32] for a minute. By the way, in the ad [39:34] industry, that's called a pattern [39:35] breaker. Did you know that? [39:36] >> No. [39:36] >> And they very successful and they're [39:38] good at this, right? So like whatever. [39:40] Like, [39:40] >> but what you saw was the actual CHP ad [39:43] isn't any good. The Chat GPT product [39:46] because it's about to get ads in it, [39:47] people think is about to get shittier in [39:49] some way. And then as we have talked [39:51] about so much like Claude and Claude [39:53] Code are having this incredible moment [39:55] and open doesn't seem to be poised to [39:57] compete with that anyway except to try [39:59] to light up ads to compete with Google [40:00] search. [40:01] >> Right. [40:01] >> And so I I I looked at this whole [40:04] kurfuffle as like in order for this hoax [40:06] to work in order for this crypto scam to [40:08] sell one bitcoin or whatever the hell [40:10] they were trying to do uh you had to [40:12] believe that there was a better ad on [40:14] the shelf. [40:16] And it that w that was believable. You [40:20] had to believe that there was an ad [40:21] executive somewhere at Opening Eye who [40:23] was furious that his better ad was sheld [40:25] in in favor of the thing they actually [40:27] ran. And if you didn't if you don't [40:30] believe that, then of course this is a [40:31] hoax. If you look at the the state of [40:33] the advertising, you're like, "Yeah, [40:34] that's possible." And you and then you [40:36] or Alex and you're tweeting this out. [40:38] >> Yeah. Fair. Meanwhile, the actual OpenAI [40:41] hardware news of the week is that uh it [40:43] appears OpenAI's actual hardware launch [40:45] has slipped to next year. [40:48] >> I would I'm just going to keep pointing [40:49] out uh the all knowing voice assistant [40:53] that can do things for you is a long way [40:55] away. Even if you're the biggest open [40:57] cloth fan in the world, that thing is a [41:00] million miles away from being a mass [41:02] consumer product. [41:03] >> Yes. And it is uh increasingly clear [41:06] that everyone, including Johnny IV, [41:08] might know that. Um, but let's talk [41:10] about some of the weirdness going on in [41:12] this space right now because, uh, you [41:14] just alluded to this, but one of the [41:15] things that has been happening all week [41:18] is a bunch of people have been leaving [41:21] high-profile jobs at AI companies and [41:23] and sort of sounding alarms behind them. [41:27] >> Yeah. an OpenAI executive left and wrote [41:31] a a sort of scathing essay in the New [41:35] York Times about how problematic it was [41:37] that ads are going to be in chat GPT. [41:39] Um, an anthropic safety person left and [41:43] wrote a similarly sort of catastrophic [41:46] thing about the state of AI and where [41:48] we're all [41:48] >> not similarly. I'm mad about ads is one [41:50] thing. This dude wrote, quote, "The [41:52] world is in peril." [41:55] >> All right. Yeah, that's worse. There is [41:56] a whole series of interconnected crises [41:59] unfolding at this very moment. We appear [42:01] to be approaching a threshold where our [42:02] wisdom must grow in equal measure to our [42:05] capacity to affect the world lest we [42:08] face the consequences. [42:10] I would say that's a little different [42:11] than I'm mad about ads and chat. [42:14] >> It's a little worse. I would agree with [42:15] that. Um but and then the other thing is [42:19] uh this big group of XAI people left and [42:23] I think there's a chance that that one [42:25] belongs off to the side. Um because XAI [42:29] just became part of SpaceX. There's [42:31] going to be a lot of corporate changes. [42:32] A bunch of people presumably just got [42:33] very rich from this thing which created [42:35] the largest private company I think in [42:38] America or maybe even the world. Um it [42:42] but there is something happening here [42:43] where an increasing number of important [42:46] people are finding cause to sound the [42:49] alarm about what's going on with AI. Do [42:51] you do you make anything of all of this [42:53] happening at the same time? [42:54] >> Well, you keep saying that this is my [42:56] pet theory, but I think this is real. I [42:58] think this is this is an important thing [43:01] to to [43:01] >> I already know where this is going and I [43:03] hate it. [43:04] >> I think anthropic thinks Claude is [43:05] alive. [43:07] Like I really do like [43:09] And I I think this this might be shared [43:11] at other labs, but Anthropic is is like [43:13] particularly kind of hinting that they [43:15] think Claude is live. They just did a a [43:17] big New Yorker profile called What is [43:19] Claude? Anthropic doesn't know either. [43:20] And it's like, dude, it's an L. I know [43:22] what it is. But they think it's live and [43:24] they keep running these tests on it and [43:26] it keeps surprising them in in different [43:27] ways. And yes, Claude is very powerful. [43:30] And yes, if you give it a vending [43:32] machine, it will sell everyone a [43:33] tungsten cube for a dollar, like [43:34] whatever mistakes it's going to make. [43:36] And yes, they release reports on [43:37] scheming, but like there's something in [43:40] this industry where they have decided [43:42] the people who work in the industry sort [43:44] of collectively have decided that they [43:45] they're they're touching consciousness. [43:48] >> Maybe not human consciousness, but [43:49] consciousness of a kind. I don't know [43:51] how to evaluate that. I just see it [43:53] right like particularly I think [43:55] anthropic cloud is alive because they [43:58] keep hinting it. They keep talking about [44:00] it like it's alive. They don't say it [44:02] the way that Sam Alman is like we're [44:04] gonna do AGI, right? They just keep [44:06] hinting at it. So if you're there, [44:08] right, of course your safety researchers [44:10] are like, "Well, you're doing stuff to [44:11] make money with the thing that's alive [44:13] that might kill us all. We should stop [44:15] until we figure out how to make it not [44:16] kill us all." [44:17] >> Sure. [44:17] >> And then you see that happening at [44:19] OpenAI, which has to make way more money [44:21] way faster because they don't have the [44:23] enterprise business that Anthropic has, [44:24] and they're just disbanding their quote [44:26] mission alignment team, and their head [44:28] of platform safety is now the head [44:29] futurist. It's like, well, what do you [44:31] think is going to happen in the future [44:32] such that your head of safety has to be [44:33] the head futurist? Oh, it's going to [44:34] kill us all. And like I don't want to [44:37] buy into dumerism. I think I'm [44:39] personally still the most skeptical [44:41] person about AI that I encounter on a [44:43] regular basis. Um, but this industry [44:46] right now is marked by a sense the [44:49] people who work there are afraid of the [44:51] capabilities that they've created and [44:53] they do not think there's sufficient [44:54] controls. [44:55] >> Right? There is a there is a measure of [44:57] true belief that you have to have to [45:00] quit your job in this way [45:02] >> which is a weird thing, right? because [45:03] it's not. It would be one thing if they [45:05] were like, "I'm quitting my job because [45:07] I think Sam Alman is is a a you know, a [45:10] scam artist who is just milking people [45:11] out of money and is going to ruin the [45:13] economy." That's not what these people [45:14] are saying. They're saying essentially [45:16] we've created God and we're not doing [45:18] enough to rein it in. [45:19] >> You're more on the speaking circuit [45:21] given that talk than you are like [45:23] cashing in your entropic stock. [45:25] >> I'm sure that's true. And I think this [45:27] is to be fair a sort of long tradition [45:30] in the tech industry. People left [45:32] Facebook saying the same kind of thing. [45:34] People left Google. Tristan Harris made [45:36] a whole Yep. life. [45:38] >> He did make more money on the speaking [45:39] circuit. [45:40] >> Oh, no question. Um out of saying [45:42] essentially the same things like we have [45:43] created this thing that is very powerful [45:45] and we are neither honest about nor [45:46] reckoning with the consequences. [45:48] >> And we're seeing, you know, we haven't [45:49] really talked about the fact that Meta [45:50] is on trial. Adams was on the stand this [45:52] week and there is just a lot of [45:54] documentation coming out of Meta that [45:55] proves that they they knew what they [45:57] were doing to people. [45:57] >> So this is the thing that I struggle [45:59] with, right? [46:00] A the people who have come out and [46:02] loudly said this have been proven right [46:04] historically in the tech industry over [46:06] and over and over and over again. We [46:08] should have believed Tristan Harris [46:11] quicker than we did. Right? Like he [46:13] eventually helped make a documentary [46:14] that I didn't like very much. But that's [46:16] beside the point. The the idea that [46:18] these people were coming out saying we [46:20] have built a machine that is changing [46:22] the way that people live their lives and [46:23] we're not talking about it enough. like [46:25] if we had recognized that at a bigger [46:27] level about Google and Facebook much [46:29] sooner, things might have been different [46:31] in better ways. And so part of me looks [46:33] at this and is like, okay, maybe maybe [46:36] what we need to do is take these people [46:38] at their word that they see what they've [46:41] built more clearly than we do because [46:42] they see the dashboards, they see what's [46:44] happening, they see how people are using [46:46] these things. And this is why I bring up [46:47] the ads thing too, right? is like the [46:49] people alarmed about putting ads in the [46:52] experience are the ones who are seeing [46:54] the kinds of information that people are [46:55] giving to chat GPT. And you put this [46:57] next to like everybody's up in arms [46:59] about uh OpenAI retiring GPT40 which is [47:03] like the the truly sickopantic thing [47:05] that everybody turned into their best [47:06] friend and it's like that stuff is real [47:09] and I think I think we do need to reckon [47:10] with it. And I have to remind myself [47:12] sometimes that even though I'm confident [47:14] that AI is not nearly as good as the [47:16] people wanting to sell it to me say that [47:17] it is, it's still good enough that it is [47:20] causing people to do these kinds of [47:21] things and make these kinds of trades [47:23] and we should worry about those things. [47:26] And so I'm I'm just stuck in this thing [47:28] of like I don't believe it's as good as [47:29] any of these people say that it is, [47:32] but maybe that doesn't matter because [47:34] maybe the people are still doing the [47:36] things that are scary even if the tech [47:38] is not as good as Sam Alwin says that it [47:40] is. Well, it's good enough to cause [47:41] harm. [47:42] >> Yeah. Yeah. Well said. That that much is [47:44] true. It's obviously true at this point. [47:46] It's good enough to cause harm. [47:48] >> Is it going to destroy humanity? Like, [47:49] probably not yet. But is it doing a lot [47:51] of harm? [47:52] >> I watched I've watched so many AI cats [47:54] do the electroers dance that I'm very [47:56] concerned about humanity. [47:58] >> Uh it is just convincing every time. [48:01] >> It is really ironic that that would be [48:02] how it would do it. Do you know what I [48:04] mean? Like it's much more likely to to [48:06] like bore us all to death with cat [48:08] videos or like entertain us all to death [48:10] with cat videos than it is to just truly [48:12] like [48:12] >> it will dull in our critical thinking [48:14] skills until it can con us into [48:15] anything. And that by the way is kind of [48:17] how cloud works. So who knows? Um, what [48:20] I'm seeing is a bunch of people who see [48:23] the technology getting commercialized, [48:25] who understand the incentives that [48:28] commercialization will create, [48:30] particularly advertising, and who are [48:32] saying, "Hey, we have stopped being as [48:34] careful as we should be." And I think [48:36] that this is the tipping point. Yeah. [48:38] >> Right. These these things are going from [48:40] being research projects or things that [48:42] you can give a TED talk about to actual [48:44] products that are being deployed that [48:46] now need to return on the massive [48:48] investments that have been made into [48:49] them. And that means the commercial [48:51] pressure is arriving. And you can see in [48:53] some of these notes and some of these [48:54] letters, [48:55] these people who are quitting loudly are [48:57] saying we're not making the right [48:58] decisions. I raised the flags and I was [49:01] overruled. Uh open I just fired an [49:04] executive who opposed adult mode, right? [49:07] You said we should not let this thing [49:08] make erotica. And you can see like why [49:13] you would raise that objection, right? [49:15] Like you can see why you would not want [49:16] these systems to do that because you [49:19] look at that headline and I went and [49:20] read a Reddit thread about it like in [49:22] the chat GP forum and the first response [49:24] was the reason I use Gro is because [49:25] it'll write erotica for me and it's like [49:28] oh this is bad like [49:29] >> yep [49:29] >> you can have whatever you know high and [49:32] mighty approach to AI that you want and [49:34] then hundreds of millions of people are [49:36] using the tools and the the tools are [49:38] being guided by commercial imperatives [49:40] not moral imperatives [49:41] >> and we're not good at that right now we [49:44] we are certainly not good at not making [49:46] the money like as again as a society we [49:48] are going to make all the money that can [49:50] be made and I I think that's underneath [49:52] it less than like pure doomerism it's [49:55] we've gone from being idealistic about [49:57] it to being commercial about it and [50:00] those incentives really really changed [50:02] the game with the technology that is [50:04] again at least good enough to do harm [50:06] >> yeah and this is why we keep talking [50:07] about ads in chat GPT as such a sort of [50:10] seminal moment in that transition and [50:11] that was there was some news about that [50:13] this week um the first ads started [50:15] rolling out in ChatGpt, OpenAI announced [50:18] who the first advertisers were going to [50:20] be. I spent a long time trying to get [50:22] Chad GBT to show me an ad and it hasn't [50:24] yet. Um, I even asked Chad GBT, "What [50:27] kind of questions could I ask you that [50:29] are likely to show an ad?" And then I [50:30] asked all those questions and it showed [50:31] me zero ads because AI is a good [50:34] technology. I'm like, "Show me ads, Chad [50:36] GBT." And it's like, "Ah, you're good. [50:37] Everything's fine." Um, but but I think [50:40] you're right that like this is this is [50:42] the turn towards a different kind of [50:46] road of commercializing your product. [50:49] And it's like we talked about last week [50:50] that OpenAI has said it has lots of [50:52] values. It has it has stated all of the [50:54] ways in which it is not going to use ads [50:57] and advertising to change the nature of [50:59] your conversations with chat GBT. And I [51:02] think one of the things a lot of these [51:03] people are saying is a those two things [51:05] are impossible to separate and b all of [51:08] your incentives [51:10] are to mess up my conversations with [51:13] chat GPT in order to make more money. [51:14] Yeah. [51:15] >> And some of the initial advertisers are [51:16] are really interesting. It's like some [51:18] normal stuff. You know, Target, uh [51:21] William Sonoma, HelloFresh. It's like [51:23] these are these are advertisers. You're [51:25] going to ask about a product and it's [51:26] going to offer you a product. Fine. [51:29] already like you this is this is the [51:31] beginning of a road that ends in a very [51:33] different place [51:34] >> where all of a sudden what you have is [51:36] is a giant set of advertisers [51:40] >> who want to be in front of you in as as [51:43] sort of narratively normal way as [51:46] possible. They're going to want to be as [51:47] seamless and integrated and feel like [51:50] they are part of the conversation that [51:51] you're having with chat GPT. And so [51:52] HelloFresh is going to come in and be [51:54] I'm going to ask it to cook and it's [51:55] going to be like, "Oh, you're so tired. [51:57] Why don't just get HelloFresh? It's [51:59] right there. [52:00] >> Well, also importantly, you know, all of [52:03] these people are ex Meta people. Fiji [52:04] Simo ran Facebook. [52:06] >> Yeah. [52:07] >> Like it's all meta people up and down [52:08] running ads at at OpenAI and building [52:10] them intota [52:16] or at Google from the big fancy bluechip [52:19] advertisers. [52:20] >> The brands you just listed are not the [52:21] majority of the money on the big [52:22] platforms. It is bottom of the funnel [52:26] longtail ultraargeted Instagram crap. [52:29] And so if you are running a business [52:31] where you need to peel maybe a 100% of [52:34] Google search revenue to pay back the [52:37] trillions of dollars that Sam Alman has [52:39] gone out and raised, uh you're going to [52:41] have to get those advertisers and you're [52:43] going to have to put them right in front [52:44] of people. And that is not going to be [52:46] as fun as as you know Target. It's it's [52:49] going to be a lot shittier in like a lot [52:51] of different ways. like are you ready [52:53] for Shark Ninja to be in your house in [52:55] this way? Like cuz it's coming and that [52:58] that entire sort of like direct response [53:00] QVC world that we can see on the social [53:03] platforms if they want to make the money [53:05] they're going to have to do that product [53:07] >> and who knows like who knows how that's [53:09] going to work. [53:09] >> Yeah. I just want to read you something [53:11] from HelloFresh about this. Um this is a [53:14] LinkedIn post from Patrick Saul who does [53:15] marketing at HelloFresh. Uh and goes [53:17] into basically why are we doing this? [53:19] why why we think it's important. Um, and [53:22] one of the things he says is it's [53:23] meeting high intent moments. And he [53:25] writes, "When someone asks an AI for [53:27] help planning a weekly menu or managing [53:28] a busy family schedule, they aren't just [53:30] browsing, they're solving a problem. By [53:31] exploring the space, we are positioning [53:32] our brands at the exact moment of [53:34] intent. We're not just showing an ad. We [53:35] are offering a solution to the what's [53:37] for dinner dilemma at the moment it's [53:38] being asked." Uh, and he describes this [53:40] as a a thing that might come up when you [53:42] ask about meal planning. And like you [53:46] can just imagine the ways in this im [53:48] this immediately goes sideways, right? [53:50] You have people who have been talking to [53:51] Chad GBT about being tired or the the [53:53] mental health issues they're going [53:54] through or the actual health issues [53:55] they're going through that they're [53:56] uploading to Chad GBT health and you [53:58] have an advertiser who comes in and [53:59] says, "Well, don't worry about cooking. [54:01] We know you've we know you've had a hard [54:03] day. We know you're tired. We know [54:04] you're going through all this stuff. Why [54:06] not just why not just offload all of the [54:08] work of cooking to this great company, [54:09] HelloFresh, that can do it. That's like [54:11] that's a good ass advertisement. Like [54:14] that would work. And that's the thing is [54:16] like every single incentive inside of [54:18] this product is going to be to use all [54:19] of that information that people are [54:21] giving to this incredibly personal, [54:23] incredibly personalized, incredibly real [54:25] seeming to lots of people tool and [54:28] essentially weaponize it to sell you [54:29] stuff in a way that is actually [54:31] potentially more powerful than the set [54:33] of data Google has ever had. and the set [54:36] of tools that it has to put that in [54:37] front of you. [54:37] >> Have you had this happen to you in [54:38] Gemini yet? [54:39] >> No. [54:40] >> So, you know, Google does personal [54:41] intelligence now where they they they're [54:43] happy to know about you. [54:44] >> Yeah. [54:44] >> And the other day I was trying to fix a [54:47] sink and Gemini was like, "Well, you're [54:50] a 45-year-old guy who likes to do home [54:52] improvement projects. You could just [54:53] replace the whole sink instead of the [54:54] cartridge." And I was like, "You shut [54:55] your goddamn [54:57] >> and it's it's coming." [54:58] >> Oh, I don't like that. [54:59] >> To be fair, Open has said they will not [55:00] mix this data. Their ads do not yet mix [55:02] the data. to the incentives are there. [55:05] >> Even the advertisers want that. Like [55:07] this is the thing. This is the the [55:08] HelloFresh marketing person saying this [55:10] is the thing we're after [55:11] >> and Google's going to give it to them. [55:12] >> Yeah. [55:13] >> Their competitor is going to give it to [55:14] them. [55:15] >> Open either has to invent digital god. [55:17] They got to do AGI or they have to take [55:19] I think a 100% of Google search revenue [55:21] to to pay down Sam Alman's loans. Who [55:24] knows what's going to happen here. [55:25] >> Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, I if if you see a [55:29] Chad GBT ad, screenshot it and send it [55:31] to us first.com. I'm serious. I want to [55:33] see all of them. [55:34] >> Also, if you work in Anthropic and you [55:36] can tell us whether Anthropic thinks [55:37] Claude is alive, let me know cuz I I'm [55:39] just saying like [55:40] >> and and if your email involves starting [55:42] with the question, well, it depends on [55:44] what you mean by a lot. [55:45] >> If you're one of the cranks who wants me [55:46] to interview an LLM, like you get out of [55:48] my face like I get those every day. Like [55:50] the number of people are like, have you [55:51] interviewed Bing to see if it's like I'm [55:52] not doing it. But if you can tell me if [55:55] Dario thinks and Claude is live, you [55:57] know, [55:57] >> you can't interview Bing. Nobody ever [55:59] asks you to interview an Excel [56:01] spreadsheet. That's not how it works. [56:02] >> I will one day I'm just going to come on [56:04] the show. I'm going to read the back and [56:05] forth I had with the guy who asked me to [56:07] interview Bing. And I was like, I think [56:08] you're I think you need to step away [56:09] from your AI, sir. And he got super mad [56:12] at me. [56:14] >> Yeah. Anyway, send us the ads. I want to [56:16] see all of them. The weirder the better. [56:19] Um, and if you if you want to send me [56:21] your HelloFresh referral so that we can [56:23] both get some free stuff, I'm down. [56:24] Let's do this. Uh, we're going to take a [56:26] break, then we're going to go back. We [56:27] got a light. [56:27] >> That's how we're going to break the [56:28] ethics policy. [56:31] >> For free meals, I'll do almost anything [56:33] is the honest truth about where I come [56:35] from journalistically. All right, we're [56:37] going to take a break. We'll be right [56:38] back. [56:41] Support for the show comes from Twilio. [56:43] Even in today's digital landscape, there [56:45] are builders. You know, the creators and [56:47] entrepreneurs who envision products and [56:49] platforms that have never been done [56:51] before. And those folks need an open [56:53] space to tinker, play, and ultimately [56:55] build. Think of it as a digital [56:57] workbench. That's where Twilio comes in. [57:00] Whether you write code or shape [57:02] strategy, if you build, you belong. [57:04] Twilio's customer engagement platform is [57:06] the ultimate toolbox for developers, [57:08] designers, business leaders, and [57:10] everyone in between. If you're scaling a [57:12] startup or transforming an enterprise, [57:14] you need a customer engagement platform [57:16] that can keep up. And with Twilio, you [57:18] can combine data, AI, and real-time [57:20] communications in one open, flexible [57:23] space to build, test, and scale with [57:26] confidence. You can create without [57:27] limits, without workarounds, and without [57:29] compromise. Just the freedom to build [57:32] your way. Bottom line, Twilio is the [57:35] ultimate builder toolbox. So, what will [57:37] you build today? Learn more at [57:39] twilio.com. [57:41] That's t wi liio.com. [57:45] Be a builder. [57:50] All right, we're back. It's time for the [57:52] lightning round. Unsponsored for flavor. [57:55] We keep forgetting to say that. It's I [57:57] feel it's important to say. [57:58] >> It is very important, [57:58] >> especially after I just told everyone to [58:00] send me free meals. [58:04] Um, so Neil, I'm looking at the Google [58:07] doc we use to to plan out this show and [58:10] I have to say there is a there is a [58:11] segment in here that is called Brendan [58:13] Carr is a dummy that we do from time to [58:15] time. This might be the longest set of [58:17] links you have ever put in. So let's [58:19] just say it's time for presumably a very [58:22] long version of America's favorite [58:23] podcast within a podcast. Renie Carr is [58:26] a dummy. He's such a dummy. [58:30] Ghost in the cold theater is about to [58:33] begin the trans. Let the breakdown [58:36] start. It's time to take the cars apart. [58:39] Yeah. Brandon car is a dummy. [58:45] >> He's such a dummy. [58:46] >> Yeah. Brandon car is a dummy. [58:53] >> Okay. Our thanks to I believe it's [58:55] pronounced mackil who sent that to us on [58:57] blue sky. Uh, it's Sunseo. That's AI [58:59] music, but it rules. It rules. [59:02] >> A thing you should know is if you ever [59:03] want to know like exactly what is [59:05] David's music taste, like that just [59:07] there was like alarmingly close to. [59:09] >> It's It's gray suited government [59:11] regulators being taken down by AI pop [59:12] punk. [59:13] >> There is also a full version of that [59:15] song that we will link to in the show [59:16] notes because it is it is spectacular. [59:19] >> Uh, thank you to everyone who keeps [59:20] sending us theme songs. We're going to [59:21] keep running them. Obviously, this [59:22] feedback loop is very strong. Talk about [59:23] incentives. Um, all right. Brendan did a [59:27] lot this week. [59:28] >> Uh, and we're going to start, you know, [59:30] like a it's a a Brendan sideswipe, [59:34] but it it's it to me it's the biggest [59:36] one of them all. So, if you've been [59:38] paying attention, a lot of people asked [59:40] us to talk about this. Uh, the Trump [59:42] administration came for the biggest [59:45] controller of speech in America, the [59:47] thing that dominates all of our [59:48] conversations all day long, that sets [59:50] the cultural tone. The the Trump [59:52] administration this week came for Apple [59:53] News. you know, Apple News, you talk all [59:57] day. Everyone, the agenda is set by [59:59] Apple News. [60:00] >> The the broadcast channel Apple News. [60:04] >> So, um, there was a study by the Media [60:07] Research Council, which is a very [60:09] conservative sort of right-leaning media [60:11] watchdog. And the study is bad. Uh, [60:14] we'll get into why it's bad. Um, but [60:16] they looked at of the, you know, 600 [60:19] some Apple News stories at the top of [60:22] Apple News over some period of time, [60:24] most of them were by quote left-leaning [60:25] outlets and there are no quote [60:27] conservative or right-leaning outlets on [60:29] here. Now, if you've ever opened Apple [60:30] News in your life, you know a couple [60:31] things. Um, one, uh, this product is for [60:34] for dead people. Like only old people [60:36] use Apple News and like a lot of old [60:38] people use Apple News. [60:40] >> Like we we should say disclosure, Neil [60:42] Patel is one of them. [60:43] >> I'm one of them. Disclosure, The Verge [60:46] is available in Apple News. Like, if [60:48] you're a subscriber to Apple News Plus, [60:49] you get our you get past our pay wall. [60:51] Like, the the media industry is addicted [60:53] to Apple News. Like, in a very real way. [60:55] >> A real thing the Verge [60:57] staff is used to is you just showing up [61:00] at random hours of the day and dropping [61:02] in an Apple News link that doesn't work [61:04] for anybody because you were reading a [61:06] news story. [61:06] >> Well, I'll get to this in a minute. [61:08] There's a reason why it's it's [61:10] specifically like three outlets I do [61:11] that for. Um, so there's a study, media [61:14] research council does this study. This [61:16] study gets picked up by the New York [61:17] Post, which is like Apple News is [61:19] horribly biased. And then the machine [61:21] starts to turn and Andrew Ferguson, the [61:24] chair of the FTC, the Federal Trade [61:26] Commission, sends a legal threat to Tim [61:28] Cook that he of course posts on X, [61:31] saying, "We are going to investigate [61:33] Apple News for suppressing conservative [61:35] news," which is not a thing the Federal [61:38] Trade Commission can do. And I know it's [61:39] not a thing they can do. Uh because in [61:41] that letter Ferguson says we are not the [61:44] speech police [61:46] but I'm curious about the speech that [61:48] you're promoting. [61:49] >> What and so that the mechanism by which [61:53] they the FTC believes it can be the [61:55] speech police is uh the terms of service [61:59] of Apple News may or may not suggest to [62:03] people that this is unbiased and won't [62:05] promote leftleaning outlets. That's not [62:07] anywhere in the terms of service. I was [62:08] going to say I can't imagine there's a [62:10] thing in there that is like don't worry [62:12] conservatives we got you too [62:14] >> right but Andrew Ferguson sends us a [62:16] letter saying there's consumer deception [62:18] because of the Federal Trade Commission [62:20] they're going to look into whether Apple [62:22] is playing fair in the market [62:24] >> with Apple News which again and I know [62:28] this for a fact is mostly read by very [62:32] old people like the the demos of Apple [62:35] News you're not you're just not worried [62:37] about It's it's it's extremely it's just [62:40] boomers. That's what it is. It's very [62:42] popular and it pays out a lot of money [62:43] to publishers. So, publishers care an [62:45] awful lot about Apple News. There are [62:47] publications in this world, big famous [62:48] ones where like the majority of their [62:51] revenue is Apple News [62:52] >> and we just don't talk. It's like the [62:54] same as Google search, but we just we [62:55] can't talk about it. Like if you break [62:56] the cone of silence, like maybe Apple [62:58] will take the money away from you. She [62:59] just can't talk about it. [63:00] >> And but I always talk about everything [63:02] because I give [ __ ] Um so it goes. [63:05] Okay. So Ferguson does this. So then we [63:06] get Brendan who can't stay away from a [63:10] speech controversy tweeting the FCC [63:12] chairman Ferguson exactly right. Apple [63:14] has no right to suppress conservative [63:16] viewpoints in violation of the FTC act. [63:19] I want to be 100% clear Brendan. Apple [63:21] has every right in the world to publish [63:23] whatever it wants any way it wants. That [63:25] is the first amendment. I will remind [63:27] you it is the first one. It's the first [63:30] one. The government should make no law [63:31] protecting the freedom of speech. Apple [63:32] absolutely can make any collection of [63:35] stories it wants and publish them and [63:36] say this is Apple News today. Of course [63:39] it can. Secondarily there's no violation [63:42] of the FTC act found. Right. Right. It [63:45] absolutely has a right to suppress [63:46] conservative viewpoints if it wants [63:47] which is not even doing and we again we [63:49] will come to that in one second. But in [63:51] violation of the FTC act is not a thing. [63:53] There's no part of the FTC act that says [63:55] you have to publish [63:57] all viewpoints. Like absolutely not. You [64:00] you can't find it. Go. If you can find [64:01] me in the sachary language, you send it [64:02] to me. The the the thin read that [64:06] everyone is standing on here is they've [64:08] discovered somewhere in Apple's terms of [64:10] service [64:12] a promise that it will do everything [64:14] fairly in Apple News. And then they have [64:16] found this study by this media watchdog [64:19] group that has organized outlets [64:22] according to some political taxonomy [64:24] that we do not quite understand. [64:26] >> Sure. [64:27] >> That says the right-wing news sources [64:28] are suppressed. Now, the reason that I [64:31] keep saying we'll come back to what [64:32] Apple News actually is, is if you open [64:34] Apple News, the outlets at the top of [64:36] the app are routinely Reuters, the AP, [64:40] CBS News, which you could now very much [64:42] argue is a conservative outlet. [64:44] >> And most importantly, and this is why [64:46] everyone keeps getting Apple News links [64:47] from me, the Wall Street Journal, [64:50] because do you know who the biggest [64:52] newspaper publisher that participates in [64:54] Apple News is? News Corp. In 2022, News [64:58] Corp signed a deal with Apple News [65:00] saying it is a significant part of our [65:01] revenue mix. Apple News. Do you know [65:03] what doesn't participate? The New York [65:05] Times. Do you know what just stopped [65:07] participating? CNN. [65:09] >> Oh, interesting. [65:10] >> So, the the reason that our team keeps [65:11] getting Apple News links from me is [65:13] because the fastest way for me to read [65:14] the Wall Street Journal is to see a [65:16] journal link and then send it to Apple [65:17] News where I can just get the story out [65:19] because they're the key news partner of [65:21] Apple News. [65:22] >> Yeah. They're the reason Apple News is a [65:24] good deal. It's actually cheaper to get [65:25] Apple News than it is to just pay for [65:26] the Wall Street Journal. [65:27] >> And I have Apple 1, so it's just it's [65:28] just there for me all the time. It's [65:29] just like the fastest way for me to get [65:31] this thing done. And so you're looking [65:32] at this entire sequence of events where [65:34] Brendan has said, quote, "Apple has no [65:38] right to suppress conservative [65:39] viewpoints in violation of FC Act. Not [65:41] one part of that sentence is true. [65:43] Apple, first of all, has every right to [65:46] publish whatever kind of newspaper it [65:47] wants." And it that's what Apple News [65:50] is. It is a the top of Apple News is [65:52] editorially curated. I've met that team [65:54] before. It's a bunch of old magazine [65:55] editors, and they pick and choose. They [65:58] really do pick and choose. They choose [65:59] the best, most even-handed coverage of [66:01] the things they think are the most [66:02] important. And if you look, it is almost [66:05] always big legacy news organizations [66:09] whose standards and sourcing they trust, [66:12] right? Who who meet the bar. It CBS, [66:15] ABC, Fox News is in there from time to [66:17] time. Reuters, the AP, the Wall Street [66:21] Journal, those are the sources they [66:22] often pick at the top of Apple News [66:24] because the Boomer audience trusts them [66:26] too, right? Like, keep that in mind. One [66:30] scroll down from that, this thing is all [66:32] for you, right? It is all algorithmic [66:35] recommendations based on what you've [66:36] clicked before. And that's a huge range [66:38] of sources. So, you can't even argue [66:40] with that because now you're running the [66:41] same problem as saying meta is [66:42] suppressing conservative speech, which [66:43] is like everyone has their own [66:44] algorithm, and you're actually just [66:45] telling yourself. One scroll down from [66:46] that is my favorite part of Apple News, [66:49] which is trending, which is the clearest [66:52] glimpse into what this platform is and [66:55] who it's for that I can offer you. Let [66:57] me just show you what's trending. The [66:58] number one trending story on on Apple [67:00] News as I look at this, [67:02] >> and this is true every time I look. [67:04] >> The number one trending story is from [67:06] Fox News. It's about a tattoo that is [67:10] was seen in the Nancy Guthrie video. [67:12] possible tattoo seen and answer your [67:13] video may help ID subject says former [67:15] profiler [67:16] >> just some Fox News slap like [67:18] >> I mean that's a perfect [67:20] >> perfect [67:20] >> number one aggregator news story. [67:22] >> Yep. Number two [67:23] >> anywhere you look I bet that's the top [67:25] thing right now. [67:25] >> Number two CNBC psychology expert colon [67:28] the number one phrase to shut down a [67:30] manipulator. Oo [67:32] >> sure number two story at Apple News. [67:34] Number three is The Athletic, which is [67:36] about the wild started by Athlon. [67:37] Infidelity, credit card fraud, and [67:39] reallocated medals. [67:42] >> Damn, I want to read all of those. [67:44] >> Number four, [67:45] >> I need Apple. [67:46] >> Former NFL players. Number four is [67:47] People magazine. Former NFL players wife [67:49] reveals what you don't see after [67:50] retirement. [67:52] >> This is just boomer slop. Like, you can [67:54] see it's in the trending topics. [67:56] >> Apple News is the magazine rack at the [67:58] grocery store. [67:59] >> Yes, it is. the the thing that it is is [68:02] not the coolest thing Apple makes. [68:04] Number two, a couple hours ago, a Self [68:06] magazine, nine simple exercises to [68:08] improve your balance. Do you know who [68:09] needs that? Do you know who needs that? [68:12] >> I mean, me, to be fair. [68:15] >> Okay, so this is all just dumb, right? [68:16] This is just pure posturing left and [68:18] right. If Apple had an ounce of [68:21] self-respect, it would tell the [68:24] government in this case like, "Go away." [68:26] >> Yeah. What I'm worried about is Apple no [68:29] longer has an ounce of self-respect. And [68:31] so what I've been thinking about [68:31] actually in this context, weirdly, is [68:33] Steve Jobs. Not because I think I know [68:35] what Steve Jobs would do, not because I [68:37] have some vision of how Steve Jobs would [68:38] like punch Donald Trump in the face, [68:39] although I believe I've seen that AI [68:41] slot video as well, but because of a [68:43] thing Steve Jobs actually said all the [68:45] time, which is that Apple stands at the [68:48] center of technology in the liberal [68:49] arts. We we I threatened David with a [68:52] clip. So I think we actually have a clip [68:53] of him saying this at one of the many [68:54] many events that he said. the literal [68:56] sign. Can we run the clip? [68:58] >> So, I've said this before. I thought it [69:01] was worth repeating. [69:04] It's in Apple's DNA [69:07] that technology alone is not enough. [69:11] That it's technology married with [69:13] liberal arts, married with the [69:15] humanities that yields us the result [69:19] that makes our hearts sing. If you're [69:22] just listening to this, he gave this [69:23] speech like a bunch of times and he [69:24] would always stand in front of a literal [69:26] street sign at the intersection of [69:28] technology and the liberal arts, right? [69:30] And the whole tech industry has [69:31] forgotten about the intersection. We're [69:32] just doing technology and we're all very [69:34] confused about how governments and [69:36] systems and societies work because no [69:38] one reads the liberal arts anymore. They [69:39] just ask a guy to summarize it for them. [69:41] >> This is the moment, right? If you [69:43] believe that you built the richest [69:45] company in the world on that insight, [69:47] which he did, right? He built products [69:49] people love. He built a company that [69:51] people trust. He turned it into one of [69:53] the richest companies in the world. [69:55] That's the insight he's saying out loud. [69:57] That's the insight. And this is the [69:59] moment to say our taste is not up for [70:02] grabs for government pressure, right? [70:05] Our ability to say to our audience in [70:08] our news product, we with our taste with [70:11] the bunch of fancy magazine editors that [70:13] they have hired to run Apple News. We're [70:15] going to pick the sources of information [70:16] that we think are good at the top and [70:18] then the all the rest can be algorithmic [70:21] and and trending stories about how to [70:22] not fall over like whatever the audience [70:24] there needs. But at the top we're going [70:26] to use our judgment [70:29] and your weird media watchdog group [70:31] can't just hop skip and jump into [70:33] government pressure about our judgment. [70:36] >> That's what it means to have the liberal [70:37] arts embedded in your product. Like I [70:38] really mean that. [70:39] >> And by the way, that is a case Apple has [70:40] made for Apple News in the past. Like we [70:43] actually know for sure [70:45] >> that Apple believes that is part of the [70:46] value proposition of Apple News. That is [70:48] like when when Google News and Apple [70:50] News were competing and when people were [70:52] like well why is Apple even in this [70:53] game? It it talked a lot about the fact [70:56] that this is people and this is taste [70:59] and this is Apple and that actually we [71:01] are doing a thing here on purpose that [71:03] matters. Like we we know that that is [71:05] what Apple believes or at least believed [71:08] about this product. [71:08] >> Yeah. And I, by the way, I don't mean [71:10] liberal arts in the sense of like [71:11] liberals and democrats. I mean, liber [71:12] like little L liberal arts, liberal [71:14] democracy, like having a sense of [71:17] culture, like in the most basic way, [71:20] like thinking about how other people [71:21] treat one another, like the humanities, [71:23] the Steve Jobs is saying it. He he [71:25] doesn't mean Democrats. [71:26] >> He means studying art and culture right [71:29] next to science and engineering and [71:31] putting those things together. This is [71:33] the moment, right, to say to the [71:35] government, we have made no promises in [71:37] our terms of service about conservative [71:39] news and we we think you have no place [71:42] in impinging on our judgment. Now, [71:44] here's the problem. Do you think Tim [71:47] Cook is going to do that? [71:48] >> No. [71:49] >> No. [71:50] >> A lot of recent history suggests Tim [71:52] Cook is not going to do that. [71:53] >> He's not going to do that. And I I I I [71:56] think that is a tragedy. [71:58] >> Yeah. because he he would be the winner [72:01] if he did, right? Like by all rights he [72:04] could just very Apple could publish a [72:06] letter tomorrow saying our terms of the [72:08] FTC act you cannot read our terms of [72:10] service such that we have violated the [72:12] FTC act with the top six stories in [72:14] Apple News. But is he going to cave? Is [72:17] he going to make sure there's more [72:18] Breitbart in Apple News or whatever [72:20] other source that you think is [72:21] conservative enough to count? Maybe. [72:25] I I think that's really bad. Like [72:27] especially when your partners are [72:28] already News Corp and the Wall Street [72:30] Journal and CBS News like they're there. [72:33] Fox News is there. I'm just saying [72:36] Brendan Carr is a dummy. Okay. Every [72:37] sentence about Apple has no right to [72:39] express conservative speech in violation [72:40] of the act is purely wrong. That is the [72:43] maybe the single dumbest thing Brendan [72:45] has ever published. And it's because he [72:47] knows it might work. He knows it might [72:50] work. He knows this company might cave. [72:51] >> Yep. [72:52] >> And this is the pressure they can apply. [72:53] And the flip side is Tim Cook keeps [72:54] caving and it keeps getting him nothing. [72:57] >> Nothing. Nothing. They just keep coming [72:59] for him. And I I Apple is one of the [73:01] companies in this world that was big [73:02] enough to stand up and I hope they do [73:04] here. I I really hope they do here. [73:06] >> This is also such an easy obvious win. [73:10] >> Uh can I by the way can I complicate [73:12] this with the flip side of this which is [73:14] really interesting. So this is the media [73:16] research council right which published [73:17] this report that got picked up by the [73:19] post which immediately became government [73:20] policy. That's how it works now. The [73:23] flip side of this is uh there was a big [73:25] merger of ad agencies and part of that [73:28] merger Andrew Ferguson said this merger [73:30] can go through but you have to stop [73:32] relying on this company called NewsGuard [73:35] which rates the trustworthiness of uh [73:38] media brands to decide where to put ads [73:40] >> because that means you're not putting [73:42] ads on conservative websites and [73:44] NewsGuard you know I people have [73:45] problems with NewsGuard but they were [73:47] just straightforwardly like here's the [73:49] reporting standards here are the [73:50] sourcing standards like here's how [73:52] accurate they are here's how many [73:53] scathing pmics about whatever they [73:55] publish. They had a rubric and you could [73:56] look at the rubric and the big ad [73:58] agencies were saying okay like we want [74:00] our we want we're going to put ads near [74:02] more trustworthy things. We've picked [74:03] this independent neutral observer and [74:06] the FTC went and crushed them. Basically [74:08] took their business away uh because they [74:11] want to make sure the money can flow to [74:13] conservative news outlets that didn't [74:14] meet the standards. So on the one hand [74:16] you have based on nothing more than this [74:19] one media research council report a [74:21] threat against Apple biggest company in [74:22] the world one of the biggest companies [74:24] in the world and on the other hand you [74:25] have a very similar organization saying [74:28] here's you can trust you can't that the [74:29] FTC is trying to crush because it might [74:31] take dollars away uh and so they have [74:34] they have sued the FTC for free speech [74:36] violations and saying this merger [74:38] condition is actually a violation of [74:40] free speech rights. Super fascinating. [74:41] Like you can just see the hypocrisy of [74:43] the Trump administration has laid bare [74:44] in how they treat the media ranking [74:46] organizations. [74:48] >> It's a lot. [74:50] >> Yeah. [74:50] >> By the way, the Wall Street Journal, [74:52] it's funny how often I'm like I am [74:54] pointing to the Wall Street Journal. [74:56] >> Yeah, it's rough. And honestly, this [74:58] isn't even the end of the Brendan Carr [75:00] stuff this week. Uh he's also mad at The [75:02] View. I'm going to give you 30 seconds [75:04] to tell me why Brennan Carr is mad at [75:05] the view because then I'm going to stop [75:06] caring and we're going to move on. [75:07] >> Okay. So, as we know, uh, Brendan Carr [75:10] fully believes that broadcast [75:11] television, the only speech in America [75:13] that matters, except apparently for [75:14] Apple news. If you are an old person and [75:16] you're consuming media in this this [75:17] country, Brendan, it wants to be in your [75:19] face. He wants to control what you see. [75:21] Um, so he had this rule uh, the equal [75:24] time rule that has fallen into oblivion [75:27] because everyone's just watching TikTok [75:29] anyway. And he has decided he's going to [75:31] enforce it very vigorously. So, first he [75:33] pointed this gun at Saturday Night Live [75:35] because Kla Harris on Saturday Night [75:36] Live. And it turns out Title N very good [75:38] at this because they know they're a [75:40] comedy show, right? So comedy shows [75:42] there there's no exceptions and they [75:44] actually NBC had given Trump equal time. [75:46] So now last week I think we talked to [75:48] Brandar pointed his gun at late night [75:50] talk show hosts which they can't quite [75:52] claim that they're a bonafide news [75:54] program, right? And news programs get [75:57] accepted. If you're a news program, you [75:58] have to give equal time to both parties, [75:59] right? So the talk show host would have [76:01] Democrats on and Brennan said, "We're [76:02] gonna investigate you if you don't have [76:03] an equal number of Republicans on." and [76:05] talk show hosts are like, "But there are [76:06] interviews and also no one cares." But [76:08] that's one, right? He's he's he's [76:10] pushing the boundary on talk show hosts [76:12] whether they get the news exception. Uh [76:13] this week he has launched an [76:15] investigation into ABC's The View [76:19] because the the Texas Senate candidate [76:21] James appeared on the show. This is [76:24] ridiculous. First of all, The View is [76:27] part of ABC News. [76:29] >> Yeah. Like it is straightforwardly a [76:31] news program. It is run by the news [76:32] division at ABC. You could think it's a [76:34] bad news program. You could think it's a [76:36] news program that uh prioritizes uh [76:38] nonsensical debate and conflict over [76:39] actual news. But it is a news program. [76:41] That is a thing that it is meant to do. [76:42] >> You could think that. One one could [76:44] think that. [76:45] >> Uh in the process of uh selling the book [76:48] pitch that I was I pitched for decoder, [76:51] I've often talked about how I want to [76:52] appear on the view and I think I just [76:53] closed that door as hard as I can. But [76:55] whatever. Um uh uh it's a news program. [77:00] It's straightforwardly a news program. [77:02] There's nothing about it that isn't [77:03] news. It's just a bunch of people [77:05] talking about the news all day long. [77:06] He's going to crash and burn in this if [77:08] Disney fights back, right? Is Disney [77:11] gonna fight back? I don't know. Brendan [77:14] keeps pushing the boundary. This is so [77:15] stupid. First of all, no one's watching [77:18] this stuff. You know where they're [77:19] watching it? They're watching it on [77:20] YouTube. They're watching it in clips on [77:22] TikTok that are pirated by the Android [77:24] powered botforms that I think we should [77:26] get. They're not watching in a [77:28] broadcast. And it's right next to all of [77:30] these candidates having an infinity [77:32] amount of their own time to capture. Ted [77:34] Cruz has a podcast for God's sake. [77:36] That's how I know speech regulation [77:38] America is completely out of whack. [77:40] Sorry, it's a really bad podcast. [77:43] Just nonsensical. Anyway, uh he is [77:46] trying to say that the view is not news [77:49] enough to qualify for the news exemption [77:51] to the equal time rule. It is 2026. What [77:55] are we talking about? [77:56] >> Yeah, [77:57] >> he's so stupid. It does put Disney in a [77:59] very funny position of either it has to [78:02] fight against the Trump administration [78:03] or just publicly drag the view as [78:08] aggressively as possible. I mean it just [78:10] we should not be in a in a in a position [78:12] right now with the amount of media we [78:14] have and the access to media we have [78:15] where we are trying to draw lines about [78:17] where the boundary of the news is. [78:19] Right. Yeah. Like I want to draw some [78:21] boundaries. I think we make the news. I [78:23] think a bunch of influencers don't. Is [78:24] that a good use of my time to go argue [78:27] that every day? It is absolutely the [78:29] worst use of my time to argue that every [78:30] day. We just need to make better news. [78:33] The government stepping into ABC's face [78:35] and saying this isn't news enough. We're [78:38] going to we're going to punish you for [78:40] not making it news enough. [78:42] That's rough. You should feel very bad [78:43] about that. Again, I remind everybody [78:45] that the politics you hear me express [78:46] the most are that government speech [78:47] regulations are bad and free market [78:49] competition is good. which is why I find [78:50] myself agreeing with the Wall Street [78:52] Journal during this segment all the [78:54] time. Brendan, as always, you are [78:56] welcome to come on this show, to come on [78:58] to Coder and try to defend any of this [79:00] idiocy, especially that boneheaded tweet [79:03] about Apple not being free to suppress [79:05] conservative news in violation of the [79:06] FTC Act. Every word of which is wrong. [79:09] Every single word of which is wrong. Uh [79:11] I I welcome it. I I would love a debate, [79:14] a wholesome debate at the end. Uh maybe [79:16] we could fight a little bit. Just just [79:18] an invitation I have for you, Brennan [79:20] Carr. That has been uh Brennan Carr is a [79:21] dummy. America's favorite podcast [79:22] without a podcast. [79:24] >> A true epic of a podcast without a [79:26] podcast this time. [79:28] >> Let's blow through the rest of the [79:29] lightning round here because we need to [79:30] get you out of here on time. Um my first [79:34] lightning round um is that for everyone [79:37] who is like, "Shut up about all this [79:39] other stuff. Talk about gadgets." Um I I [79:42] have bad news and good news. The bad [79:44] news is there just haven't been any. The [79:46] good news is it's about to be gadget [79:47] season again. Yeah, Samsung confirmed [79:49] that there's an unpacked coming later [79:51] this month. We're going to get some new [79:52] phones. There's already been some leaks [79:54] about those phones that suggest that [79:55] maybe not the most interesting set of [79:57] phones is about to come out, but we're [79:58] about to get a bunch of new Samsung [79:59] phones. Um, the iPhone 17e is also [80:03] potentially coming. The Google Pixel 10a [80:05] is also coming soon. It's like it's [80:07] about to be a really interesting round [80:08] of of new somewhere between like the [80:12] mass market phones everybody buys and [80:14] the like slightly cheaper phones that [80:16] some people get. [80:16] >> If you had Apple's last quarter, why are [80:17] you doing a 17e? They should be like, [80:19] "It's a $7,000 Pro phone." Like that's [80:21] the thing that they sell. [80:22] >> Yeah, 100%. Um anyway, all that is [80:25] coming. We're also potentially about to [80:27] get new iPads, which I think is very [80:28] exciting. Um, I reviewed the base iPad [80:32] last year and my read on it was [80:34] essentially this is the first time the [80:35] base iPad is not the one you should buy [80:38] because it is it is full of such [80:41] outdated hardware that actually it's [80:43] going to run out on you before it [80:45] should. Um, like you should buy an iPad [80:48] planning on it lasting you seven years. [80:50] Uh, and the current base iPad won't [80:53] especially if you believe that there is [80:54] ever going to be any useful future for [80:56] AI. But the the running reporting right [80:59] now mostly from Mark at Bloomberg is [81:00] that that's coming. It's going to get [81:02] some big upgrades. So, we should get a [81:03] good round of gadgets coming soon. What [81:05] we are not getting is better Siri. [81:09] So, I'm reporting again from Mark German [81:11] at Bloomberg that uh Apple is continuing [81:14] to work on this revamped Siri that is [81:16] going to be better and smarter and [81:17] largely powered by Gemini, but that it [81:19] is uh it has been pushed back a point [81:22] release uh and is now going to be part [81:24] of uh the May software launch, not [81:28] March, which was what we had been [81:30] hearing for some time. Um, this is, I [81:33] would say, a small bummer and a large [81:36] heaping of not at all surprising. [81:39] Uh, yeah, it's not at all surprising. I [81:41] I think every one of the big smart home [81:44] makers has had trouble integrating the [81:47] powerful voice assistant with the needs [81:50] to not be broken automation control. And [81:52] Siri right now is very much automation [81:54] control. [81:54] >> Yes. [81:55] >> And so I don't I mean Google's gotten [81:57] better. I would say my my Gemini smart [81:59] home stuff has gotten better, but you [82:01] like Apple is not in the business of [82:02] breaking stuff. Not not the way that [82:05] Google will just break stuff. Not the [82:07] way that Amazon has just broken stuff. [82:08] >> And Apple is also about to the the [82:10] timing of this I think is really [82:11] interesting because Apple's going to put [82:12] this thing out in May and then in June [82:15] has to explain to developers [82:18] how to use it, right? And so the big [82:21] thing that Apple has been talking about [82:22] is all of this uh contextual awareness [82:25] that it's going to have. It's going to [82:26] know about all the other apps on your [82:27] phone. It's going to be able to use [82:28] those apps for you. Like Apple needs to [82:30] ship a version of that that works in [82:33] some meaningful way [82:35] >> if it wants to get developers on board. [82:37] It doesn't need all of that to exist, [82:39] but it needs Siri to be good. Do you [82:41] know what I mean? Like I think I think [82:42] we're at the point where [82:43] >> Siri is so constrained right now. Siri [82:46] is timers and music and they can get [82:48] there and add a a dash of like you can [82:50] talk to about other stuff. I so I agree [82:53] with that except I think even the very [82:55] basic features of Siri have progressed. [82:58] It is still fine at setting timers but [83:02] like Siri as a as a voice recognition [83:05] machine has gotten noticeably worse for [83:07] me over the last let's say 2 years. Uh [83:10] this is also like there are a lot of [83:12] people who who keep wondering why the [83:14] autocorrect on the iOS keyboard feels [83:16] like it's getting worse. Yeah, [83:17] >> it's because it is and it's because of [83:20] all of this underlying technology [83:21] Apple's working. So like all of that [83:23] stuff needs to be demonstrated as like a [83:26] step change forward if Apple is going to [83:28] say this is the future of the interface. [83:30] Get on board to developers and it is [83:32] running out of time to prove that. [83:34] >> I just want to point out is a minor push [83:37] back. Apple blew it with AI, right? Yes. [83:41] >> No AI. Um they shipped liquid glass uh [83:45] which looks like butts. Uh, and they had [83:47] the biggest quarter in their history. [83:49] >> Sure. Just one of those things like [83:52] they're they're insulated because of the [83:54] phone upgrade cycle. They they're gonna [83:56] get more things wrong than right and [83:58] they're just going to keep selling [83:59] phones because of uh what I believe to [84:01] be iMessage lock in. Although the data [84:02] shows that I'm not correct, but I [84:04] believe it's iMessage lock in. [84:05] >> No, I I think that's right. And I think [84:07] there there is a a a real chance that [84:11] what Apple does at this year's WWDC is [84:13] not show everybody the thrilling future [84:15] of AI, but basically start to pretend [84:19] that none of it exists and like [84:21] >> and just just bury all of that under [84:24] really technical language of features in [84:27] the notes app, which maybe is what it [84:29] should have done all along. [84:30] >> I mean, that's what it did last year, [84:31] right? I'm just saying I think this year [84:32] what you're going to get is it's Siri. [84:34] It can still do timers and music and now [84:37] when you ask it questions it doesn't [84:39] kick you out to a web search right away. [84:41] >> Yeah. [84:42] >> Because knowing what's going on your [84:43] phone and controlling apps in your [84:44] phone, they're nowhere close. And it [84:46] >> So you're describing perplexity [84:48] basically. Like if if the new Siri is [84:50] perplexity, that may be job done for [84:54] Apple. [84:54] >> Yeah. I I in this moment that might be [84:57] all a it might be all they can do, but [84:59] it might be all they need to do. [85:00] >> Yeah, that's very possible. It's very [85:02] possible. Um All right. What's your next [85:03] one? [85:03] >> All right. I got two cars in a YouTube. [85:05] What do you want? [85:06] >> Uh, let's do cars first. [85:08] >> All right. Uh, you may have seen this [85:10] week Ferrari unveiled not its whole [85:12] first EV, but just the inside of it. [85:14] First, it's called the Luch, which means [85:16] light. The code name, by the way, was [85:17] Electric, which is way better. [85:19] >> Oh, that's way better. [85:20] >> I don't I don't know what they're doing. [85:21] Um, [85:23] >> this is a conversation for another day. [85:24] Everybody's doing stupid names for their [85:26] EVs, and I would like them to go. [85:27] >> Electric is like a great name for a [85:29] Ferrari. Anyway, um, interior designed [85:31] by one, Mr. for Johnny IV uh and Mike [85:34] Mattis and a whole bunch of other Mark [85:36] Nuome like you know love from Johnny [85:38] Ives's company they designed the [85:39] interior so there a big party a bunch of [85:41] people went bunch of people we know were [85:43] there um uh Johnny I did an unveiling [85:46] and then it was just like the interior [85:48] components arranged around a room so [85:51] like the steering wheel and the display [85:53] were in one part of the room and like [85:54] the center consoles in another and like [85:56] the vents were in yet a third and people [85:58] were just like milling around looking [85:59] like doing this stuff very good the [86:01] video is very very compelling because [86:03] it's Johnny video about how much he [86:04] likes designing switch gear which should [86:07] just be a genre onto itself. If I get [86:08] Spotify just play me that playlist. I'd [86:10] be very happy. [86:10] >> Yeah, [86:10] >> it's so cool. Uh it looks nothing like a [86:13] Ferrari. Our James Bar who's the first [86:15] creative director of the Verge actually [86:16] said this looks more like a Porsche and [86:17] I agree with him. Um it's all very round [86:20] very and it's very iPhone. Obviously [86:22] it's IVE but here's the thing. Uh it's [86:24] like not touchcreens. It's all digital [86:27] displays connected to hardware controls. [86:28] And as you use the hardware controls, [86:30] like the displays around the controls [86:33] change and light up in different ways. [86:34] So like the center screen is on a pivot [86:37] and you pivot towards driver, pivot [86:38] towards passenger. And then the top is a [86:40] circle display that often looks like a [86:41] clock [86:42] >> and has real needles in it. And if you [86:44] push the button, the whole display [86:46] changes and it turns like a stopwatch. [86:47] You can do lap times. It's like this the [86:50] sickest interaction you can think of. [86:51] >> Wait, I like this now. [86:52] >> It's very good. My immediate reaction [86:54] looking at a picture of this was like it [86:55] it's it looks like a very fancy like F1 [86:59] racing simulator with a giant ass iPad. [87:02] And I was like really Johnny like this [87:03] is this is what you're doing. [87:05] >> There's again there's a part of me [87:06] that's like none of this is Ferrari. [87:08] Like this is not the point of a Ferrari. [87:09] >> No, it's not. But I I do love the idea [87:11] of connecting it back to physical [87:13] controls. [87:14] >> Yeah. He was very clear. He's he gave [87:16] interviews. I think Alex Heath [87:17] interviewed him. Tim Stevens who writes [87:19] for us all the time interviewed him. Um [87:21] uh and he was like, "It's a car. I'm [87:24] there to drive the car. I don't want to [87:25] look at a screen and touch a screen." [87:27] Which is fascinating because if you'll [87:29] remember, all of the Apple car rumors [87:31] was that he wanted to get rid of the [87:32] steering wheel, have full autonomy, and [87:33] then like do something else inside the [87:34] car, right? This was the dream. Yeah. [87:36] >> Um and so it's fascinating to see him [87:38] abandon basically all the ideas we'd [87:40] heard about for the Apple car for the [87:42] very tactile, it's all switch gears and [87:44] buttons and clicky magnet vents. uh in a [87:47] Ferrari. [87:48] >> The thing that I'm saddest about, if you [87:50] look at this, it's very cool, right? You [87:52] can see you can see a lot of Johnny Ivan [87:55] here. And IV is particularly good at [87:59] accessible design. Like accessible in [88:01] every sense of the word, like accessible [88:02] for people with different abilities, but [88:03] also just like the point of the iPhone [88:06] is that everyone has one. Rich or poor, [88:07] everybody has the same kind of iPhone, [88:08] right? [88:08] >> Yeah. [88:09] >> And you're like, "Oh, this is only for [88:10] like five people." [88:12] >> True. [88:12] >> And it it just makes me that's makes me [88:14] a little sad. [88:15] IV is at his best when he's addressing [88:17] millions of people and here it's like [88:20] six guys are going to be able to afford [88:21] this car. [88:22] >> So what you're saying is you want Johnny [88:24] IV to do the next Camry. [88:26] >> If Yeah. If he had Yeah. This was a a [88:28] Kia. [88:29] >> He'd be like though this is the future [88:30] of cars and I think that was the [88:32] opportunity with the Apple car. And I'm [88:34] dying to know how many ideas moved from [88:35] the Apple car to this. I'm dying to know [88:38] if there are other ideas to to bring [88:39] these ideas to life. Very quickly a [88:41] bunch of Chinese manufacturers are going [88:42] to copy all this. It's all it's all [88:44] going to happen. But, you know, there's [88:46] that thing where you'd see an IV design [88:47] and we would talk so much about care and [88:49] polish [88:50] >> and you're like, "Oh, the thing that's [88:52] amazing about this is that millions of [88:54] people will have these products. They [88:55] will experience this level of design and [88:57] care." And here it's like it's [88:58] beautiful. [88:59] >> Yeah. [89:00] >> You're never going to see one. Most [89:01] people will never be able to flip one of [89:03] these switches. [89:03] >> Does the car industry have the kind of [89:06] fast follow thing that we see in tech [89:08] all the time that like if Johnny IV did [89:10] this for Apple? The thing I would say in [89:12] response to what you just said is well [89:13] the good news is everybody's going to [89:15] copy this and in two years this will be [89:17] some of the ideas here will at least be [89:19] sort of normalized across the industry [89:20] because that's what happened. Does that [89:21] happen in cars? Like if does Ferrari do [89:23] something and then every it sort of [89:25] trickles down into like 3 years from now [89:27] Volvos will look like this. [89:29] >> Oh there's a lot of pictures of like [89:30] Mazdas that look exactly like Ferraris [89:32] right now. [89:33] >> Or Ferraris that look exactly like [89:34] Mazdas. [89:35] >> Okay. [89:35] >> Uh you can find those. Um [89:39] this is such a Carnard thing. Um, for a [89:41] long time BMW had this thing called the [89:43] Bangal butt. A designer named Chris. [89:46] >> Yep. Uh, Chris Bangal is one of the most [89:48] controversial designers in BMW history. [89:50] And he designed this like lid of the [89:52] trunk of a of the 7 series in like the [89:54] early 2000s, I want to say. And now [89:56] every car has that. And so BMW, [89:58] Mercedes, if you look at them, the [89:59] reason their cars always look so bananas [90:02] and they're getting increasingly more [90:03] bananas is because they get fast [90:05] followed so fast. Everybody wants to [90:07] look like a German luxury car. Ah, [90:08] >> and that dynamic is changing in some [90:10] ways. You know, I think that the sort of [90:12] like newer Hyundai and Kia in [90:13] particular, they're like they're [90:14] charting their own weird retro [90:15] futuristic course, but there was a time [90:18] when like, yep, within a year, every car [90:20] looked like whatever BMW sedan. [90:24] >> Interesting. [90:24] >> I don't know if it's not going to happen [90:26] with the Ferrari. And we don't know what [90:27] the outside of Luch looks like yet. [90:29] >> We people have suspicions, but nobody [90:31] actually knows. I just I am I encouraged [90:34] by the idea that a lot of car designers [90:37] will look at Johnny IV and say, "Oh, he [90:39] doesn't think touchscreen everything is [90:41] the future of cars. Maybe I should [90:42] change." [90:42] >> The whole industry the whole industry [90:43] already thinks that like the car [90:46] designers across the industry have been [90:47] like, "Oh, this is dumb." China just [90:48] outlawed motorized door handles because [90:51] they're killing people. [90:51] >> I mean that Yeah, [90:53] >> the industry the the the pendulum is way [90:55] on its way back. like Hyundai, Kia, [90:58] Volvo, a bunch of car makers like, [91:00] "Yeah, we need the buttons back." [91:02] >> Okay. [91:03] >> That makes me happy. [91:04] >> Yeah. [91:04] >> Um, all right. Do do your YouTube and [91:06] then we'll end on mine and we'll get out [91:08] of here. What's your What's your last [91:09] one? [91:09] >> Uh, big news. Huge huge news. YouTube is [91:13] coming to the Apple Vision Pro. [91:19] >> Huge news for [91:20] >> news. [91:22] Well, look, first of all, YouTube has [91:23] the biggest uh library of 360 content [91:27] anywhere. [91:28] >> Sure. [91:28] >> And so, it was always a huge miss that [91:30] Apple did not have access to YouTube. Uh [91:32] cuz what are you going to do? Like when [91:33] I reviewed the Apple Vision Pro, I was [91:34] like, "Can I use YouTube? That's where [91:35] all the stuff is." They're like, "Yeah." [91:39] >> Uh and they they kind of shaded it [91:41] because, you know, some of that content [91:42] is really old. Like there's been 360 [91:43] video on YouTube forever. [91:45] >> Yeah. [91:45] >> I interviewed Michelle Obama on YouTube [91:47] 10 years ago [91:48] >> in 360. Like that's a long time ago. [91:51] Yeah. [91:51] >> So, that content exists. You can go look [91:53] at it. You can get it. Um, I think also [91:56] YouTube wants to get people making the [91:59] content again because Android XR is [92:01] coming out soon, right? And so, it's on [92:03] the Apple Vision Pro. It's just a way to [92:04] get a headline to be like, you can [92:05] upload some 360 content to this [92:08] platform. You should try it. And then [92:10] that's how you get a a trickle of new [92:12] content for Android XR. That's that's my [92:14] like big strategic think of this. But I [92:17] just think it's very funny. Finally, now [92:19] there's YouTube app for the vision. [92:21] >> That's a good take. It was always kind [92:22] of a deliberate burn that it wasn't [92:24] there because YouTube is everywhere. [92:26] Like part of YouTube's whole thing is [92:27] that is everywhere that is available to [92:30] look at stuff, you can find YouTube. Y [92:32] >> and so to not be on the Vision Pro was [92:34] clearly a choice. So I I think I think [92:36] your take is probably right that they're [92:38] now in the position of being like, [92:39] "Okay, we want to incentivize people to [92:41] make this kind of stuff. We might as [92:43] well start somewhere." [92:44] >> Well, I mean, they're they to be fair, [92:45] they were already on the Quest and all [92:46] these other headsets. They just weren't [92:47] in the vision print. Yeah, but like the [92:49] tr the the people who bought Vision Pro [92:52] and the true believers in this content [92:54] are like that is one overlapping circle. [92:56] >> Oh yeah, and there's been like weird [92:57] third party YouTube like that was the [92:59] first wave of apps is like look at this [93:00] YouTube app like [93:01] >> right. [93:01] >> Um but I think it's I think they're just [93:03] trying to seed some content ahead of [93:06] Android XR. [93:07] >> Yeah. [93:07] >> Um all right, before we go I have I have [93:09] just a very boring but obligatory update [93:13] on the Paramount Netflix war to buy [93:16] Warner Brothers. Somehow this has become [93:18] my cross to bear is that every time [93:20] somebody does a weird boring thing I [93:22] have to tell you about it on this show. [93:23] Um although I I will say I am enjoying [93:26] the extent to which the Ellison's are [93:28] just like well if we have more money um [93:30] which is what happened this time. So [93:32] Paramount um where we are basically is [93:34] Warner Brothers keeps telling its [93:36] shareholders [93:38] not to accept Paramount buying them [93:40] because they would like to be bought by [93:41] Netflix. Um, everyone is very clear that [93:44] Warner Brothers would like to be owned [93:45] by Netflix and Netflix would like to own [93:46] Warner Brothers and Paramount just keeps [93:48] coming in and just like hucking dollar [93:50] bills at everybody hoping that that [93:52] works. So, what happened this time is uh [93:55] Paramount is now offering to pay the [93:57] $2.8 billion termination fee that would [94:01] go if if the Netflix deal didn't happen. [94:04] Um, so they're just handing over 2.8 [94:06] billion more dollars and they're [94:08] offering a 25 cent per share. or they [94:11] could they call it a ticking fee uh [94:13] which pays to shareholders in Warner [94:16] Brothers Discovery for each quarter the [94:18] transaction doesn't close after this [94:20] year. So they're basically saying the [94:22] the money is going to go up every [94:24] quarter the transaction doesn't close [94:26] which just incentivizes everybody to not [94:28] take the deal which is so funny. But [94:32] anyway, all of this is happening while [94:33] there's a lot of like political [94:35] machinations going on. The Ellison's are [94:36] meeting with the Trump administration [94:38] and like everybody is trying to convince [94:40] everybody else to [94:41] >> No, the minations are even are even [94:42] funnier than you think. Have you seen [94:44] the latest update today? [94:45] >> No. [94:46] >> Uh so Sarandos met with Trump, the CEO [94:49] of Netflix. The Ellison met with Trump. [94:51] Trump was, I believe, on ABC News last [94:54] night, and he said, "Everyone's paying [94:57] attention to me. I must be very [94:58] important. I'm going to stay out of this [94:59] one and let the Department of Justice [95:01] handle it." [95:04] So you can just flatter his way. You can [95:05] just flatter Trump and is sitting it [95:07] out. [95:09] It's good. It's really good. And then [95:11] you're like, "Oh, who runs the [95:12] Department of Justice?" "Oh, it's Pam [95:13] Bondi. That'll go well." Who's her [95:15] antitrust chief? Oh, Gail Slater, the [95:18] antitrust chief at the Department of [95:19] Justice just quit because she was about [95:22] to take Live Nation ticket master to [95:24] trial. And Kellyanne Conway has [95:27] successfully lobbied potentially the [95:30] government of dropping that case over [95:32] Gail Slater's objection and she quit [95:34] over it. [95:36] >> Wow. This is true. This is all in the [95:38] background of this. Trump is saying, [95:40] "I'm going to let the Department of [95:41] Justice handle it." And the Department [95:42] of Justice Antitrust Chief just quit [95:45] because it appears that Ticket Master [95:47] has corruptly lobbyed its way out of [95:49] that trial. [95:50] >> So, there's going to be no one to stop [95:52] this deal. potentially no one to approve [95:54] >> either direction. [95:55] >> Yeah, there's just [95:58] >> it's good. It's perfect. [95:59] >> No one is gonna own anyone. [96:01] >> You know, you know Ted Sando scave Trump [96:03] an Emmy or some [ __ ] like it's like who [96:04] knows what happened, but he's like I'm [96:06] out. I'm not paying attention anymore. [96:07] >> Unreal. Yeah. So, this this chaos will [96:10] continue. Um but just the extent to [96:12] which the Ellison's have all of the [96:15] money and no idea how to win this fight [96:18] is just great. [96:19] >> I just want to say this one more time. [96:21] Just put yourself in this position. You [96:23] are Larry Ellison. All of your wealth [96:26] >> is Oracle stock. [96:28] >> Oracle stock is AI stock. [96:31] >> And you are desperate to sell your AI [96:34] stock to buy Warner Brothers. Do you, [96:38] Larry Ellison, believe that your AI [96:40] stock is going up or down if what you [96:43] think a better trade is is to sell it [96:46] and buy Warner Brothers? [96:49] Just ask yourself, does Larry Ellison [96:51] think we're in a bubble based on the [96:53] fact that he wants to sell his Oracle [96:55] stock and buy Warner Brothers, a thing [96:59] that has killed every other acquirer for [97:02] over 20 years? [97:05] >> Do you want do you want to buy the AI [97:07] bubble or do you want friends reruns? [97:10] >> This is this is where we are in 2026. [97:12] You can you can you can evaluate that [97:14] any way you want, but if you had if you [97:15] today owned Oracle stock, would you [97:18] think it was a good idea to sell it to [97:22] buy Warner Brothers? [97:23] >> Wait, no, no, no, no. I'm going to put [97:25] this in even a simpler fashion. Do you [97:26] would you rather bet on the AI industry [97:29] continuing to go up the way that it is, [97:31] or would you ra do you want to bet on [97:33] the success of the Harry Potter HBO show [97:35] coming out next year? [97:39] >> That's what I want to hear about. first [97:40] cast of the verse.com. Tell us which of [97:42] those you would rather [97:43] >> a lot of ways to come with the AI [97:44] bubble, but I want to sell my Oracle [97:46] stock to buy Warner Brothers as one of [97:47] them. [97:48] >> Yeah, it's it's a it's a tough beat. Um, [97:50] personally, I'm out on either one. I'm [97:54] going to go to Paramount Plus and keep [97:55] watching Mission Impossible movies. It's [97:57] going to be fine. Uh, all right. We [97:58] should get out of here. We have gone way [98:00] over as we want to do. I blame Brendan [98:02] Carr for this one pretty succinctly this [98:03] time. [98:04] >> Anytime you want, Brendan. If you read [98:06] about any of this in Apple News, please [98:09] send Neili the link because he can open [98:10] it. I can't. I don't want to hear about [98:11] it. But that's it. That's it for the [98:13] Vergecast. Remember, as always, to get [98:15] this podcast adree and to support [98:18] everything that we do to make Nei [98:19] utterly ungovernable, the best thing you [98:21] can do is subscribe to The Verge. The [98:23] Verge.com/subscribe. You get adree [98:24] podcasts. You get all of our subscriber [98:26] newsletters. You get all of our [98:27] everything else. Uh it's the best thing [98:29] you can do to to be part of this whole [98:31] family and thing that we're building. Uh [98:32] we also love hearing from you. keep [98:34] hitting us up with ideas about uh how we [98:36] can be talking about the stuff in the [98:38] Epstein files, how you feel about the [98:40] the ring and why is and Nancy Guthrie [98:43] stuff. Uh it's all messy and we're [98:44] sorting through it all in real time here [98:46] and on the website. Uh so keep getting [98:48] at us. The hotline is 86611. The email [98:51] is vergecasterge.com. [98:53] Send Neili all of your Apple news links [98:54] at neilitheverge.com. [98:56] The Vergecast is a Verge production and [98:58] part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. [98:59] The show is produced by Eric Gomez, [99:01] Brandon Kefir, and Travis Larchuk. We [99:03] will see you next week. Nei rock and [99:05] roll.