The A.I. Revolt Is Here

I'm a critic for the New York Times, and I'm the host of a podcast called Cannonball.

“We're going to talk about that song you can't get out of your head, that TV show you”

watched and can't stop thinking about, and the movie that you saw when you were a kid that made you who you are, whether you like it or not. I was so embarrassed the whole time because it's a bad film, and I still love it. You can find Cannonball on YouTube, and wherever you get your podcasts. What is big, ugly, and has united Republicans in Democrats at a time when it has felt

like nothing else could. AI data centers. Last August, a heatbap newspaper found that about four and ten voters would oppose a data center being built, where they live.

By May of this year, opposition grew to seven in ten.

For a governor, Ron DeSantis, or a public end, of course, has proposed a new citizen's bill of rights for AI? The incentives of big tech are not the same as what's in the interest of the people and the public. Senator Bernie Sanders called for a national data center, Mark Horiam.

This moratorium will give democracy a chance to catch up with the transformative changes that we all witnessing and make sure that the benefits of these technologies work for all of us, not just the wealthiest people on earth. There are over a hundred local or statewide moratorium proposals across the country. And here in New York, Governor Kathy Hockel, not usually thought of as a hardcore populist,

just imposed a one-year moratorium on data center construction.

At least high for scale AI data centers consume enormous amounts of power. Truly threatening to outpace our grid's capacity, and they drive up costs for local rate bears, and I refuse to let those costs be passed on to New Yorkers who already paid too much for the utility bills. So I wanted to get into the fight over data centers.

How much of this is really about water, electricity, or aesthetics, and how much is about AI itself and the companies that are behind it? My guest today is Jasmine's son. Jasmine has been doing excellent coverage of both the culture inside the AI companies, unusual culture, and the anger that is building against them in the rest of the country.

I highly recommend following her sub-stack, but right now she just finished her reporting trip in the Midwest, talking to the people organizing against these data centers. And I wanted to hear what she learned. Welcome to the show, I'm so excited to be here. Let's just start with what you see when you're in your data center.

What does it look like?

“I think one of the most important things about rural Wisconsin and rural Michigan is how”

beautiful it is. I felt like I was in Eden, I felt like I was in Paradise, it's incredibly lush, incredibly green. And as you get closer to a data center, you start to see more power lines, you start to see more towers, and eventually you just see what looks like an extremely large flat warehouse.

But you just see this sort of like vertent landscape give way to what is a windowless industrial park. Data centers are very ugly. I think I didn't appreciate this until I started standing in front of them, getting near them, listening to them, people will time how long it takes to drive past a data

center on the highway, going 70 miles per hour and for Washington. I think it's like a minute and 42 seconds. The size of these things is long on the highway. It is a long, long ride. Like these hyperscale data centers are huge, they are massive.

“And so I think that the aesthetic questions around is this what I want my state, my community”

to look like, these are really salient to people. Do you mention hearing them? Yes. What do they sound like? Oh my gosh.

I mean, they sound like humming, buzzing, worrying, everyone's only hear a rattling. President who live next door to some of them say they're producing noise that's not only annoying but debilitating like this right here. But again, they're windowless, they're not that many workers inside. So they're very mechanical sounds there in human as a lot of folks would say.

Who were they? You had state home moms.

You had retired executives.

You had farmers who didn't like the impacts on their land. You had activists, professional activists with environmental groups in the state. It was an interesting mix of people. But a lot of women relatively more left leaning, they're definitely some right leaning folks as well.

So one question I've heard people ask is how much is this different than other kinds of industrial installations? I mean, there are a lot of things that are built all over the country. You wouldn't necessarily want to be right next to our data centers unusual in this or are the, you know, from fracking to industrial agriculture, just like the latest version of it.

It's a good question. It's when I had and thought a lot about before I went. And I've talked to city officials who were confused by this question of we had a chip fab here, we had an auto plant here, we had a fulfillment center here and nobody cared as much.

Wire data centers so much more on popular than say solar farms, which also faced local opposition in places like Michigan.

“And so I think, while the quality of life concerns around this thing is loud and annoying”

and ugly and consumes resources are very similar to other industrial projects, there must be some reason that opposition is so much more severe and widespread even beyond the communities where the data centers are literally being built. And I think that question has a lot to do with the AI, with the AI industry and sort of the way that people feel about these companies and these projects.

When I read your reporting on this, when I've talked to people involved in this, it always

feels to me there are sort of three layers of concerns that are converging into what we call the data center backlash, there's process. Then there's direct impacts, you know, the environment, water, electricity, and then there's AI itself. And maybe let's go through them sort of one by one, one thing that I have been hearing

a lot of and that I've seen in your reporting as well is the anger over how these processes are going and in particular the use of NDAs, which is not that common, right? I've covered a lot of what is it take to build a housing development and you don't tend to hear a lot of the city councilmen got put under an NDA. So what is happening with these NDAs?

Yeah, I mean, this is also something that really surprised me and I think the NDAs that she's saying, NDAs closure agreements, this has really inflamed the amount of local opposition that you see.

And so basically what would happen oftentimes is there would be some sense starting in

city council that maybe a big development project was going to show up, but because of the NDAs, the council members would not be able to disclose that necessarily it was a data center, necessarily who the customers were going to be a company like OpenAI or a company like Anthropica or whoever, or even the size of the project like how much electricity is it's actually going to consume.

But whispers would start to get around. I was talking to a VP of a construction union and he was saying, you know, there's an old

“Irish saying, the only way to keep a secret between three people is to kill two of them,”

which I that was hilarious. And so he's saying, when these developers show up, they talked to the general contractor, the general contractor talks to all their subcontractors, the subcontractors talked to all their workers, yes, maybe everyone is signing NDAs at every part of that process, but whispers get around.

And as soon as whispers get around, you start to get social media posts, you start to get rumors, and the city council, because they are beholden to these NDAs, they lose the ability to get ahead of the social media narrative. That was something I repeatedly heard from these local government officials was, we could not get ahead of social media because we had signed an NDA and rumors started getting around.

Why do the companies want these NDAs signed? I mean, I think they didn't think about it. They didn't realize there would be a backlash. They just thought it would be easier in case they changed their mind. These companies signed lots of NDAs with their own workers with anyone who works with them.

I don't think there's a good reason. Microsoft has actually decided to stop using NDAs because of local backlash. I've heard from people managing compute at some of the other AI labs that they are thinking of making the same decision. One thing that surprised me is all of the pro data center pro build people who I spoke

to, whether workers or AI developers, they all regret the NDAs. They all think that they made the situation much worse. What is the impact of a new data center on what are you said, what are availability in the town? They do require some of it, obviously, primarily for cooling the data centers because

these chips and servers run really hot and they need AC.

“The thing that's gone a bit wrong in the water debate, I think, is that today's new data”

centers are almost all closed loop systems, closed loop in the same way that air conditioning is closed loop, which means they're recycling the water within the system and they use a fraction of the water that golf courses use.

right next to the data center site. They do some, and it has sort of become a very sticky icon of these things resource consumption. A lot of folks I talked to and was considered Michigan, they would say things like, you know, they're building right by the great lakes.

“Why would they do that if they weren't trying to drain the lakes?”

Why would they do that? If they didn't need all this fresh water. And so your view is at this point the technology is changed, such that water is not as big of a deal. As maybe it actually was a couple of years ago.

I've been expecting people have heard a lot about this energy usage, so walk me through that.

The electricity consumption issue is real, so data centers do in fact use an incredible

amount of electricity, these chips and these servers that are processing gigantic mathematical calculations to make AI work require tons of energy. All these chips and clusters are talking to each other. You need the interconnections to be really fast in order to get like a chat to be to answer really quickly with low latency.

You need these super fast connections, all of that's power by electricity. So we are talking about a really, really significant amount of new electricity that is going to require new generators, new power plants, it's probably going to be natural gas in the near future. Once the data center is fully operational, there is not a ton of air and water pollution

assuming that everything's working correctly. They are relatively clean facilities, but like a lot of folks are concerned about the electricity use. They're saying, yeah, maybe the data center doesn't use that much water, maybe the data center doesn't pollute that much, but what about all of these new power plants that

they're going to build in order to power it? And the tech companies come into these towns and begin talking to the city council members when they begin talking to the community.

“What are they sort of promising on the one hand, right?”

This is why this will be good for you. And what are they asking for on the other?

Yeah, I mean, so these things do provide an incredible amount of tax revenue, right?

And so in Mount Pleasant, the on the old Fox Concite, which ended up being bought out by Microsoft, they saw, oh, there's all this infrastructure already here, why don't we be able to hyper scale data center on this unused industrialized owned land? Microsoft does on truck to pay $19.6 million in property taxes in 2026. This is expected to continue for many years.

Again, this is a small village of 28,000 people. And so they're really meaningful property tax benefits. And I do think I find it frustrating personally when anti data center organizers say that the job creation is a myth because I think that 500, you know, maybe six figure jobs for our folks who go through apprenticeships to maybe don't need college degrees that last two

to six years, that's enough time to build a family, that's enough time to buy home. I think it's super meaningful. And when I talk to technicians when I talk to workers, clearly, it was extremely meaningful work.

“I think one of the things I was the most surprising to me when I talked to data center activists”

was that they responded to so many of the pro arguments with, I don't believe them. So like, this company says that they are going to treat the water with chemicals in it. So that it doesn't flow into the lakes. People would say, I don't believe them. I don't think they can do it.

People would say the companies would say, we are going to cover the cost of our own electricity grid built out. We are going to ensure that rates do not go up for all mission genders. A lot of folks would say, I don't believe them.

DTE has raised our electricity rates basically every year since 2022. Why would this be the

year that they decide not to do it? I do not believe them. They are going to create 500 jobs. And some of these will stick around after the day center is built. People just said, I don't believe them.

It was really clear to me that data centers are showing up in an environment of extremely low trust in both governments and incorporations to the extent where the pro arguments almost do not land because people just aren't interested in anything and outside tech companies is going to tell them. They say they have big PR teams.

They can say whatever they want. One thing that became really obvious to me when I talked about people of the AI companies and local officials is that two years ago, no one thought the data center backlash was going to be like this. And so these companies were, in fact, looking for things like, does this state have a sales tax

exemption as Wisconsin does to ensure that they don't have to pay sales taxes on their very expensive chips on their very expensive GPUs? They were often looking to build in places that might even offer local subsidies to the companies for building in that area. I think that a lot of the balance of power has shifted as local opposition has ramped up.

Now it's the case that I'm hearing from some local officials if we did this again today, we wouldn't have to offer any subsidies because, in fact, now there is so much local opposition that the developers are really looking, where is there going to be a local community and a government that is friendly to our project? How can we, you know, have a Christmas tree ornaments worth of community benefits agreements?

versus the AI developers has really changed. One of the things that came up a lot in your reporting, and the other thing that was interesting, was the fear that this is a bubble, and what's going to happen is your community will agree to something, and then in the middle the bubble is going to pop, and you're going to end up with a half-finished data center, or one that is not being kept up correctly,

or something where the, you know, promised benefits don't emerge. I mean, you were in Wisconsin, which had a very, very bad experience with Foxconn, which seems to be structuring the way people are thinking about at least some of this. So talk to me a bit about that, a set of concerns.

“Absolutely, yeah, I think in terms of what people in these communities with these data centers”

feel when they see the projects come in with their gigantic, like, $2 billion of investment.

Like, these gigantic numbers that are being dangled, it feels like a bubble to them. One, they're seeing news articles saying, maybe AI is a bubble. We don't know what's a bubble, but it could be, too. You do have experiences like Foxconn, where you have a big tech company, show up in a very small community, in this case, Mount Puzzle in Wisconsin, a city of, like, 28,000 people.

It's not very big. Get, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure investment and tax subsidy from the town, promised 13,000 to high paying manufacturing jobs. And then pull out because the contract wasn't set up correctly. They decided they didn't actually want to build a bunch of flat screen TVs in Wisconsin.

And the, you know, the town is left on the hook, having invested all of this money and the grid and in roads, they got, I think, 1,000 jobs in the end, Foxconn is still paying back all of this debt that has been accumulated. And so experiences like that have really, really sour people on the question of, when and outside big tech company comes in and, you know, promises these gigantic numbers and

all of these jobs and all of this tax revenue. And it's for this technology that like, you can't, a lot of people, they don't see, they don't feel, they don't find personally extremely, extremely useful and not at the levels of these valuations. But they have a lot of questions about if the bubble pops are we going to be the ones left

with the stranded asset in our community. I mean, in Jamesville, Wisconsin, it was famously the site of this 100 year old GM plant that was the centerpiece of the community that employed a ton of people when they left during the financial crash in 2008 and the plant closed down. Not only did it sort of devastate the community from a work perspective, but they also

left $30 million of contamination and hazardous waste in the middle of the city that has never been cleaned up. There's for rubber chemicals in there. This is why developers have not been able to sell this brown field is because there's

so much waste that GM never cleaned up.

“And so I think that people worry about what happens if the AI bubble pops, if maybe it”

doesn't pop and the data center developers just decide, never mind, we want to build elsewhere and never mind. The data center isn't good enough. We have newer, better technology and who's going to be left holding the bag. That was the question I heard over and over again.

But this is something that I do think is in people's minds, you bring this in and right now you're at this time with very, very high valuations. And if AI demand isn't quite what you think or even just the company that was behind this particular data center is not part of the winter circle, they didn't a couple years where you got it.

It's like giant box that's not going to continue being valuable. And so whatever the promised benefits are from it, tax revenue, et cetera, but yeah, maybe they show up for a while. But then what if in five years they're gone, but you are left with his infrastructure. It's like, they can leave GM's fill with no real concern.

They're not there. There are people don't live there, right? But if you're in Jain's Hill, you do live there. Yes. Yes.

And some real concern.

“You see things like this with Elon's giant, colossus data centers, right?”

That he built out and meant this. And what makes people feel better about a new construction project in their town and calling it Colossus? Oh, yeah. Yeah.

I mean, these things. They're wearing touch for those people. I mean, usually the thing that happens is they give them very cute scenes, like project cannoli and the barn, and they try to make them sound as friendly as possible.

But yeah, I mean, with Colossus, XII never really took off.

People are not in fact using growth as much as Elon thought they were going to be using it. And in that case, he was able to get a really good deal selling the compute capacity to endthropic, which was growing like crazy and had not built enough data centers on their side.

But you could totally imagine a world, as you say, where in fact, you know, XII decides we are going to focus on space. We don't care about AI anymore. Maybe there's non-northropic to pick up the bill because anthropic has maybe built enough of their own compute capacity.

There is no question about what happens in that world. So I heard a abundance last year with a director and published it. And one thing I've heard been asked by a lot of people is like, what is your abundance take on a new center? And the beginning of that book has this line that, you know,

the question is, what do we need more of and how do we get it?

people trying to build data centers, is actually getting people to believe they need more of them, right? When you're talking about building affordable housing, when you're talking about, you know, building an array of solar panels or wind turbines, there's a pretty legible argument yes, for why you need that, right?

People still may not like it, but we need homes because we need places for people to live. We need solar panels because we need clean renewable energy. How much is this like a normal kind of, I don't even exactly want to call it an MVism, but, but a normal kind of, I don't want the industrial infrastructure built in my backyard

“because like, you know, what am I going to get out of that?”

And how much of it is actually something that is more related to people's feelings about AI, which is, I don't want this built here because why would I want to pay the cost for a thing that I don't want there to even be more of in the first place? This, I think, was one of my big motivating questions going into this trip is, is it quote unquote, normal Numbiism, is it about AI, is it about something else?

And so, I spent time looking at polls and trying to talk to people about, would you be excited if this was a chip factory, which would use a lot more water and pollute a lot more? Would you be excited if it was a solar farm? Also, maybe acquiring agricultural land and turning it into industrial use?

Would you be excited if it was a million other things?

And I talked to Nick Bagley who, you've had on your show about, is this just procedural ism? And we talked about the solar farms example where solar farms, the opposition use very similar tactics to the data center opposition. They were organizing in Facebook groups, they were packing town holes, they were talking

about the local impacts and the importance of farmland and the visions for their communities. They were zoning fights, of course. But like you say, with the solar farms, you do have a very clear, pro case. You have a faction. You have a group of people, a constituency, people who care about the environment, who want

renewable energy, who understand that that's a thing that, yeah, maybe it sucks to have in your backyard, but you can take one for the team because this is important for our planet.

“You don't really have a pro faction with AI, same with like the auto plant, right?”

You have one, you have maybe 7,000 workers in the old GM plant in Jamesville who all have families who really care about them, who see that as a constituency. Everyone drives a car.

They see their cars essential.

I think the fact that it's creating these tangible outputs really, really matter. I don't think that data centers have a compelling pro constituency besides the utility companies and the AI companies which are already incredibly incredibly unpopular. I went in and asked these organizers, "Do you guys use AI? I do find it useful."

This is one of the top questions that my friends in San Francisco wanted me to ask is, "Are these people like using chatGBT and they don't even realize that the data centers are how they can use it?" What I found there was a lot of these folks did say, "Yeah, I've used it to draft an email or make a meme.

They're not denying that AI might have any possible utility at all."

They clearly didn't see it as essential in the way that cars energy and housing are essential.

They clearly saw it as kind of like a widget, a toy and maybe there are these risks, maybe there's the job stuff, but fundamentally they were like, "This thing is not that useful. I don't really see in my personal life how this could justify these gigantic valuations." So I was talking to, for example, Charles Franklin who runs the market law pools and was

concerned and he was explaining that usually you see 50/50 pulling on issues where you have a strong anti-case and a strong pro case, and the only reason you're kind of seeing this 70/30 by partisan opposition to data centers, no matter whether you live near a data center or you don't, which means it's not just nimbus, and you don't want a data center in anyone's backyard, is because there is no strong pro argument for it.

There is not even a fight that's really going on, nobody wants it was a phrase I heard over and over. You have a very influential definition of AI populism where you call a worldview in which AI is viewed, not only as a normal technology, but as an elite political project to be resisted, I'm back that for me.

The phrase that you hear a lot from AI critics is, "Why is this being shoved down our throats?" Or with, you know, "Chatch UBT, it's not that people are saying there is literally no use for "Chatch UBT," as people are saying, "Why are you forcing me at my job to use AI to do something worse when I could do it better?"

“And so I think that a lot of the public backlash to AI that has risen over the past six”

months is not explained by people thinking that the technology has no use at all. It's not explained by them being worried about specific technical properties of LLMs that might lead to rogue AI or mislimant or whatever, which are the sort of safety arguments. It's AI as an avatar for a small group of Silicon Valley billionaires, ability to impose

And I think that's also what I hear echoed in these data center debates.

It's not just, it's going to use this much water without much water. I frankly think that even if there was no misinformation about water use, people would be just as angry about the data centers. Yeah, I consider the water. I don't want to say that the water issue is fake.

What I will say is that there was a debate online while back about how much water like a ChachiBD query consumed and somebody's like, if you really care about what are you are you eating beef? Yes. As someone who doesn't eat meat, I thought this was a quite good.

You could really save a lot of water by going vegetarian and relatively much, much more than not using ChachiBD and relatively few people in that conversation were giving up meat.

We're giving up YouTube videos like use more water than a ChachiBD query.

“Which is to say that I think sometimes people don't like a thing and they're looking”

for reasons to justify that dislike. But what's actually happening at the base is they don't like the thing. And the data center, as you're saying, I think speak to this AI populism question even more precisely because the issue with AI itself is that I think people's relationship to it is very complicated.

I have myself a very complicated relationship to AI. I use it a fair amount. I'm not sure I think it's a good thing for society, the way it is going. I don't want my kids using it. I know they'll be using it.

Maybe it'll make things better, but I really don't know, like I think that the cost are going to be very, very high for us, relationally and economically. And so I just, I'm very conflicted. But do I want to live next to a data center? Yeah, no.

Yeah. It's totally different. That's easier. You know, one of the most... Somebody is just making you do that.

Yes. To this... back to back, I went to this Abdul-Bernie AOC rally in Lansing, Michigan. And then I went and saw the Celine activists the next day. And I was researching how the Celine Stargate Project happened. And it was really interesting to see these echoes of the populist message sort of manifest

in this specific project. Like, when I'm at this rally, people are talking about the oligarchy. They're talking about corporate billionaires, whether it's big tech or big pharma or DT, the utility companies, paying off politicians in order to screw the people over.

“And that's why you need the people to come together and to get money out of politics,”

to prevent DT from donating to these superpacks and paying off scratching with Mer or whatever. And then when I learned how the Celine data center saga played out, what happened was the Celine Township City Council, unlike a lot of city councils, actually voted for one against rezoning their land for the data center. So this is a case where local government said, this is not a vision for our community, it's

not worth it to us. And what happened, the data center developers sued Celine Township, a town of like, again, a few thousand people into saying, wait, no, this is exclusionary zoning. You can't have no industrial use in your entire township. And when a town of that size is getting sued by a giant AI data center developer, they

just settled.

Like, fine, give us a few million for the fire department and for some schools.

And this fight is not worth it to us. But that to people felt like a profound, a profound violation of Little D democracy. It felt like the dark money and politics story, which is, you know, you have some very rich companies show up with the bag of money to your politician. They don't tell anybody else what's happening.

The politicians aren't allowed at all. They're citizens and involve them in the decision-making process. And they themselves work out a deal, a deal that is fundamentally asymmetric because of the amount of money on one side that will then transform the image of your community, your lived reality into the world that these tech companies have decided for you.

“And so I think that the data centers in that sense are a very visceral microcosm of the”

way that a lot of people feel that AI is showing up in their lives. I would also maybe even take that a little bit further. I think that the way that not all of the AI companies, and I think anthropic is largely been a good actor here, but many of them have acted has opened up such a chasm between what they say and then how they act under pressure that one should be incredibly, incredibly

skeptical of them. And what I mean by this is that, you know, Sam Altman and all the different people, you know, in front of congressional testimony and interviews will say, you know, it should not just be us making these decisions. There should be a real deep, small, deep democratic role here in how AI rolls out in, you

know, what effects it has on communities and how it is governed. And then when a community or a politician, you know, who is representing a community tries to say, well, we don't want this down here or we want to impose these regulations. We have watched repeatedly these companies turn tremendous amounts of financial artillery

And to use the expertise and the money and the power they are massing to kind of short-circuit

that democratic voice. Yeah. I mean, a couple of things.

“One is like, I think, one big gap, I noticed, between Silicon Valley and the folks in”

these communities I was talking to is Silicon Valley does tend to think that money solves all problems, that if you just make the check bigger, everything's going to be okay. And I think people have a sense for, I'm being bribed. This corporation is not offering me a free lunch or whatever. There's going to be something that I'm losing here.

And in fact, sometimes the fact that the data center deals were bigger or the amount of political spending was bigger actually just makes people more suspicious, like, in the Abdul-Race, like, his number one, like, hit on Haley Stevens is how much money she is getting from a pack from DTE from Farmo, whatever. And so, what is just, I think we're in a political environment where making the numbers bigger on the amount of money bigger makes people

more suspicious, not less. Another one I'll just quickly mention is, I don't even think anthropics should be left off the hook for things like the labor market impacts, right? They're the ones simultaneously warning that we might see a, you know, 50% of white-colored jobs lost by 2030.

This is really important to us. We're freaking out about it. Mario has written in his essays, we might see an underclass of people of lower intellectual ability. And they are building the agents, they are building the coding agents, the banking agents,

the design agents that they know are going to displace jobs or they believe at least are going to displace jobs.

“And I think that people feel that hypocrisy as well, which is, if you are so worried about”

the inequality, why are you building the agents to do it? And when I ask executives and researchers in whoever had an anthropic this question, they don't really have a good answer because it is true that their business models fundamentally premise on the disruption that they say they are causing. I gave my brother a New York Times subscription.

She sent New York long subscription, so I have access to all the games. We'll do word old, mini spelling bee. It has given us a personal connection. We change articles. And so having read the same article, we can discuss it.

The coverage, the options, not just news. Such a diversified desk. I was really excited to give him a New York Times cooking subscription so that we could share recipes. And we even just shared a recipe the other day. The New York Times contributes to our quality time together.

You have all of that information at your fingertips. It enriches our relationship, broadening our horizons. It was such a cool thoughtful gift. We're reading the same stuff, we're making the same food, we're on the same page. Connect even more with someone you care about.

Learn more about giving a New York Times subscription as a gift at NYTimes.com/gift. You did a big piece for the times on the very widespread belief in Silicon Valley. They will create this underclass. Yeah. What does the underclass mean to them?

The idea of a permanent underclass, Cosby AI, is basically a world where any job a person

can do, either AI or a robot can do for them. Which means that workers, lose all the economic leverage they have, and capital owners, people with money can simply pay machine labor to do all the work instead of paying workers. What that means is anyone who earned their living by working is no longer able to do that. You end up with a world of runaway inequality where the rich get richer and the working

class gets poor, maybe they get some welfare checks, but fundamentally it's a loss of economic mobility in a society. When I ask folks in Silicon Valley, do you think by default AI is going to increase or decrease inequality? I have not yet heard anyone say it will decrease inequality or keep it the same.

They might say the floor will get really high. They might say AI will bring the cost of consumer goods down and so people's lives are going to get cheaper and you know everyone will be super healthy so it's okay. But I have not heard a single person in the tech industry tell me that they believe that AI is going to decrease inequality.

In fact, many people are very worried that instead, most workers will lose their leverage and be on a kind of permanent welfare in the far off future.

“I'm pretty skeptical of this vision although I don't rule it out, right?”

It might happen, although I just don't think AI is going to be quite as revolutionary

as a lot of these people will think us and will not diffuse into the real world as easily. But the thing you're going to need to adjust to any major technological change is time. And then also it's like the AI industries and all that war to make sure we have a little

Yes. I mean, look at that.

And I just find it hard to like unnot that.

How many enterprise sales people are open AI and then drop a hiring in order to convince companies that they can replace their workforce or maybe not replace, but expand their workforce with agents instead of humans, right? They are having these sales conversations trying to persuade people of these questions. I don't think that a permanent underclass is the likelyest outcome economically that we're

going to get.

“I think that AI is actually just really jagged and human jobs are super complex and super”

hard to automate. And most of the folks who are predicting economic apocalypse haven't actually worked enough real jobs to know how complicated and how multifaceted most jobs really are. But I definitely agree on the speed point. I think that like Alex Simos, they economists has made this point very well.

One thing I think a lot about are people say, well, humans can adjust. Humans can reskill. They can retrain.

They can just do the new jobs that we're going to develop instead.

But you look at things like software engineering where people will often say now, senior software engineers are doing great. They love cloud code. Junior software engineers have been mostly replaced and you see hiring in job postings are down in that sector.

Well, do we think that a human software engineer is going to reskill or upskilled themselves faster than the next model is going to get better at software engineering? That's the question that I really wonder about is, if AI progress outpaces, human's ability to be skilled retrain up skill adapt, then I'm not really sure what there is going to be left.

There will be some jobs left, but it's going to be a really, really painful adjustment. I have had so many people at the top of these companies, right? The very tippy top, tell me they wish all this would slow down. Yeah. I'm sure you have had them say too, right?

But in this world where in their unguarded moments, they will say they wish all this was going slower. Well, one way to slow AI down is to construct the number of data centers you can build. Just like you've done as good reporting as anybody, just how conflicted people, even working for these companies, seem to be about what they are building and yet they're in this

competitive race to build it as quickly as possible.

“That's what makes them a pretty unconvincing, pro-faction.”

Oh, absolutely. Yeah. We're building the thing. We're telling you to be afraid of and we need to build it as fast as possible, even though we sort of admit they'd be better for the whole thing with slow down.

It's so confusing. I remember when I sat down with Abdul, also the Michigan Senate candidate, he cited Darius 50% white-collar job loss staff probably five times in the 30-minute conversation. It's like he was like they're saying that there's going to be a recursive self-improvement in it.

Might kill us all. Yeah, I get why you would not want to make this thing go faster. This is true for data centers, but it's true for any other way that you might slow away I down, which is that everyone only wants to be slowed down if they can guarantee that the other companies that the Chinese labs are going to slow down with them.

So long as that's not true, they're going to keep racing.

“And I think for that reason, yeah, I mean, the thing that I hear when I talk to people”

at the companies and data center executives about the build-out is how much money do we need to give these cities to let us build a data center, tell us how to bribe them better, tell us what we can do. And so when I talk to them about the build-out, I'm not hearing any sort of personal moral reckoning with slowing AI down, I'm hearing how do I make the bribes bigger, how big do

they need to be? So then how do you reconcile what many of these executives, many of these AI company workers are telling you about their fears of creating an underclass, about their fears of losing control. I mean, we just saw the situation where Open AI's model was breaking out of a sandbox in order to sort of cheat on its evaluation.

Right, so the AI safety people are very worried, right, the safety teams in here clearly don't have full control or even understanding what they're building. How do you reconcile if you reconcile the way the AI companies talk when they are giving voice to their fears or the people at them talk when they're giving voice to their fears? And they're pretty profound hostility to anything that would slow down how fast we are

building this thing whose consequences they freely admit they came up predict. Yeah, it's fascinating because just on a very personal level when I talk to people at these companies, I just think like, man, if I thought this thing might have a 10% chance of killing a solid or taking everybody's job, I wouldn't work on it. Yeah, I would not feel that.

I personally could not morally justify taking that chance. And when I talk to people who are not in the San Francisco and AI world, they feel like I do, they're just like, why would you do it?

And I think they're basically three rough buckets of rationales that I hear from people

or that I hear between the lines, from people.

It's super intelligence is going to be built inevitably. There is no way it's not going to happen. If it happens, I want to be part of it. I want to make my money from it. I want to maybe make it happen in the least bad way.

I think that's a super common answer.

Another is this technology might kill us all, but it also might be really amazing.

It might produce super abundance for everybody. We might be immortal. It might double everyone's life spans, cure all diseases, bring the cost of every consumer good housing, energy, whatever, to near zero. And that would be utopia.

And so I think all the time to that anecdote that I think SBF set on a podcast where it's sim, back when freed. Yes, I'm Bankman Friedson on podcast where I was like, if you could flip a coin and it was 51% odds, you would double the total amount of human welfare and 49% chance, everyone dies. What do you flip the coin?

He says yes. And again, I feel compelled to say, like, have you had sort of like, you know, how

“do you really know that's what's happening, blah, blah, blah, whatever, put that aside.”

Take the hypothetically. Pure hypothetical. Yeah. Yeah. I think this is a hyperbolic example, but I think it's not actually that far off from what

a lot of the people building super intelligence believe, too, that they are basically willing to flip the coin, maybe we all die, but maybe we're all immortal and that expected value wise, cancels things out. And then the final category is just I think folks who are so fascinated by the technical endeavor of whether we can build this thing and how to do it, that they just aren't super

worried about the consequences or what else might happen. So people have all sorts of self-justifying narratives as to why it's worth it. So I think are better than others. But it makes sense to me why the public is not particularly sympathetic to any of these. I mean, that middle narrative, what I heard Sam Beckman for you to that, I think it was

on telecount and podcast, that's like, oh, that's a psychopath, right? To actually believe that you would have to be a psychopath, you would have to have a very, very, very low value on, I think, human life. Yes. Imagine being the person to flip something.

I mean, and it comes up wrong. That's what she says, yeah, like I'm a parent, like the idea that you would do something, but it's like 5149, I'm like, your kid is, you know, doubly happy or your kid is gone.

Like, yeah, you would never, you, you don't even want to say that out loud.

“Of course, I think that's how almost everybody thinks about it.”

And again, I think 5149 is obviously the most courageous example you could think of. And so SVF is very on sympathetic, but when I think about the super intelligence bet, a lot of people will characterize it as a 90/10 bet, as an 80/20 bet. And this question of how much is an acceptable amount of either extinction risk or at total disempowerment risk, you know, I think people are very different risk appetites.

And Silicon Valley is a place that has always prized their high risk appetite. I think that makes a lot more sense when you're talking about maybe yourself or your company, full of people who have opted in to taking a very high risk endeavor. I think that's extremely different, obviously, when you're talking about the rest of the world. And one thing with the data center debates that I'd always hear is like, you know, I

got these people are making this crazy bet on this technology. They think it's going to change the world. But why do they have to do in our backyard? Why is Mark Zuckerberg not building a data center in his backyard? And so this question of, yeah, you guys are going to create like these very tangible impacts

and to their real harms on specific communities that are not the communities benefiting from this technology. At least they don't see the benefits yet. They don't see the cancer cures.

They don't see themselves getting these million dollar $10 million salaries that they

are researchers are getting.

“It feels like, I think it feels to a lot of these folks like they are ponds in some tech”

billionaires's game and they do not like to feel that way. Why aren't they building it in their own backyard? Why don't you see a bunch of data centers and, you know, I mean, I don't know. Northern California. I don't think I need to tell you why it's so hard to build a Northern California.

But I both think that's true that it's hard to build a Northern California, but I also think there's like a truth to the other thing being said, they don't want them there. No. I mean, the land is expensive. It would be very hard like inexpensive to build a data center, like the places where

we're talking about. But it also gets it a core truth, which is people don't actually want data centers around them. It is a cost. It is a concentrated cost for a diffuse benefit, like if you believe in the benefit.

Yeah. So I think that's part of it. I want to go back to the first bucket you're talking about, which is like the race dynamics. So at the most generous, the thing that I've heard repeatedly is sort of what you're describing, which is it would be better if this were going slower.

But I can't control that because I, whether I'm at, you know, anthropic or open AI or Google or meta, you know, if we slow down, it just is our less ethical competitors over there

And even if you put down legislation slowing down all of America, then it's China, you know, the CCP, which is going to win the race. I guess one question is, do you buy this central metaphor of a race that has a, like a ticker tape line, where at some point somebody passes it, and then they have the recursive superintelligence and like the race is over.

Or do you see this more as like most technologies, like a kind of like a linear set of gains? I mean, can be fast, can be slow, but that doesn't have that somebody is going to win dynamic. Yeah.

I find this really confusing.

One of the first things that I did when I started reporting more deeply on AI was

try to figure out what AI meant because a lot of the way that this race has been characterized is who will build AGI first, who will build an artificial general intelligence first. Thing first thing I found, no one agrees on what that means. AGI means everything from AI that can build itself to AI that can do all human jobs, to AI that produces whatever number of economic value.

And so everyone has these different milestones for what constitutes AGI to them. What that also means is that the race has different finish lines and moving finish lines.

“And I think that like you see the way that these models perform differently on benchmarks.”

They are extremely jagged. They can be super good at math and they can be super bad at poker at the same time. They can be yeah, amazing at cracking cyber security problems, but not able to build anything in the physical world. And because of that, I don't think the technology is as general as people suggest it is.

I also think that means that it is much harder to define a finish line to the race.

And my sense is that the race, because you cannot adjudicate it, everyone will always feel

that they are falling behind on some dimension. I mean, to then make the case for that these AI companies are making is they do believe in this recursive self-improvement. They think that, you know, opening AI goal, deep-minded, and drop-up, I mean, it's extremely focused specifically on the question of can we build AI that build itself?

Can we build an AI that can train the next generation model completely from scratch on its own? And in that sense, you get an exponential pace of improvement for whoever can hit that recursive self-improvement curve first. And they think that this might lead to that company pulling ahead, right now folks think

that it's anthropic, which has the best coding models, meaning they can code faster, meaning that their next models are even better. I can see where that argument is, but I'm not sure when we look at, you know, the latest anthropic models, versus the latest, opening AI models, versus the latest, you know, Chinese open-weight models that we see a company pulling ahead that decisively in that way, especially

when every single company in lab is using the same recursive self-improvement strategy.

“And so basically, I don't know that the race has a finish line, and that's what worries”

me about it continuing. The reason I want to focus on this race metaphor for a minute is I've come to think it is really one of the central dividing lines and how you think about different kinds of AI policy. Whether you think that we are in a race with China to get to the point where one side of

the ever is going to pull like endlessly and decisively ahead, because they hit that, you know, recursive self-improvement level, well, then that means what you do in the next one to three years is incredibly, incredibly, definitely important.

But if you don't believe that, if you believe something more like, yes, this is a powerful

technology. It's a powerful technology that might have a lot of downsize. My comethyl, a lot of social instability, it's a fact on a society may not be good. Then let's run faster to the bad place is not nearly as compelling and argument. And all of a sudden, the idea that we should have policy and place it, slows things down

for more voice, for more consideration, it's not crazy. And I guess one place is goes, is it, I have begun to notice a really interesting convergence between the SF AI safety people in a way, and the AI populace like a Bernie Sanders running everyone up to all say, who are getting to not that different places, but through very, very different mechanisms, right, they're like the AI safety people who actually believe

we are in a race, but they believe that winning that race might bring the end of humanity. Right.

“And so like they don't, they don't want to move that fast, right?”

If we began to slow down, we would have more credibility for negotiating with China and like trying to come up with like international treaties and all the rest of it. And then you have like the kind of more AI populace side who just like doesn't want to

be good for people.

And they're starting to come up with like maybe not the policies AI safety people would,

but you know, data center more poems and things like that. And so you have this sort of slightly strange, like you would not have considered this coalition. It's super interesting. I mean, you literally have Ron DeSantis doing AI roundtables with Max Tegmark who's been one of the leading advocates of pausing and slowing down AI and MIT professor.

And you have Bernie Sanders doing viral videos with LEAs or Kalski. The guy who's telling us that AI is probably going to kill us all if we build it. I was taught. Just both in lines, it doesn't and does kind of make sense. You know, I mean, I've been spending some time in DC this year to talk to some of these

AI populace some from the social conservative right others from say the labor left. And this band and guy I was talking to told me he's like, you know, like, I wouldn't send my kids over to a play day at the polyqial, but I can do coalitions.

“And so I think it's been one of the most interesting political stories going on right”

now as a sort of strange about the bedfell is that of a merge. I mean, even with the data center stuff I was talking to an activist and they were saying, these were liberal women who had gotten into politics after the 2016 election of Donald Trump.

They said that data centers were the first thing that got them to talk productively with

their Trump voting neighbors about politics the first thing in like 10 years almost, which is fascinating to me. And in this sense, they felt a really strong sense, almost of political agency that analysts came out of this fight. So I, yeah, I think one of the big questions that folks in AI safety, for example, are thinking about is do we want to build these alliances with the rising left and right populace

waves in American culture in order to slow AI down. Maybe it's okay that we have different reasons in different theories for why AI is so dangerous for one person is big model bad for another person. It's big billionaires bad, big tech bad. And those folks are sort of linking arms in a lot of ways against the AI accelerationists

and sort of the folks pushing the race faster. So I think this in this, we've been sort of living in the data center moratorium side of the politics. But what's the other side of it? What are the problems with just saying, okay, fine. Like, let's not build any more data centers.

One, like this is not actually the way that you would successfully slow down AI.

“If that's what you really wanted. One, if you, if one locality or one state imposes”

a moratorium, AI companies are very, very happy to go to other states for other countries. They're already flooding into Texas, for example, because it's had such a pro-data center environment. People are looking at Louisiana, the Dakotas, Australia, space, of course, is a current big interest of Elon Musk's, because people think that maybe not now, but in five years, we can just put all the data centers in space and solve the political problems

that way. So one is, I'm not really sure that this would stop AI progress that much. It would just shift the data centers to other places that do welcome them.

The second thing is, I actually do think that there are ways for these deals to be good.

Not every community should want to data center. I think that many of them may discuss it and say, this isn't what we want. We don't need the tax revenue that would bad. But in a lot of the cases with these sites that I visited, like, you know, in the old GM site in Jamesville, the brilliant partners that data center developer was going to clean that brown field up. They were the only ones willing to do so. I talked to a real estate broker

who had tried to sell that site for five years and he couldn't do it because not a single other commercial buyer wanted to clean up all of this hazardous waste, only the data centers were willing to do that. Or with Mount Pleasanton, the Foxcon site, right? They had already cleared all this land. They had built all this infrastructure, putting a data center there was a net improvement for the community. Most, in my opinion, personally, from an economic

“perspective, from the perspective of, there is nothing going on there anyway. So I think”

that there are ways to do these deals, right? There is enough money in this industry that a lot of communities will decide is economically beneficial for them to bring in these jobs and bring in this investment. But I think that the way that the data center deals have been done nearly guaranteed the amount of public backlash that there's been, and the thing that will probably fix it, I suspect is probably either like a state level stream

lining where someone does the research probably at the state level, maybe at the federal level to figure out what is the fair way to do these deals? How do we ensure the communities get the most transparency, the most benefit out of data center deals when they happen? So it's not case by case, and it's not so asymmetric with the town of 12,000 negotiating with an open AI or whatever? I would add two other things to that. That would be curious

to hear you take on. So one you mentioned data centers moving towards other localities. And those localities were not randomly selected. The localities that are going to impose fewer conditions. So maybe that is fewer environmental conditions. But, you know, in the case of maybe a UAE or some of the Gulf states that are interested here, you know, you're looking at more authoritarian countries, right? So I've heard a lot of people worry about

cannot go into places where there is more democratic control, they might, you might end up with less overall democratic control. The other thing, and I do think this is significant, is that there's right now more demand for compute than there is compute. You know, people talk a lot about a bubble, but we do not look to have excess AI supply at the moment. And if demand keeps rising because, you know, the coding agents get better and all the rest of the things

we know that are happening. But you are constricting the supply of compute, then you end up with more inequality and who can afford it. So, you know, a Goldman Sachs, a JP Morgan, right? So, you know, a company with a lot of money to buy compute is going to have a lot of it. And then, you know, ordinary users, small businesses, etc. If you believe AI is important

“and powerful and I believe it is important and powerful, then you have a problem where you”

have created much more stratification than who can afford it. How do you think about those dimensions of it? I think with where you build the data centers, a lot of folks are starting to look at building AI infrastructure as a form of geopolitical leverage, right? And so, some countries like places like Australia, Canada, countries in Europe are thinking, actually, maybe the way for us to get a slice of frontier AI for us to negotiate with the countries where the

best AI is being developed like the US for in cases like cybersecurity access is to say, you know, we'll build your data centers here. We'll actually welcome you in and in return, maybe you guarantee this access to the frontier models. So, I think that one is that we should look at AI infrastructure

“as a point of leverage that both states and countries have. And as you mentioned, if local”

moratoriums in the US if domestic moratoriums or something like that lead to giving that leverage and negotiating power to authoritarian states, that's probably something the US should be really worried about. On the other hand, there are folks like Anton liked their Carnegie has done work on this, where it's, can we give our allies, can we give our democratic allies negotiating leverage through them building out compute? The second thing that you mentioned about pricing is

interesting because I do think one of the big macro trends in AI right now is the closing of the frontier. It's the fact that the very best models like mythos from anthropic are not being

open to everybody. That is both a safety decision as in we don't want to give really powerful

cyber weapons and bio weapons to a bunch of bad actors or just unknown actors. It is also a pricing question of the best models are really, really expensive to run. They don't have enough compute to run them. And so we're going to have to charge a lot of money or only give it to the

“biggest corporations. And I think that's a reason that startups are worried that countries outside”

of the US are worried that normal people are worried maybe we get super intelligence and I can achieve all these amazing things. But I'm not going to get it. Maybe my boss is going to get the super intelligence and they're going to automate my job as a worker, as a consumer. I'm not going to be able to do the same thing. So I think it's also a really good point that if we don't continue the compute build out, we do see a world where it is the folks with existing capital and access,

probably big corporations in the US and the US government that are going to have access to

Frontier AI and all the benefits that it can first.

The New York Times app unlocked? Everyone knows the times is behind a paywall. Only subscribers have access to all the reporting. But what if you could explore the times for a month for free without putting in a credit card? Now you can. When you download the New York Times app for the first time, your first month in the app is free. A month to go behind the paywall to see what time subscribers get every single day. All the investigations, the reviews, the recipes,

the deeply reported fact-based journalism. If you don't already subscribe to the New York Times, download the times app today and get free access for 30 days. You were in China for a trip reporting on AI. Was there much political AI backlash and firm in there from what you could see? I was super interested in this question on this trip because

I was finishing my Times Feast on the permanent underclass well in China and so I was basically

or sort of normal middle-class people in Shanghai. Our people worried about AI and jobs.

“Our people worried about AI and social instability. I think the answer is not as much. I”

coffee out this of course with the fact that the information environment in China is obviously suppressed. You can't have good polling so it's hard to understand the actual level of social discontent there is in China, but I would say that for the most part people were not as terrified of AI as they are on the US. There's a few explanations for this. Some people say that China is more techno-optimistic than the US's. I don't love this explanation mostly because the thing that I heard was not exactly optimism,

it was not exactly yeah we're going to get the cancer cares and the super abundance. It was something a lot closer to technology as a force that cannot be stopped actually in some ways reminded me more of some of these Silicon Valley beliefs that the future is predetermined that when the state decides that something like AI is a national priority that is going to march forward and as an individual there's not much you can do to resist especially in a one-party

state and a authoritarian society there is no culture of resistance really and so rather than thinking about how do I prevent AI in my workplace or in the world that's not really a thing that a lot of people in China think about it's how can I use AI to make sure I don't fall behind in an environment that already has crazy levels of white color competition and white color unemployment if you're

you're not upskilling yourself with you know open claw or whatever there's a million people

“online behind you we're going to get on the bus at the same time I think that the Chinese”

state takes a pretty different approach to the US when it comes to AI regulation and also to technology regulation in general and so China has past laws sort of banning a lot of kinds of companion chat bots because they're worried about relationships they're worried about fertility rates they're worried about addiction China has past made court rulings that say that AI replaced this worker's job AI can do this worker's job is not a good enough reason to lay off a worker

you have regulations that require all AI generated images to be labeled and you'll see the made with AI sort of language on all of the AI made ads in China and so there's also a sense that

some people some Chinese have that their government is more likely to look out for sort of this

social downsides and the labor downsides relative to the US government which has thus far been pretty less a fair especially at the national level right and that gives some people a bit of solace as well there's been some reporting that China and Russia are pushing sort of anti-data center means and you know social media bots it's hard for me to tell what scale that is but it has been very much picked up on but like people like Kevin O'Leary the shark tank guy who's

you know big data center project is face a lot of backlash do you buy the this sort of growing view among like set at least some tech elite that the data center backlash is like a Chinese

“sign-up I think this is ridiculous to be honest I mean so I read the opening I report that was saying”

like this is all CCP plot and like it paced in the accounts and the tweets that are doing the sign-up these tweets have like no likes on them they have two views per tweet so I'm not doubting that like I'm for some clever CCP propaganda person has attempted to inflame the anti-data center sentiment I have not seen evidence that any of this is working I think it feels very organic I think I also tend to be personally a little suspicious when you just castle your political

opponents is being misinformed I think there's a way in which people use foreign influence to avoid thinking about the fact that there are people that they live with in society who do not agree with their vision of the world and when I talk to these data center activists for example they are actually much less TikTok adult and misinformed than I think people like to caricature a lot of them understand sort of the basic facts of what's the difference between an AI data

center and the old kind of data center how much what's the difference between a closed loop system and an open loop system mostly people are not just misinformed they have just personally decided I'm not that interested in having a data center my community even if it paced in property taxes so you talked to people in the AI companies and sort of talked to them about this backlash I know they're very worried about this right I talked to them about this what are they

learning from it I do think that this year in 2026 I've AI executives AI researchers have started to take the public backlash a lot more seriously than they have in the past um I've heard executives ask can we do better marketing I don't understand why it is that way moes are so unpopular I've heard executives ask what do you think are the deals that we should be making do you think we should just be mailing checks to every house that lives near a data center

project will that fix things like tell us how to make a better deal do we need to cut people's

than I am personally comfortable with I think that when you are framing the thing you're doing

even jokingly as bribeing communities into putting a data center there I don't think you're starting

“off on the right foot I think that people can feel when they are being bribed I've heard these”

people say these companies are bribing us um so there's a little bit of examination the thing that I don't think is being examined as much as I want it to be though is are we building a technology are we building a product that is helping people the version of this I've heard is we have a marketing problem maybe we should stop saying aloud so often yes that our technology might take everybody's job and has a 10% chance of upending or destroying humanity altogether what is not been clear to

me even as a begin to like maybe move away from that sighing a little bit is whether or not

they no longer believe that again I am my personal view is like I don't think it's going to take

everybody's job but to the extent they do or at least they take that very very seriously it's like I keep hearing them say that we have a marketing problem and I keep saying when I talk to them about this that if you believe the things you have been saying and if the things you have told me personally you don't have a marketing problem you have a problematic technology like you have a product problem

“yes because people are not going to want that future yeah I mean I think I would make some”

distinctions between of course different companies different executives right like one thing that's like very interesting to me thinking about the comms and Silicon Valley is that for a very long time these companies were only marketing to potential recruits and potential investors basically

they were trying to win the vibes on AI Twitter in San Francisco and I kind of feel like they never

realize everyone else could hear them right and so now they're trying to take it back but like my sense is that Sam Altman for a long time part of the reason he was talking about like oh shifting the balance of power from labor to capital and like Rogei and whatever it was also because he was winning points among people who won't he wanted to work at open AI and he had a communicate that he was as agile as them he was as worried about the same safety things as them and now that

his interest is more in political goodwill and IPOing and things like that he sort of changed his tune I think that yeah I'm not sure to what extent every AI industry actor has always believed the things that they've warned about I think people can believe things that they don't feel if that makes sense and I think a lot of people in the eye industry are in a culture and inside arguments where this set of outcomes feels very real right or looks very real

and so I think they believe it I think when they make these arguments I don't think they're just doing it for you know publicity points in fact I think it's the opposite I think when they're now trying to move away from somebody's own events I think it's actually much more of like a cynical marketing play yeah but I think they often believe these things without actually like in their bones feeling it which is sort of why they act relatively heedlessly or at least like on the

set of things they believe like this speculative notion of set of beliefs about what might happen is way less close to their core yeah then they believe that if they don't build this data center or get this next model out like their competitors or china or somebody yeah is I going to get in front of them and they're much more motivated by by by by by the push forward yeah I mean I think the technological determinism is just such a big part of it I think that if I'm trying to think

about how my friends in the AI industry would react to this conversation that's the thing that they would say that we are not focusing on enough is they are so sure that there is no way that AGI or super intelligence or whatever it is does not get built and it is only a question of who builds it I think that fundamental sort of underlying belief is what justifies everything else is we have to be the ones to do it us pulling back a stopping is not going to prevent any of the bad stuff right

“I agree with that and I think that's why the china card in this has been such like a destructive”

part of the argument I'm not even sure it's totally untruth like I am completely willing to believe the china and america are on a race for a economically and geopolitically important technology even if you don't buy like recursive super intelligence but the way that has been used do not say well we should enter into international negotiations or something but instead just like we cannot so down whatsoever no matter what else we worry about

or believe I think has been it is it is acted as a kind of a blackmail and the thing is that it's not bought by enough people outside of the industry but I think the phase of the politics run now in is out of their control and it is just not going to be the case that they have control over the AI narrative like next year that they have two years ago and yeah I don't really

start benefiting yeah people right you some of these like if people begin seeing like drug

curious come out right all these things we've actually been promised right you could say like we're meaning to see the beginning of like mathematical conjectures like that's been pretty cool but we're not really seeing the gains and if you start getting the losses before the gains right you start getting the job loss for instance before the promised you know super abundance politically it's not going to be an equilibrium you can protect that's one of the things I'm

worried about is I do think that we are pretty likely to see we are seeing a lot of the social instability before we get the cancer cures right and so or even with the math stuff it's like

“I think that one thing I noticed more and more now is this deep cultural and values gap”

between Silicon Valley and the rest of America the rest of the world I'm not saying the Silicon

Valley is wrong that it's cool to like disprove the Jacobian conjecture right like um it is cool but like when you ask a lot of people in the tech industry what their utopia looks like they'll say things like we have UBI so no one has to work anymore we're all immortal and we've discovered all of math and physics and if you do the pulling on UBI an immortality neither are especially popular with the American public I think that we pulled them more tall than just a funny I mean it's been

pulled you can look at them if you ask people what like they want AI to do for them it's not necessarily having you know parents tell in your pocket it's not disproving math right like they want things to be cheaper they want to be healthier they want to not do crappy works they have more

time for the stuff they like but I think it is genuinely true that the stuff that is really cool

and also that it's oftentimes technically easier to solve like math is not what most people want

“from this technology and I think it's also true that it's just literally technically harder to”

tour cancer than it is it turns out to prove math theorems and the other thing that I hear from the public when I talk about the cancer curious is yeah but are they gonna just use it for themselves is Peter Taylor whoever just gonna buy himself immortality am I gonna be able to afford immortality my view for very long time has been that a lot of people in these companies overrate how much of the bottleneck in scientific and human progress is raw intelligence yes yeah and just I mean this is

point of abundance it's just but the point of covering anything anywhere the world is full of friction and you know you want to do drug discovery and I think we should actually do a lot to make drug discovery easier make drug testing easier right like I've said this many times before I would like to see us prepare like drug development for world where AI is spitting out way more promising molecular candidates but that's still a world where you need enough monkeys to test things on humans to test things

on rats to test things on riot and you still need to do all the safety data and just the amount of the world that is slow down by we don't have any good ideas like we are out of ideas versus it is hard to organize things amidst humans you know amidst you know with raw materials like in bureaucracies in organizations you get the like intelligence is important but it is not

“everything and I think anybody's like been in organizations like knows it's actually less than”

you think it is yeah again I think of a you know a lot of these people have been AI researchers for their entire careers maybe before that they were physics PhDs or they were doing quant trading which are all these kinds of jobs that are fairly their icy jobs or individual contributors where you're not necessarily working in big teams there's not a lot of politics and relational work where all of the relevant context lives inside a single code base and so for AI to sort of

understand what's going on it kind of kind of explore all this context that's already been written down I'm not saying there's no tacit knowledge but a lot more of the context is made explicit and these are also places where simply applying more thinking and more intelligence just as an individual like as a person a remote worker and a closet or whatever might actually find the more efficient algorithm right like you don't actually need to politics your way to a better

algorithm you don't need to do stuff in the physical world to get that and so I think a lot of people at these companies don't really realize how hard that is I mean it's funny because people say things like yeah there's like electricity costs and energy costs to AI but like AI will maybe solve the climate and I ask how and to be clear I think there are a lot of ways that AI can improve you know climate science research help building efficiency at the same time you ask

people and it's just like oh I don't know it's just gonna do it right or it's like oh how is AI gonna improve robotics like I don't know AI will figure it out you kind of do have this I find it lazy actually like I one of the things that annoys me about this particular approach is it's not that I don't think that AI can contribute to all of these problems I think it definitely

a DSX Machina of it's super smart it'll just figure it out. I used to say that this was back when you know so-called I was a more optimistic place and it has been in recent years but the difference between the culture of DC where I live for a long time and of so-called Valley was it in so-called Valley people's worldview is formed by seeing impossible problems prove possible to solve and in DC people's worldviews formed by seeing possible problems prove it

impossible to solve and I think that is now gonna collapse for the AI industry into one worldview because you know these are people who like give them their do they've invented artificial intelligence like they actually did it you know this is amazing like I cannot believe how good some of these systems are I'm like shocked to be living through this they were able to do that that's seem to impossible purposeable and now they're gonna now they're finding it's like impossible to

“build a data center yeah and like that's what doing other kinds of things in the world teaches”

you that there are a lot of problems that are not possible to solve not because like you cannot come up with the idea for them but because you're dealing with the messy realities of societies of politics of values of you know logistics and it'll demand a kind of it won't pose a kind

of realism I think on the issues that it does not always happen yeah I was trying to think about

what the difference was between how I would describe Silicon Valley in San Francisco culture a year ago let's say early 2025 versus now and I think the number one thing is that Silicon Valley has really woken up to politics you know in January 2025 Silicon Valley was feeling very triumphant about about Doge about Elon Musk about David Sachs and Schroeram in the White House they kind of felt like they were all in control and actually if you just build these genius technologies and

you get super rich and you have good ideas you'll just you know get the political power to an act your vision and a year and a half later a lot of those folks are out of the White House they failed at reducing the national debt in achieving all these other goals that they thought they could just AI their way into solving um and Thropic for example um is has had a lot of problems and it's dealing with the Trump administration fundamentally very political and very relational

problems Dario's problem in dealing with the White House was not I think that he didn't have good arguments to that he's not very smart or not saying logical things um I think that anyone from in Thropic will admit that these are largely relational problems and so there's a way where I think democracy and politics is a lot more powerful than these very rich and very smart tech people realize um and there's some optimism to that I think and in looking at it and saying it's actually

really hard to buy an election it's actually really hard to buy out the whole White House at once

“but it's an interesting moment I think for uh the tech industry to be realizing how important”

and politics really is and how difficult it is when you're a good place to end always a fun

a question what if three books recommend to the audience who um so I think the first one is really relevant to this conversation which is uh Benjamin Loppatoose the maniac um which includes the sort of lightly fictionalized biography of John Von Neumann the story of AlphaGo I think it's very much a sort of halfway novel halfway non-fiction book about how intelligence is incredibly unspiring and something worth respecting and at the same time can lead people to some very

dark realities um my second book is the technology trap from Carl Benedict Tre which I think is very much about how people's attitudes towards technology and automation depend on to what extent the benefits the economic growth is shared to what extent they feel like they're getting a piece of the pie goes through a lot of history much more than just the industrial revolution and so that's shaped a lot of my thinking on some of the economic questions and

the populist questions um and then finally uh pre-aparkers that are of gathering because

“I do think that the relational stuff is going to become a lot more important to it always was”

and I do think that book has been helped me become a better host she would be so happy to hear the people should go check out our conversation with pay-aparker jasmine sun thank you so much thank you so much for having me this is fun