OpenAI's Fog of War + Betting on Iran + Hard Fork Review of Slop

Whether you want to launch a new site, test a few landing pages, or migrate your full.com.

“Framework has programs for startups, scaleups, and large enterprises to make going from”

idea to live site as easy and fast as possible. Learn how you can get more out of your.com from a Framework specialist or get started building for free today. At framework.com/hardfork for 30% off a Framework Pro annual plan. Rules and restrictions may apply. Casey, something horrible has happened. What's that? My wife has fallen in love with an AI. Ah, which AI. So for background, you know, my wife is not like a very techy person. She's not an early

doctor. She works in city government, but she's like a regular a doctor. Yes. When it gets good, she's interested. Yeah. But you don't talk to her before that. Exactly. And it just got good enough for her to take an interest. And so yesterday, she discovered cloud code and started using it to do some stuff at work. And now it's all she wants to talk about. She were like out at a party last night. And she's like, I just can't stop thinking about my coding. She had a dream about vibe coding

last night. And maybe all of this is sort of some like, carmic, you know, revenge for the being Sydney episode. But I do feel like I'm getting a taste of my own medicine here. I mean, to me, this seems like your dream come true. Like, what does any man want more than his wife taking an interest in his hobby? This is like, could be one of the best things that's happened

“in the whole time. True. It's true. I think we've always benefited in our marriage from the fact”

that we're speaking about our marriage or your marriage or my wife. That we're sort of like interested in different things and we can kind of cross pollinate. And so I guess I want to ask you as someone who's in a relationship with someone who works in AI. Like, how do you stop talking about it? Do you have like, set hours where you're like, we're not going to talk about AI

for this next hour? Here's what I'll say. If I ever figure that out, you'll be the first to know.

Okay, thank you. In my house, the few recipes we get from AI during the week, I would say would involve a Friday night episode's RuPaul's Drag Race. That's a good solid one hour of not talking about AI. Okay. Um, and yeah, outside of that, we're really monitoring the situation Kevin, we are fully locked in. I'm Kevin Russo, tech columnist at the New York Times. I'm Casey Nude from platformer. And this is hard for this week, open AI scrambles to contain

the fallout from its deal with the Pentagon. Then, how prediction markets have become one of the most controversial parts of the US attack on Iran. And finally, it's a hard for a review of Slop for children. They'll never guess what Peppa Pig is doing now.

Well, Casey, we are now in week two of this incredible high-stakes drama that's been playing

up between the Pentagon and America's leading AI companies. There's been a lot going on. We now have more clarity on why the deal between Anthropoc and the Pentagon fell apart. We also know how this Anthropoc supply chain risk designation is actually going into effect and impacting the way that government agencies are responding. And we have been learning this week about how open AI's deal with the Pentagon is shaping up. So, lots to discuss here.

But first, we should make our disclosures. I work the New York Times, suing Open AI and Microsoft and Proplexity over-ledged copyright violations. And my fiance, we're saying Anthropoc. Okay. Let's start with Open AI because they are sort of the late arrival into this story, but in some ways the most dramatic. Since Sam Altman announced last Friday that Open AI had arrived at agreement with a Pentagon, we have learned a little bit

more about that agreement as a reminder. According to Sam Altman, this agreement did include some prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapon system

basically the same two red lines that Anthropoc had set out that were causing them so much trouble

“with the Pentagon. And I think it's fair to say like this provokes one of the biggest backlash”

is in that company's history. It really did. We've seen it across social media, many sort of top upvoted posts on Open AI related subreddits have been condemning this move. Open AI has been scrambling to try to rebuild trust. But at the end of the day, Kevin, I think both the Pentagon and the Open AI are saying to the public, you're just going to have to trust us and the public is saying, well, we don't. Right. So there's been a lot of people canceling their chat should

be T subscriptions and switching over to Claude as a result of all of this people who don't agree with the Trump administration or the the stance that the Pentagon has taken here. And presumably because they're seeing some, you know, some pain in the cancellation's department as well as just a general feeling that this narrative is not going well for them. Sam Alman has been doing

the Pentagon deal along with two other employees. And these questions were sort of the kind of

things you'd expect. You know, people asking, what did you guys agree to that anthropic didn't where you're red lines? Who's going to be making the kinds of hard decisions during something like a war about how these models can't be used? What about this domestic mess surveillance

“thing? So I think he answered some of these questions, but really the thing that they did was also”

to release the language of this contract that had been in dispute that had been the subject of so much speculation. Well, they released what they called the relevant portion of the contract. But then we would see later commentary from experts in government procurement that said essentially look, until we see the entire contract, it's just very difficult for us to take at face value the idea that this is the only relevant language here. Right. So they did not release the whole contract,

but they did release some relevant language from this contract with the Pentagon in a blog post. Then on Monday, Sam admitted that he made a mistake. He said, we shouldn't have rushed to get this out on Friday. He also added that it looked opportunistic and sloppy. He also looked opportunistic. Point of praise. Yes. He was slopportunistic and he announced that OpenAI was going to amend its deal with the Pentagon to explicitly rule out the use of OpenAI's tools for domestic surveillance

of US persons and nationals. It includes the language, quote, "the department understands this limitation to prohibit deliberate tracking surveillance or monitoring of US persons or nationals, including through the procurement or use of commercially acquired personal or identifiable information." I found this all slightly confusing. Casey, do you understand what OpenAI has said in the various

“evolutions of its position on this? Well, I think the key takeaways here is that they are saying”

that they have put in some amended language that will prohibit certain uses of their systems by the government. So, for example, they're going to prevent the government from using commercial data that they sort of acquire legally and sort of running that through GPT models for domestic

surveillance. I just want to say, though, that there is always a high risk here for what I would

call Jedi mind tricks Kevin and for the government because we have seen Democratic and Republican presidents do this, right? Of sort of going to the absolute limit of what the law will allow when it comes to surveillance of Americans and a way that they'll get around that is by saying, "Well, we're not doing surveillance, Kevin, we're doing some intelligence gathering," right? And so, as annoying as it is to fixate on the semantics here, I'm telling you that whether or

not you personally are surveilled will come down to semantics, right? And so, that's why we're digging in the way we are. Okay, so still lots of questions about some of the details here. And I think there's a lot of doubt and concern among some employees of OpenAI that this actually did end up in a place that they're comfortable with. Boy is there. Some of that employee discontent spilled over onto X, where you had some employees saying essentially that they didn't trust their

leadership, either an employee named Leo Gow, called the contract language window dressing and pointed out that it still seems to give the Pentagon control over when to deploy autonomous weapons and just doesn't do much to address some of the other loopholes. And then maybe more dramatically Kevin, on Tuesday, Max Schwarzzer, who was the post-training lead for OpenAI, a vice president of research at the company announced that he was leaving. And in his X post, while he was pretty vague,

suggested that this was an important time and that he had come to really respect anthropics values. And so, he said he's going over to work there. Yeah. So, what's your take on how the damage control is going for OpenAI? Do you think they have worded off the most heated criticism or are people still really mad? I do not think that they have stemmed the tide. I think they they made they put a lot of effort into changing the narrative here. When I saw that they were doing

that XMA that they had put up a blog post that they were quoting at least some of the contract language. I thought these guys are really going for it. That also told me that they were really

“scared. But here's the thing to remember, Kevin, most Americans just don't like AI very much. They”

didn't end the first place. They didn't like it for all the normal reasons. Well, my social media

feed is filling up with slopp. And my managers telling me I have to use it every day or I'm going to get fired. When you add into that mix, it's potentially also going to be used by your own government to spy against you or maybe kill you with a murder bot. Of course, Americans are going to say, well, this freaking sucks, right? So, I think this was kind of the strategic miscalculation that Sam Altman made was that at least according to him, he thought he was going to get into this

dispute and sort of be able to de-escalated and sort of come in as the white knight and save the AI industry from the overreach of the US government. And what he found out instead is they're still they're kind of holding the bag of all of the discontent that the Pentagon whipped up with this

we were sort of over the era of like worker empowerment in Silicon Valley right with like years ago sort of pre-COVID. We had all these like Google walkouts and all these employee protests over

“these military contracts. And I think a lot of CEOs and leaders at these companies sort of said,”

we're not doing that again. Like we're not going to give our employees veto power over the deals that we make or the contracts we sign. And it suggests to me what is going on an open AI right now that at least for them in their specific case where you do have, you know, this staff of elite technical talent that are not easily replaceable. There aren't that many people who know how to like build and train these models. You actually do need to keep them happy. And so those people maybe

only those people have significant leverage still. Yeah, let me make a sort of sweeping generalization right. Like I think they're sort of like two major camps at an open AI. One are the camp that have sort of been there for, you know, let's say three plus years that are the real experts

that you just mentioned that have this kind of critical knowledge for how to build next generation,

frontier systems and almost nobody else in the world has. And those people tend to just really care a lot about how the technology is used. These are people who joined Open AI in part because it was a non-profit, right? And like there is like a solid core of those folks who are still working there. And then there's a group of open AI that I'm just going to call them meta people. The people that came over from meta a little bit more recently that are, you know,

maybe a little bit more flexible in what they're willing to see their company do. And I don't think that they're going to raise a big stick about this. The problem if you're open AI leadership is you actually need that original core, right? If you're going to build a GPT 6 and 7 that is going to blow everybody's minds, those are the people you're going to need. And so, yes, almost everything that we have seen over the past few days of they tried to do damage control is aimed at those people.

“Okay, so that's a little bit of the drama going on at Open AI. What is happening in anthropic?”

Printing money. In two words, I would say, well, I mean, you know, I wrote this at my newsletter this week, Kevin, but has an American technology company ever had such a good week and such a bad week at the same time? Explain. Well, so on the bad side, obviously, they're in a very heated fight with the Pentagon that continues, by the way, it seems like there is still some risk that, perhaps the president will try to invoke the defense production act to try to compel

anthropic to make the version of cloud that it does not want to make that would sort of do its bidding. And it seems also that this applied chain designation risk is now official. We learned on Thursday that the Pentagon sent a formal letter to anthropic. So, if nothing else, this is going to result in a long and costly legal battle as anthropic tries to ensure that American companies can still use it for non-military purposes, right? So, there is actually an existential threat

“to the company that is buried somewhere inside there and it is by no means over, right? But on the”

good side, on the good side, Bloomberg reported this week that anthropic is on track to hit $20

billion in annualized revenue. At the start of 2025, Kevin, they were on pace to earn about $1 billion

in annualized revenue. So, this company has 20xed over the past year. They were on pace to make about $9 billion by the end of 2025. So, it has doubled in barely over two months, which speaks to the rise of cloud code and the overwhelming adoption of cloud in the enterprise. So, in that respect, this really has become maybe the fastest growing American technology company of all time. Yeah, and what's so strange about this sort of dual quantum state right now of anthropic is like

at the same time that they are printing money and people are signing up for cloud and they're switching from chat to PT and things appear to be going well from them. At the same time, they are also being pulled out of the federal government, right? Forcibly, there was some reporting this week by Reuters that the U.S. State Department has sort of started to comply with this order from President Trump to sort of stop using Anthropics models. They have switched the model powering

their sort of in-house state department chatbot from Anthropics models to open AI according to this memo seen by Reuters and furthermore, this Reuters report said that the state department is going back to GPT 4.1. Now, if you have been not been tracking all of the model names and numbers as closely as we have, that is several generations ago. That's like a 20 or early 2025 model.

And basically, what that means is that the average college freshman with a chat, GPT subscription,

now has access to substantially better AI tools than the Department of State. It's not great for a lot of reasons Kevin and one of them as the blog law fair covered this week is that there appears to be no statutory authority for the president to do what he did. There is not a statute that lets the president just sort of declare that federal agencies cannot use individual software, but because this is just the way the Trump administration works, everyone has just

decided to defer to the president. Yeah. I want to ask you about this other sort of interesting

that he wants the Pentagon to extend the same deal to and thropic that had extended to open AI. Do you think that is sincere? What is going on here? Why is Sam Altman saying, hey, if you're

“making these terms available to us, you should also make them available to other AI companies?”

I think that that is the part of Sam that appears to be sincere in saying that he wants to de-escalate this conflict, he does not want the United States government to come in and nationalize the AI companies, at least not right now, right? And so maybe if if open AI could reach some sort of agreement that would provide at least some protections for Americans and other AI companies would sign on to it, that would just sort of release the pressure on the industry overall. Now, of course,

at the same time, it would buy him a lot of cover and all of a sudden, people wouldn't be mounting these quit-chatGBT campaigns because Sam could be on Xang, well, you know, Claude is doing the same thing. Do you think that's real? How big a deal do you think this consumer opposition is? I mean, I am somewhat jaded on this point because I can't count the number of times that people have said, we're all going to cancel our subscriptions to this thing, or we're going to

delete Uber, or we're going to quit Facebook and protest, and it never really seems to have

much of an impact. But like, do you think in this case that enough people are mad about this

“at the consumer level that it could actually impact their business? Not really. I think you're exactly”

right. I think that usually these things just tend to blow over in a few days, and I'm sure that Open AI is counting on that on that. At the same time, though, Kevin, I think back to the lesson that metal learned, which is that as it had its own series of controversies, by and large, people did not fit quit Facebook. They did not quit Instagram, but you know what they did do? Just kind of start to hate meta as a company and develop really low trust in that company,

and that winds up hurting meta in all sorts of ways. In the particular way, by the way, that I think this is going to hurt Open AI, is they're gearing up to go out and build a lot of data centers around this country. And there's already enormous backlash, and that we are seeing right, we're starting to see it creep into our politics. And so if they are not able to sort of reverse the narrative and convince people that AI is going to have like hugely positive outcomes in their lives,

“I think you're going to see the data center opposition ramp up as a proxy for people is just kind of”

distrust of that company in general. Right. It's the visible, physical symbol of all of this, and from most people, the only one that is like anywhere near them. And so I think you're right. It could turn into a political problem for them, even if people aren't canceling that or chat to BTC subscriptions on masks. I want to ask you about something else that I've been thinking a lot about this week, which is this idea that you mentioned of nationalization. There's been a debate

happening on social media about this idea that if we are headed to a world with very powerful AI

systems in it, as Dario Amade calls it a country of geniuses in her data center, that eventually that will just not be allowed to happen inside a private corporation, that the U.S. government, whether a year or two years or five years from now, at some point, we'll step in and say, hey, you guys built this really cool thing that's really useful and has all these like important geopolitical and national security implications. We're going to just take that now,

and you work for us now. And I'm curious what you make of that as a possibility, because some people who I consider quite serious and credible have been talking about this threat of nationalization for several years now. Yeah, if you go to the sort of nerdy AI conferences that Kevin and I do, this comes up a lot at the tabletop role playing games that people do during lunch, right? Is that at some point, a government of one or more countries kind of steps in and takes over

the AI lab. I understand in this moment that that feels like a kind of sci-fi scenario, right? Like most of the time when you're using catchy BTC, you probably don't think this is a dangerous super weapon and we need to ensure that, you know, this is being controlled by the president. At the same time, we are now at war with Iran. We know that these systems are embedded in the like command and control operations of the military. And so to some extent, they are already

becoming weapons, right? So if you say to me, do I think that once these systems become

three, four, five, ten times more powerful, the government will want to take an interest in them

and potentially oversee their development and deployment, I absolutely believe that will have I see no reason why that would happen. And unfortunately, how that goes, I think, depends a lot on the quality of the government that is overseeing that AI, right? And like, what do they want to do? Do they want to use it to create opportunity and safety at democracy for all? Or do they want to, you know, mount an authoritarian takeover of the globe? So if you are a leader at one of these

companies and you know that, you know, at least until 2028, we are likely to have sort of the same administration in power, if you believe that the technology is rapidly accelerating such

country of geniuses in our data center. What does that mean you should do? I mean, one thing that

I've been thinking about is like, should these companies be doing deals with the government at all, right? If the lesson of the past couple of weeks, is that the federal government is not a trustworthy counterparty in these negotiations and is going to insist on total control and obedience, or else they're going to try to mute your company. Like, I think a very rational response from these AI companies will be like, well, we're just not going to make any more deals with you.

You're going to have to use some open source models for your state department and your your military and your treasury because it's just too risky for us as a business risk. And you can't be trusted with it. I could see why that may seem somewhat rational to that. And like, I don't think that that is the tack that they're going to take. I mean, even this week after

everything that has happened with anthropic, Dario Amade is still out there saying, we were very close

to an agreement with the Pentagon. We liked working with the military. We want to work with the military again, right? So I think that's very important to note. Like, Dario did not like throw up his middle fingers like on his way out the door. He is still trying to reach some sort of agreement.

“And I think in part that likely is to avoid the exact sort of scenario that you are describing, right?”

It's you kind of want to like keep the tigers at bay for just a little while longer at least, while you may be like, think through the rest of that scenario, which is admittedly very difficult one. Yeah, I've been rereading the making of the atomic bomb this week, which is Dario Amade's favorite book. And he used to give it to all anthropic employees. And there's still like a bunch of copies at their headquarters. It's sort of the company book, as far as their mission goes. And they

see a lot of parallels between what they're building and the Manhattan Project. And so I went back and I've been rereading it. And the piece that struck me from that experience was just right before the bombs were dropped in 1945. There was this point where the scientists got really worried about how their creation was going to be used. And a number of them from the Manhattan Project sort of created these petitions and reports and tried to get them to the government and say,

"Hey, could you guys not use this against a city, at least as a first line act of war?"

And the military and the government sort of pretended to hear them out. And then they just went ahead and bomb Japan anyway. And there was sort of this moment where it was like, we hear you, you're the scientists, you're the geniuses who made this all work. But now you're playing in our turf. And so we're going to control the technology from here and thank you for your input. And I think the comparison between the Manhattan Project and the AI industry is somewhat overstated.

“And I think it breaks down in some key ways, one of which is like, that was a government project.”

You know, the Manhattan Project was paid for by the government. These were government employees. What we're talking about now are private companies that have been developing this thing outside the public sector. So I think there's some important differences. But I do worry that we are ahead of toward a moment where this stuff just gets so useful to governments and militaries and confers such a decisive advantage to the countries that control it, that the U.S. government.

No matter who is in power, it's just going to say like this thing is too important to be left to the private sector. Well, I mean, keep in mind that one of the original ideas for open AI was that it should be a government-funded project. But CM Altman and his co-founders just came to the conclusion, correctly, by the way, that no government would give them the amount of money they needed to build this technology. And they just sort of quickly came to the conclusion

that it was just going to have to be a private enterprise. But you know, going back to the earliest days, there was thinking, among the people that created this technology that the government was going to take an interest in it eventually. Another reason, though, Kevin, why I find the current situation, so that's saying, is that you and I both covered President Biden's executive order on AI, which I personally felt like was a pretty gentle way of attempting to regulate their street.

It was sort of like, you know, inform us about your safety testing, please, when you test these new models and sort of, you know, told federal agencies to get ready for this technology. And the howls of protest on the right that said, how dare, you know, this administration come in and try to put these feathers on capitalism. We are going to lose to China because of this sort of nanny state behavior. And then to see those same people come to power. And now say, we are going

to tell you exactly how you are going to build your models, what they're going to do for the military or else we will destroy you is, like the whip lash is insane. Yeah, we didn't like that government trying to control the tech industry, but this government tried to control the tech industry. That's just business is usually right. So I guess my worries zooming out from all of the stuff that's been going out for the past two weeks is that we are sort of living through like an early dress rehearsal

for what something like nationalization of the AI companies could look and feel like. I don't think it's going to be as sort of cut and dry as like it was during World War II. Like the government

“showed up to a bunch of like steel plants. I was like, hey, we run these now. I think it's going to be”

kind of this soft nationalization like we've been seeing over the past week where it's like a little

Oh, maybe this is actually so strategically important that we need to be the people putting the

clauses in the constitution of Claude or whatever that dictate how it will behave in these high-stakes situations. And I think that is a more likely direction, but I would not take full sort of like brute force nationalization off the table entirely. I think there's a decent chance that something like that happens. Hmm. Well, maybe we should set up a prediction market for it. Speaking of prediction markets, when we come back, we'll talk about how prediction markets

have made it to war so predictable. I'm Deborah Cayman. I'm an investigative reporter at the New York Times. This one time I was working on a particularly difficult investigation of the bad behavior in the real estate industry. I was in a meeting with my editor and she said, "Tiver, why is your face so white?" And I just told her the truth. I said, you know, this story is really hard.

“And she looked at me and said, "That's what we do." I think about that all the time.”

At the New York Times, I have never encountered someone who said to me, "That's too ambitious."

Or that story is too hard. It's the contrary. I am told you need to dig deeper. You need to keep going until we make sure we have every single fact, every single layer, to tell the stories that would not be told because they are hard. And that's what special about the New York Times. It allows our readers to understand not just what's happening, but why it's happening. If you're a subscriber, you probably have experience that sense of understanding. And thank you

for supporting this work. If you're not, you can subscribe at NYTimes.com/subscribe. Okay, Casey. So the other big news from the past week is that the United States is now at war in Iran. And one angle that really has been sticking out to me about this is the role that

“prediction markets are playing in this conflict because I think that is something that we truly”

have not seen before. Yeah, it seems like every new war brings along some grim new technology. And I would say that prediction markets are maybe grim technology number one for this conflict in Iran. Yes, it's a grim technology already, even absent the war. And now just with the war, it has become even grimmer. And we've talked about prediction markets on the show. We talked about them way back in 2023 when they were sort of this new thing that was like in this legal

gray area that wasn't really being done in any scale yet. It was sort of an interesting idea. Now, of course, you cannot walk down a street in the major American city without seeing one and probably multiple ads for prediction markets like Kalshi and Polly Market. Yeah, this sort of gambling mania that has taken over all media and advertising, you know, from draft kings to fan dual has now extended even further into these prediction markets.

So both Polly Market and Kalshi, the two leading prediction markets platforms, took a lot of heat this week on bets. They were allowing their users to make on questions related to Iran. So Kalshi, which is kind of the more regulated US-based prediction markets company, does not allow bets on war or assassination. But it did allow the question,

Ali Kamini out as supreme leader, basically sort of as a kind of careful proxy for betting on

the outcome of a war or strike on Iran. Yeah, and out I suppose could have, you know, many meetings, you know, perhaps there would be a sort of gentle democratic revolution in Iran. But I'm going to assume that most of the people who were wagering on that one assume that he was going to be killed in war. Yeah. So people got really mad at Kalshi for allowing these bets on the fate of the Iranian leader. They also got mad when Kalshi sort of avoided this market and said that it was going

to reimburse anyone who may have lost money on this, basically make sure everyone ends up in the black. But people who were supposed to make a bunch of money because they correctly predicted the death of Kamini were mad that they didn't get paid out their expected winnings. So just a big cluster all around. And I just want to say, if you were one of the traders who did not get your expected winnings from the death of the Iatola, I just want to say, I don't care. And it doesn't

matter. So polymarket, the other sort of less regulated offshore crypto-based prediction market was even more permissive. They allowed people to bet on the dates of strikes on Iran and other details

“related to the war in Iran. Their policy was really like, imagine the worst thing you can do on”

our platform. You can do that. Actually, they did draw a line when it came down to markets that

who is trying to cash in on nuclear war. These woke liberals that won't let me bet on nuclear explosions need to go Kevin. Okay. So no one was happy about this. Senator Chris Murphy posted that quote, it's insane. This is legal. People around Trump are profiting off war and death. And also said that he was introducing legislation to ban this. And there are also a bunch of people

looking into whether any of this has been done via insider trading. Basically, do you have people

in the military or close to the decision makers in this conflict placing bets once they have

“this sort of non-public information about what is going to be happening? Yeah. And I think it speaks”

to why allowing prediction markets to take bets at least around war and death is so corrosive and bad Kevin because not only is it just kind of like grim and like how do we live in this society where gambling on war and death is become a sort of form of entertainment. But also you're just creating incentives for like the worst things in the world to happen, which doesn't seem logical to me. Well, and it's not even a theoretical harm here. Recently, Israel arrested a number of

people who were accused of using classified information to bet on military operations on poly-market.

So this is already starting to happen. And I think this is why people like Senator Kismirfi

are so alarmed about this, not just because it's sort of like gross and aesthetically offensive to have people betting on wars, although it is. But yeah, well, though it is. But also because it could create direct incentives if you're a member of the military and your commander gives you an order to go do an air strike on in Iranian compound to log onto your phone and head over to one of the prediction markets platforms and say, you know what, I could make a

couple grand off this. Yeah, that's your little Kalshi bonus. You know, this is not theoretical at all Kevin. In fact, your colleague Amy Fan at the Times wrote that it is relatively uncommon for someone to bet a significant sum of money that a U.S. strike will happen within the next day.

But last Friday, more than 150 accounts placed hundreds of bets of at least $1,000 correctly

“predicting that there would be an American air strike on Iran by Saturday. Yeah. So I think one”

of the interesting things here is like, I am not like a blanket opponent of prediction markets. I sort of bought some of the kind of theoretical arguments for why something like a prediction market could, for example, outperform political polls because it would incentivize people to like come up with really good polling data and like use that to trade on and you could end up with kind of a better picture of a given election or people will like say what they really think because their

money is at stake and they're not just trying to like impress a pollster. Yes, and you've actually had some of the people who are in charge of these prediction markets sort of talking about the fact that insider trading can be good because it can get the best information to the markets as quickly as possible and kind of like give people an unfiltered understanding of what the real insiders are thinking. Now, of course, officially you are not supposed to be able to

insider trade on these platforms, right? They all have policies against it. Kalshi says, you know, they've investigated people that it is actually illegal per the CFTC, which is their main regulator to place bets using insider information. But there are a couple of problems with this. One is the CFTC is a tiny agency. It doesn't have a huge team of enforcers going out to investigate what I assume must be hundreds or thousands of trades using insider information on their platform

every day. It's also not clear what is public information and what is private information. You know, there are certain types of information in the stock market that are considered material non-public information that it is illegal to trade on. But it is also illegal to, you know, fly a drone over an oil facility to see how their production is going or to park outside a store and see the foot traffic going in and out and use that to sort of calculate how well their sales must

be going. I find it suspicious how much you know about the insider trading rules. I have to say, I didn't know you had this much facility with the law here. I'm calling my lawyer. But of course, this is part of the appeal of prediction markets in general is that they incentivize people with good information to trade on that information. Yes, and if you allow people to wager on almost anything, how are you ever possibly going to police the entire platform to understand who

“is insider trading and who isn't? Yes. So I think in this specific case of war,”

I think it's very dangerous for some of the reasons that we've talked about. Not only do you have military officers and and and and service people disclosing classified information in some cases to sort of make a little extra for themselves. But you also have just this incredibly strange war profiteering innovation where you like you can just go on one of these platforms and try to make

the other thing that comes to mind for me, Kevin, is that, you know, as you say, the prediction

“market backers, their argument is like, this just helps us understand the world better, right?”

This is a new kind of information that helps us see more clearly. And yet, as I look across all of the trades that you just described, I don't understand really what I was supposed to see more clearly, right? Like maybe you get a, you know, a brief heads up about something horrible that is about to happen. Maybe that's, you know, useful and at least some circumstances. But for the most part, I just don't feel like we actually have a much better understanding of the world

because all of these bets are happening. Yeah. And I think in this specific case, that's especially true because if you actually look at the markets that were being traded before this strike on Iran, the conventional wisdom of the crowd was that this was not going to happen. It was a very low

probability. I think something like 17 percent probability on one of these platforms and

hour before the strikes. So these markets aren't actually distributing the best possible information at all times. They're just kind of like aggregating vibes until like someone with insight and

“information shows up in like mix of fortune. Well, I think that's exactly it. It isn't as if”

these have been adopted by the mainstream and everybody's placing these sort of casual bets. And now we have this like beautiful, perfect understanding in the world. What we have, as you say, is a bunch of vibes, plus some insider trading. And it just doesn't actually seem that useful to me in practice for most things. Yeah. I want to try to like sort of steal man the defense of prediction markets here and see what you make of it. So I think someone who believes that these

prediction markets are good in the aggregate might say something like the following. People have been betting on war forever. They bet on these stock prices of defense companies. They bet on things like oil prices. That is all legal. We consider that sort of part of the normal markets. Those things all fluctuate when you have a war break out. How is this any different? Your response? Well, I think that it is actually really meaningful that these are

indirect ways of betting on war. It seems very unlikely to me that if I buy oil stocks assuming that they're going to go up, that I'm creating an incentive for somebody to assassinate the supreme leader of it wrong. But wasn't this the whole conspiracy theory about the war in Iraq? Was that it was just motivated by like Dick Cheney owning a bunch of stock in Haliburton? Well, I mean, yes, that was

“like the conspiracy theory. I don't know that that was what was actually driving. And I think that”

as with most wars, at least at that time, there were sort of like a number of interrelated factors that were going on. And maybe oil was one of them. But my point here is just that when you have the betting at some sort of meaningful remove from the action, it just like feels better for me. It doesn't create the same horribly grim incentives that this particular approach does. I think the difference for me is the directness that you mentioned. And one thing that came up

over and over again when I was talking to people about prediction markets a couple years ago for this story is the assassination markets get really dark because if you have something like, you know, will this world leader, you know, be removed from power in air quotes, wink, wait before a certain date, that could actually create a bounty on that person where someone might go out and say, hey, if I want to make money on this, I need to like kill this person before this day. And you know,

what is going to be the first thing that actually takes action on that Kevin? Open claw.

Mark my words. What are these bots plugged into a Mac mini is going to see a prediction market for the assassination of a world leader? And it's going to say, well, I have some ideas about that. So I think everyone most people agree that like the assassination prediction market is sort of, you know, out of bounds and is a bad idea for lots of reasons. But I think there are still a lot of gray area around these questions about conflict and war and politics. And I think it is the risk here

is that these prediction markets have gotten so popular, so quickly with so little regulatory oversight, that it is just kind of legal to do a bunch of stuff on them that it's not legal to do in the regular stock market. Yeah. Well, so you mentioned that some lawmakers have talked about introducing legislation. My experience is that that kind of legislation typically doesn't go anywhere. What if anything do we know about what is going to happen as this war continues to unfold in

Iran when it comes to these prediction markets? I mean, I think the Trump administration is very unlikely to do anything to sort of stop the growth of prediction markets. We've already seen them signal via these sort of regulatory actions that they've dropped against polymarket that they are not going to take a firm line against these prediction markets. We've also seen them adding members of the Trump family to their advisory boards. So I think all of these prediction

markets are sort of becoming entangled with the administration in ways that are going to make it very hard for them to do anything. But I certainly expect like Democratic lawmakers to say it

of world leaders or the outcomes of a war in Iran that just feels all incredibly fraught to me?

“My fear is that we're in a sort of time race where like if Democrats were able to like somehow”

advance some legislation, maybe they win some seats in the midterms, maybe they retake the presidency, maybe sometime within the next few years they could meaningfully rain these prediction markets in. I think though if they continue to grow, my fear is that they will become a massive entrenched interest group like the crypto world and they will then lobby to ensure the Democrats and Republicans both feel like they have invested interest in these things sticking around. So

you know, my fear is that if we're to do anything about some of these excesses we've been talking about today, it needs to happen soon or otherwise platforms like Kalshi and Pauli Market might just have too much money for that to happen. Yeah, I have a proposed rule for these prediction

“markets, which is that you should have to go to a physical place like you do for a casino.”

I think they're putting the stuff on people's phones making it super easy for them to do it. Like if you want to go bet on the war in Iran, you should have to like go to a CD, like OTV bedding place to do it. Like you should have to like put in some effort. It should not be as easy as whipping out your phones. All right, well it's very interesting Kevin. I predict we are not going to try that. I also predict we're not going to try that. But it's a good idea. People should listen to me.

When we come back, flop, collaborate, and listen. YouTube is back with a disturbing new invention. . Hey, it's Lauren Dragon from Wirecutter, the product recommendation

service when the New York Times and I test headphones. We basically make our own fake sweat and

spray it over and over on these headphones to see what happens them over time. I have 3,136 entries in my database. Kids, workout, or a version of food. At Wirecutter, we do the work so you don't have to. For independent product reviews and recommendations for the real world, come visit us at nytimes.com/ Wirecutter. All right, Casey. Well, it's time to look at some kids' slop. Yeah, Kevin. We have recently been alerted to the fact that a YouTube has been beset by a bunch of AI-generated slop for toddlers,

and it's time to take a look and see what we're dealing with. My colleague at the New York Times Arietta Leica has a new story about this called how AI-generated videos are distorting your child's YouTube feed. And I read this story. I loved it. I thought I've got to see some of this slop for myself. So today, let's take a look at this emerging new genre of AI-slop directed at kids with a new installment of the Hard Forker Review of Slop.

All right, what do we have up first? First is a video about the alphabet. Do you know the alphabet?

You know, I keep meaning to learn it. Okay, let's see how the AI-generated alphabet videos are doing. Yeah. Kids TV, ABC Farm Animals, so far so good, okay? Okay, why don't they being squirted out of a little paint bottle? Oh, I'm deeply uncomfortable with this. I'm going to have to answer so many questions from my three-year-old about why ducks come out of toothpaste tubes. Yeah, this is

“if you're listening, if you're a three-year-old, you need to know this. That is not how a duck is made.”

So this video depicts the alphabet showing a series of animals whose names begin with a letter and then a hand holding, I guess, a tube of paint sort of squirts out a little dollop of gross goo that then transforms serially into an animal while sort of demented slopp children sing the name of the animal in the back of it. Yes, like if you've ever seen the TV show, Alex Mack from the 90s on Nickelodeon, where she assembles herself out of goo on the floor, it's sort of like that but

for animals. That one was a little before my time, I'm afraid, but I'll research that when back in the archives, in any case, okay, a very strange one. Let's take a look at this next video, Kevin.

Oh boy. Oh boy. Oh boy. Why are they? Why is the other animal a doctor? Why are they running

toward the camera? Why is the Kudu pink when what is a Kudu? I have to say, I'm a little older than the the target age for these videos, but I'm learning things for you. I'm learning. So this video shows another series of animals, each one connected to a letter of the alphabet, but this one uses a a trope of having this doctor figure inject these animals with color. The doctor is also an animal. And the doctor is also an animal. Is this like anti-vax propaganda? Well, the thing is like

whoever is making the slot knows that needles are scary to children. So this is effectively just an engagement hack, right? You know the kid is going to watch the injection because the

kid is afraid of needles. So this is just, again, this is just one of these like little

miniature insidious ways that these like slot makers grab the attention of kids is by like showing them something scary in order to hypnotize them into continuing to watch the slot. It does teach the valuable lesson that giving injections to children does result in them turning into pink kudos and running toward the camera. So all children need to learn the lesson eventually. All right. This next one, Kevin, shows animals turning it to armored vehicles, trucks, and planes

“going to show once again that a key theme in slot for kids in 2026 is the transformation of animals.”

Oh, wow. We have to make a quail. Okay. Okay. I wonder if that's a licensed use of the Thomas the Tank Engine IP.

Okay. Unfortunately, that one slapped for me. My kid would be super into that and I must never

show them that. This one reminds me of like cartoons that I watch as a kid where there was a lot of, you know, transformers transforming and so I could understand why, you know, a lot of little kids might like that one. But, you know, this is making me realize that another reason why slot makers love the alphabet is because they can just stitch together a bunch of very short clips. Yeah. Of course, most of the AI video generators that we have in this moment can only

generate clips of up to a few seconds. So the alphabet just becomes a perfect way to stitch together all of that into a one piece that still, at least has some sort of coherence. Yeah. I mean, I guess I can see a world in which like this stuff is not actually that harmful. Like maybe it is going to teach some kids the alphabet. But it is just so weird. And it strikes me as just like,

“what, like, we already had a lot of videos teaching kids the alphabet. Why are people doing this?”

But also, you know, listen, I'm no child neurologist, but I wonder about the consequences of essentially just creating images that are designed to over stimulate the child. You know what I mean? It's like, at least when you're watching like a normal cartoon, there could be moments of relative calm or like a story might unfold over a few minutes. When you're just showing like raw, visual stimuli and bombarding a kid with it, and it doesn't seem like it's probably that good for them.

This is how I know you do not have a child in the year of our Lord 2026. Because if you go onto like Coco Melon or any of the other like extremely popular children's programs, like they are essentially just this. It's like a series of very short clips. Maybe they do one song and then they do a not cuts away to a different song, cuts away to a different song. It is like these same sort of like hyper stimulating environments. So like,

I'm not saying that any of this is good. I'm just saying like, we have crossed the rubicon a while ago. And we are now in the land of the hyper stimulating children's entertainment. Like the big difference to my mind is now that it's just easier and cheaper to create this stuff. Listen, this is my takeaway. What I have by child, which I do hope to do, the only visual stimulation that I'm going to allow them is a pile of sticks.

And they can make their own fun, you know, with the pile of sticks. But we are not going down this road Kevin. All right. Why don't we wrap up with a lullaby about animated children

“tucking themselves into beds made out of fruit? Hmm. Love a fruit bed. What you call me?”

Okay. We've got a girl with a crown going into a bed made of strawberries.

Okay. See, what do you make of the fruit beds? You know, this is just another one

that it feels a little more surreal than I am comfortable with. You know, it's like, what is the child supposed to conclude for many of the light? It just seems designed to confuse children more than to educate or even really entertain them. Yeah. And there have been, I will say, like, a few sort of videos in here where I'm like, oh, my kid would like that. But I don't like that. He would like that. You know, it's like, I don't want him watching stuff. They're just like

a bunch of animals like driving buses or lying in, you know, fruit beds. It's like also kids like

“lots of things that are bad for them. That's why we don't let them use cocaine. Yeah. Well,”

now that we've seen the videos, I feel like we are armed and ready to have the conversation about what they all mean. So let's bring in my colleague, Arietta Leica. I don't know. I feel like

I need to cleanse first. Maybe go read a play by Shakespeare or something. Just go watch an episode

of really very hard learning. Arietta Leica, welcome to hard fork. Thank you so much for having me. I want to just ask, like, first of all, how did you get interested in this? How did you learn about this? Did you get a tip from a toddler submitting things through the New York Times confidential tip process? How did this come onto your radar? Yeah. So no toddlers were involved in making them this story. We had some ethical concerns there about showing them these videos repeatedly.

But I started by getting interested in this because there is so much AI slot on all of our social media feeds, regardless of the platform. And I was interested in learning more about how this content is being presented to children and how it's being moderated. And so where do many children

watch media? It's YouTube. So I started by looking at channels that parents approve of channels like

Miss Rachel and Blue A that are considered more high quality and thoughtful and other popular channels like Coca-Mellon and said, well, if I click on a Coca-Mellon video, and I am a toddler,

“and I look at the recommended videos right next to that video, what sort of videos would I be recommended?”

And we focused on YouTube shorts because a lot of these AI tools default to this vertical format. And so we just started scrolling through the feed and making a note of the different videos we're seeing. One of my colleagues actually coded a tool where I wasn't really interacting with the screen, so it wouldn't influence the algorithm. And I was just like scrolling down and it was making a note of all the different lengths I was seeing. And then we later analyzed these videos frame by

frame to determine which videos were AI generated. And we're using regular YouTube or YouTube kids. So we started looking at regular YouTube and a private browser because a lot of parents tend to put on their own YouTube accounts for their children, but then we also look through YouTube kids, you know, because it is a more controlled environment with content that's supposed to be approved for children. And when you started this process, what were your sort of expectations? And then

“how much AI generated stuff did you wind up seeing as like kind of a proportion of the total?”

So I think especially when I was watching channels like Miss Rachel and Blue. I was expecting to see content that would be, you know, more in the lines of those programs, right? More Bluey shorts. And I wasn't really seeing that. I was surprised just about how much AI generated content was being recommended. Like in one session alone in one 15-minute session that we were scrolling, more than 40% of the videos were generated. Wow. And how are you determining that?

Is there like a detection system that you're plugging these things into? Yeah, the detection system is called looking at the video. Well, I'm saying like, if you have a video of like a, you know, an alpaca getting squeezed out of a paint tube, like that's very clearly not photo-realistic, but it could be made using some like CGI software or something like that. How did you determine that this was AI? Right. So I think some of these videos were a little bit more obvious,

but we looked at them framed by frame and tried to look for inconsistencies. Like in some cases, the objects were just appearing in the background. There was text in the background that was distorted. If there was an animal in the background, it would morph into something else. Some of the videos were actually labeled as synthetic media, even though they were animated. And then we would also look at the YouTube channel and get a sense of like, okay, what sort of content have they been

posting in the last few years? And even some of the channels that had been around, you know, before the last two years where this technology really improved, they were making very simple low quality animation that looked nothing like what they had been posting the last few months. Now, I had done a lot of reporting on YouTube, but it's been a few years. What are their actual

And I asked them what their policy is around flagging AI content that's being made for children.

And that includes animated content. And they told me that content creators are required to label content that is realistic looking. In some cases, we saw that creators weren't labeling the content. And I'm referring to videos of animals, you know, displaying behaviors that those animals don't do, like elephants doing gymnastics maneuvers on a tight rope. Those videos, for example, are not labeled as synthetic media. Some creators were labeling the animated videos, but it's not

part of YouTube's policy. So it's really, the burden is falling on parents, especially for parents who may not want their child to watch a generated media to determine, okay, what sort of video is this.

“And knowing that, but you have to click through the video and then you see the synthetic”

media label. And when it comes to kids' content on YouTube, YouTube doesn't allow comments.

So sometimes when there's an AI generated video, you'll have people in the comments say, like, this is AI. And in this case, you know, parents can't really talk amongst themselves as to what the video is. Has there been any backlash yet that we've seen from parents against these kinds of videos, like our some parents upset by what they're seeing? Yeah, we came across several Reddit forums or people were asking how to get around this AI slop for kids, whether there was a

filter on YouTube, some parents recommended making a playlist, other parents were like, get off YouTube altogether. And I think a lot of it is also going to fall on parents to you know, closely supervise what kids are watching since algorithm is pushing so much of this content. Right, although, of course, the whole point of YouTube is that what it's what you show your kids so that you don't have to spend time with them, right? You know, it's in the

“not in a mean way, but like, maybe you have to cook dinner, right? Yeah, like if parents were,”

you know, sitting down to like watch YouTube with their children, like we would not be in a situation. Yeah, and also like as the parent of a almost four year old, like the couple times that I've like found him watching something like this because he like, you know, went on to the YouTube kids app when he was supposed to or something. My feeling about it is not like this is damaging my child. It's just like, this is so bad. Yeah, like the quality is just so bad. I wonder if

you think Ariana, like there's any sort of evidence. What do we know about the actual effects of this on kids? Is the worry that it's actually harming them? Or is the worry that there's, like, there's just better stuff that can be watching. So there's a lot of factors to consider. So these videos contain extraneous effects. And we know that when videos contain all these bedazzling, elements, kids can learn as well. They're also devoid of a narrative arc, which is really

beneficial for kids to watch content with the beginning, middle and end with characters they can relate to that they're familiar with, um, watching content that uses short phrases that they can understand and doesn't feature these abstract concepts. You know, worst case, a lot of these videos are fantastical and that could be cognitively overloading to the child. And what comes to short form content experts say, if our children under five, we know their attention systems are

still developing. So it's hard for them to follow rapid changes and it really puts a heavy burden on children to process that information. Especially when we see this more realistic, fantastical content of animals, you know, showing bizarre behaviors. You know, when I was growing up Kevin in the 1900s, I would watch he-man. Remember he-man? Yes. It was a cartoon about a gay guy who had a sword and wrote a tiger around. And as he was gay, can I play? Well, I think not canonically

a read between the lives. Okay, read between the lives. And, you know, as a young gay kid, I could see that and relate to that. And, you know, and yes, the stories were fantastical. You know, but to Arietta's point, there was a beginning in a middle and an end. And I, you know, it didn't exactly like teach me in the ways of the world. But like it maybe told me something about like storytelling and narrative and it wasn't just sort of like raw flesh and shapes and colors.

Yes. I mean, I remember before I had a kid having this argument with people at YouTube about YouTube kids, because there was- I think there was, you know, discussion and concern even back in like 2017 or 2018 about these weird videos. They weren't AI-generated at the time. But they were like weird sort of cocoa melon ripoffs. And I remember saying to these these YouTube people like, you guys got to change the way that you do this. Like, instead of just default allowing channels

“to serve content to very young children, you have to like kind of set up some white list where like”

if you prove that like your stories have a beginning middle and end and like there's some thought being put into them, you are allowed to be on YouTube kids. And if you're not, if you're just some like content farm that's like churning out cocoa melon ripoffs, like you're not going to be allowed on. So do you get the sense? Are you out of that there's any like concern or

consideration of this at YouTube or are they basically just sort of like, you know, we got bigger

fish to fry? I mean these videos are recommended to me and these channels multiple times. And I've

you're alphabet. I do, yeah, my alphabet and you know those songs really get stuck in your head,

right? Yeah, oh trust me, I know. And then it's just so it's so fascinating to me how much more these videos are recommended to me than more thoughtful content like PBS kids, for example, because PBS kids also puts out shorts. But I would say more of this than PBS kids. I mean, just to sort of like echo Kevin's question, this has gotten me thinking about Elsa Gate, right? There's a 2017 controversy where parents see a lot of really surreal content

in YouTube and they get very upset. It seems like we have not seen that kind of backlash yet. And I'm wondering is it because we just feel like the content is actually better here in some ways or are most parents just not actually aware of just like the volume of slop that might be

being served to their kids? Because so many of these videos are animated and may not be obvious

to some parents that these are age generated. But we were working in a more contained environment. So like elsewhere on YouTube, there are so many videos featuring popular characters that children like in very violent scenarios. There's this show called "Masha in the Bear." And I remember I typed in "Masha" and I was coming across videos of "Masha's stomach being cut open." And that channel was putting up these videos and YouTube didn't take them down until I linked out to

one of them in my story. Wow. And I don't know if any of you are a no children who are obsessed with that K-pop demon hunters film. But there are so many horrible videos featuring those characters. And again, it's non-sensical. Sometimes the characters are pregnant and those are all over YouTube as well. If you type in those characters names. And by the way, that was the exact scandal of Elsa Gate. Was that people were seeing Elsa from Frozen pregnant all over YouTube.

“So I mean, this truly is just a sequel to Elsa Gate. And I think it's interesting that”

it is flown under the radar until your story, Arietta. Right. And before, I mean, you had to have some sort of animation skills to do that. But now anyone can do this in a few minutes. So we're going to be seeing more of this content. And what is so insidious here is that the people who are making these videos are counting on the fact that regular kids are going to go searching for K-pop demon hunters and Masha the Bear. And they are unwittingly just going to be served this

slap of like, you know, the poor bear getting cut open and the pregnant demon hunter just through the recommendation algorithm. And like, this is where YouTube's responsibility lies. But like, this is where YouTube should be saying we're actually not going to show this incredibly disturbing stuff to kids. Yeah. I would say like among the parents of young children that I know, like very few of them let their kids watch YouTube, even YouTube kids for this exact reason that it's like,

you might start with Masha the Bear. You might start with, you know, a K-pop demon hunter's video. You might start with Blueie or Coco Melon. But like, you know, you go away for 10 minutes to cook dinner

and you come back and like they're on their third hop from the recommendation. And they're watching

some like, you know, weird AI-generated thing with like Spider-Man, you know, on the surgery table or something. Like, it's like, what are we doing here? Because it turns out that all of these recommendations algorithms work exactly the same way. They find the video that is the closest to going over the line and they find that it gets more engagement than any other. And so that's

“what shows up in the feed. Right. So how how many times are we going to have to revisit this story?”

Yes. It really depresses me, honestly. I had until the platforms like YouTube take more action on this. What can parents do in the short term? I mean, if you're going to let your kid watch YouTube or YouTube kids, is there anything you can do to like toggle off the AI-slop or do you just kind of have to make peace with it? In terms of filtering right out, there isn't an option to do that right now. In January, YouTube announced that they're going to add some controls.

We're parents can set time limits to YouTube shorts. We're seeing a lot of this AI-content YouTube shorts. So that might be an option. But they call it the Slopwatch. You know, it's like a stopwatch, but for Slop. I just wonder if like all of this is a losing battle. I feel like Kevin Rus, do not bring your nihilism into the recording studio today. Well, just like look at what is happening to older children with like Tung Tung Tung Sahur and like all the AI-slop

from from TikTok and I just feel like, you know, we're seeing old people falling for AI-slop on Facebook and middle-aged people fall for it on X and Instagram and like it just feels like we're kind of creating this like lifelong pipeline of just like whatever Slop is going to be most engaging to. Well, I'm glad you brought that up because that is the thought that I'm having as we wrap up is that while, you know, right now we're talking about the current concerns we have for kids.

“I think that, you know, older, older teens and adults wind up having the same issue, which is”

they open up TikTok or Instagram reels and they see something that is designed to hypnotize

idea is just sort of turn your brain off and experience the raw visual stimuli for as long as,

“you know, we can get you to. Yes. Well, Arya, fascinating story. Thank you so much for doing this”

digging and watching all of these children's videos so that I don't have to and so looking

to protect my child from them. Thank you so much for having me. We should take one for the team.

“Yes. Arya, then you really did do one for the team on this one. I have to say. All right. Thanks so much.”

Thanks. Part 4 against Paris by Rachel Cohen and Whitney Jones. We're edited by Vera and Povich.

“We're fact checked by Caitlin Love. Today's show was engineered by Chris Wood.”

Our executive producer is Jen Pojant, original music by Elisabeth YouTube, Rowan Nemistot and Dan Powell. Video production by Stoyer Roquet, Pat Gunther, Jake Nickel and Chris Shot. You can watch this full episode on YouTube at youtube.com/hardform.

Special thanks to Paula Schumann, Quewing Tam, and Dahlia Haddad. You can email us as always

at [email protected]. Send us your toddler Slop. [Music]