Chris Hayes on Calibrating Your AI Anxiety

Tired of rage-scrolling through AI slop and clickbait just to get a handle on today's news? Meet InPress, the algorithm-free news app that makes it fun and rewarding to stay informed. Track your media literacy and rediscover reality. Download today at InPress.app. That's I, N as in News Nerd, Press. This episode is brought to you by Google Chrome. You think you know a browser, but Gemini and Chrome? That's new. It can help you with practically anything on the web, like restoring a vintage motorcycle from a 50-page restoration block, or finally break down that long article you've had open for weeks. Gemini and Chrome is here for it. Ready to make anything online make sense? There's no place like Chrome. Check responses, setup required, compatibility and availability varies 18+. If you're having it do your brainstorming like you're brainstorming, the muscles are going to get weaker. And I don't know. I don't want my brain. That's my livelihood. My career is coming up with stuff. I got to keep that. I got to keep that sharp. Now, maybe in five years, they'll just have an AI do my show. And the AI will generate all the takes, and the AI will talk, and I'll be out of a job. Right. Fine. But until that happens, I don't want the AI doing that. I'm Charlie Worzel, and this is Galaxy Brain, a show where today we're going to calibrate our feelings. But. Artificial intelligence. There's this phrase that's coined by AI researchers that I can't get out of my head these days. It's called the jagged frontier. The phrase is meant to describe how AI can be extremely and unexpectedly good at some human tasks. And then also extremely and unexpectedly bad at others. Individually, this can mean that it's useful or even transformative for some people. While others see it as unnecessary or even more akin to snake oil. For example, large language models and especially coding agents have transformed the job of many programmers. Making them more productive. That's not true of all industries, though. Especially creative ones, where there are moral or financial or creative reasons to object to its use. The jagged frontier is meant to apply to use cases in industries. In some ways, it's an echo of the old cliche, the future is here, but it's not evenly distributed. But lately, I've been thinking about the jagged frontier as it applies to the broader AI moment and the discourse. This moment that we are living in, the AI boom, the hype cycle or revolution, you choose your own language. It's a weird one. If you try to keep up with industry news, it's easy to feel just instantly overwhelmed. There's the obvious existential stuff. Will AI replace all white-collar workers? Is AI making us dumber or lazier? There's also a lot of what's being described as AI malaise. It's this ambient feeling that there's too much happening too fast and without most people's say. On places like X, there's all kinds of breathless chatter about people setting up swarms of bots to run their computers and monitor their perception. And on places like Twitter, there's all kinds of stuff that's being said about people's personal lives, or of people creating vibe trading platforms that can make and lose money while they sleep. CEOs aren't just talking about job loss. They're writing 14,000-word essays about a future where, quote, our current economic setup will no longer make sense. Now, if you're a regular person, the type of person who's more worried about the price of gas right now, these conversations can sound like they're coming from another planet. And they're also making a lot of people ambiently anxious. If you're. If you're at all skeptical of the AI industry and the men who lead it, then you'd be right to be concerned about the future that these companies are outlining. So, how do we calibrate our anxiety and our expectations about AI in this moment? How is AI going to impact our politics in the coming years? Should you be scared? Excited? Angry? Sad? Some unholy mix of all of that? Chris Hayes has been asking these kinds of questions for the last few months. Hayes is the host of All In on MS Now and the host of the podcast, Why Is This Happening? He's also written a great book on the attention economy called The Siren's Call. Chris has this new podcast series out about the AI endgame. And in it, he does something that I think is really crucial. He tries to make sense of this moment with an almost anthropological perspective. So many people in the AI discourse are just in so deep that it can be really, really hard to see the big picture. And so I brought on Chris to do just that. Chris, welcome. Welcome to Galaxy Brain. It's great to be here, man. Thanks for having me. So you've described your feelings about AI in the first episode of this short-run podcast series that you're doing about it. The whole generative AI revolution, the discourse, the whole thing as having, I thought this was great, like a bodily somatic effect on you. Yes. So tell me about this feeling. I want you to describe it. What happens when you encounter the news or discourse about AI? There's this feeling that I've come to describe or think about. I think of as the bad feeling, like capital T, capital B, capital F, which is just a feeling of kind of like anxiety, doom, shutdown that I get, you know, from a lot of things. Some certain political news will give me the bad feeling. And basically the AI discourse gives me the bad feeling usually because it feels like the end of something. It feels like it's going to destroy things I love or maybe lead to the end of human civilization. You know, some version, some high-tech version of nuclear winter that we can only sort of hardly imagine. And I think it puts, because of that, it puts me in this kind of fetal position, defensive crouch. And I think also it's the case, one of the goals here is there's a world of people who are very in the AI discourse. And that world is very fertile and intense. And it's largely happening on X still. But it's also like its own kind of bubble. Totally. You know? And I think people outside of it find it scary and alienating. And I think that's actually like a huge amount of people, most people at this point. Yes. And so part of what I'm trying to do is like penetrate that from the outside. Because I'm not, I had not really been in that discourse intensely to try to penetrate it in a way that I can be a kind of guide for other people that are outside of it, if that makes sense. It does. I mean, I have this theory essentially that we all have AI psychosis, right? Like we've been using that term to describe this problem. It's a problematic relationship that some people have with chatbots. It's an informal, non-medical term. But like, broadly speaking, AI driving folks, you know, informally insane. It's like your boss has AI psychosis and they will only accept marketing summaries that go through Copilot, right? Like programmers have it because they're getting this competency high of like 10Xing their productivity. And I feel like you have these people on X who definitely are marinating in this like micro discourse that's very similar to the way that like Twitter. I mean, I don't know if you've ever heard of it or if you've never heard of it, but it's kind of weird in politics, right? Absolutely. And then the skeptics, I think, also have a version of it because you either have skeptics who are like, I'm putting my fingers in my ears. I'm waiting for this to pass. Or you have people who are like, I believe that this is very dangerous. I'm curious, like, why do you think we can't have a regular conversation about AI? It's a great question. I mean, I think probably all discourses around transformative technologies tend to be a little berserk. So I think that's part of it. I think we have an attention economy that is particularly inclined towards like psychosis because the crazier things are, the more attentionally salient they are. The bolder the claims, the more attentionally salient. It also moves so fast, like the speed of it, which I saw someone the other day saying, like, we don't talk about Claude Code anymore because we talk about Codex. Like Claude Code was last week's thing. It is no longer like relevant to this thing. And I'm like, if you are moving in the broad. Everyone needs to be paying attention to our conversation. If you are moving at the speed of if you weren't paying attention on a daily, weekly basis, like you don't belong in this conversation anymore. It almost feels to me like it's supposed to be a little bit exclusionary in that way. That's fine, too. I mean, you know, specialist discourses is a thing that you find in all sorts of domains and realms. And, you know, I don't even begrudge that. One of the things I'm trying to do is just open up to people that are inside the conversation and not again. I'm trying to do it. That's not in the hothouse. Like, very intentionally, yeah, of like at the sort of coming from almost like intentionally coming to it from the outside, because I think people who are making the eye and doing I are all doing each other's podcasts like constantly. It's just this entire discursive engine that's just churning out, you know, code and content and models. I'm trying to find a way in as a kind of Virgil figure guide for people that are outside of that, because it is, it is alienating. I got to say, like, you know, it really is it has a very cultish hothouse, you know, true believer feel in there. Well, and in the same way, too, like I can see it radicalizing people. And again, that's why I think that the the politics thing is so salient. OK, so I love this idea. You're coming from it from the outside. And since you've been doing this and you've had this experience, I would love if you could kind of give me the optimist take and the skeptic take. As as you see it. One concept I've been playing with is let's think about a normal distribution of outcomes, a probability curve, a bell curve. I think a lot of the discourse ends up focusing on, like, tail outcomes as opposed to, like, the center of the bell curve. And I think partly that's because that center has moved so quickly that people are, you know, pulled towards the tails. And I think partly that's because of we're inheritors of an entire mythic superstructure that, again, I think the. AI people think is like nonsense, you know, liberal arts. major craziness but is clearly structuring the way everyone thinks about this like the myth of golem and frankenstein are obviously massively influential in the narrative structure people are imposing and the terminator yes like yes yes and how like everyone like again there's a reason that like our technologies ape science fiction and it's not because science fiction was so prescient it's because it's literally the thing that was consumed by the folks that are making the technology totally that's why it happens it's not like wow how did they predict that it's like no there was no future we got those messages about what technology should look like everyone grew up with it and then they made the thing right so i keep coming back to this idea of like let's think about it as a normal technology right like what does it mean for it to be a normal technology and what that means is like okay automobile personal computer the internet cell phones radio television the telegram electrification these are automobiles personal computer the internet cell phones radio television the telegram electrification these are automobiles personal computer the internet cell phones radio television the telegram all normal technologies massively revolutionary enormous consequences like huge huge costs and huge huge benefit but fundamentally human life went on like it didn't it wasn't the end of us so in some ways i think that's kind of the optimistic take right is that it's a normal a normal technology with dislocations costs and benefits that we can reason together around and try to find ways to distribute to distribute the benefits broadly and mitigate the costs the pessimistic take i have is that similar to the way that say industrialization functioned which required a sort of creation of wage labor and a concentration of capital right and a kind of extractive relationship from the beginning that there is a inherent sort of pro-capital bias to the technology and that it basically becomes a tool for accelerating the cost of labor and the cost of labor and the cost of leading the concentration of wealth and power in smaller and smaller hands and i think there's a lot of reasons to think that's the case unfortunately i love pairing the the normal version of this also with it being almost in some ways less revolutionary than than you know than put forward the thing that like sticks in my head as like that keeps me up at night part of this is not like you know the the paperclip maximizer we're all gonna die human extinction theory and it's so much more like look at the money that is being invested into this thing sort of an unfathomable unprecedentedly quick amount of spend into the infrastructure and and backing of this technology all those people expect a return on an investment at a level sort of never before seen yep which would then mean it works really well which would then mean like probably a lot of economic displacement in a way that like we have no way of of dealing with in a in the short term and it's like that's the thing that scares me there's two options right i don't have a unique insight of mine at all right but like there's the success which is all of that investment is rational and is producing a technology that is paying for itself with productivity gains in which case if that's the case um it's a dislocation unlike anything we've seen or it's irrational and there's an enormous bubble that goes bust and that has enormous financial consequences that that leak out into the real economy and end up hurting a lot of people who had nothing to do with ai right um both of the it's it's probably one of the two and i think the the railroad example everyone keeps coming back to it but i do think it's useful like i didn't know this until i was going back in it that like the railroad was both transformative and also an insane gold rush of over investment and too much capital that ended up going bust multiple times in the last few decades of the 19th century producing some of the worst cataclysms including like a great depression in 1893 uh that that the u.s economy had ever gone through i mean we didn't remember we didn't have a central bank thank you andrew jackson so you know there was no and there was no fdr figure it was just like whoopsies now we've got a great depression everyone's out on the street and your family might be starving because we devoted too much capital to the railroads which is you know again what i think is useful about that example is that doesn't mean the railroad was bullshit right like right it turns out the railroad actually was a pretty transformative technology it can be the case that a transformative technology is also the subject of an irrational bubble and over investment i also think to like add another layer of confusion to all this is the fact that like the markets are behaving supremely irrationally right now narrative may be more important than actual reality the other thing i would say about the way the markets are acting i mean there's a there's a bunch there's a lot to say about that i think there's really really incredibly smart sophisticated people who are you know making bets that that are totally defensible bets okay but a it's been 18 years since people got wiped out and there's a whole group of people who are working in this world who never came into to the office to watch everything go boom and let me tell you that changes people like it just does uh it you know again these are all human beings doing this there's a human being sort of the subject of culture and group think and and i know this personally from people like coming into work every day and watching your portfolio just absolutely get annihilated day after day while everyone's getting annihilated is an experience that is a generational experience that a lot of the people haven't haven't had in a long time yeah we can't keep anything in our heads for more than like like four seconds we're not even talking about the assassination attempt on the president that happened like two weeks ago when you just said that phrase i was like what when did that happen huh so i think i think that's part of it but i also think the other thing i would say is there really is a lot of radical uncertainty you know so everyone's kind of you know making these bets about a but about a future that is really is quite unclear since we came out of the caves people want to know the future and you can't know the future that's the fundamental human condition look at the godan trails you can consult the oracle delphi you could look at polymark and calci you can subscribe to nate silver substack none of it will get you the thing you want which is knowing the future and everyone is making bets on the future but the future is the future and the future is the future and the future is the future and the future is the future if you're trying to get news today you'll find a lot of biased algorithms rage bait and ai noise thanks social media that's where impress comes in it's a social platform on top of factual journalism not the other way around track your reading and earn points it's like strava for your brain plus you can connect with other users in your city who share your genuine curiosity ditch the echo chamber for reality with impress download it today for ios or android at impress dot app that's i and as in news nerd press this episode is brought to you by google chrome you think you know a browser but gemini and chrome that's new it can help you with practically anything on the web like restoring a vintage motorcycle from a 50 page restoration blog or finally break down that long article you've had open for weeks gemini and chrome is here for it ready to make anything online make sense there's no place like chrome check responses set up required compatibility and availability various 18 plus part of what i hear you grasping for in these pods and part of what i think we're all grasping for again in it's not just the unknown part of the the future but it's also trying to calibrate for how powerful is this technology right and you had an episode with allison gopnik the cognitive psychologist philosopher that i thought it's really illuminating because it's exploring human intelligence and the ways that large large language models are really working very differently than say like you know humans mind and so you're hanging out with someone at a bar they they're asking you like are these models you know alive are they reasoning or whatever how do you think about human intelligence versus what's being marketed as artificial intelligence and how are you talking to people about that that's a great question i guess my feeling about it is it's built extremely differently than human intelligence um largely because of the sort of experiential stuff that allison talks about the way a child learns but it may turn out at a sufficient level of computation and sophistication like enough power and enough weights and enough complexity things converge on each other is kind of the way i think about it like and one of the things i found useful is we just do a lot of patterned behavior ourselves and i think if you take a step back to think about that it's actually fascinating that a that a big part of what we're doing is stimulus response off of pattern triggers and that doesn't mean we're not conscious and it doesn't mean that we don't have free will and there's a bunch of interesting philosophical questions but like i always start with people when i when literally they're like what is this saying i'm like you know how you write someone invites you to a party and say like i'd love to but i can't and the last two words are make it like we all know that why do we all know that well that's just a pattern response it's like well you can train a computer to figure that pattern out using a bunch of weights of words and then you start building out from there you start getting like there's a fair amount of human behavior right that's we're working off of that kind of computation totally people are always trying to if not impress actually impress it's trying to relate to somebody in a way that makes sense right which is taking all the cues all the things you've known trying to make yourself intelligible to another person is in some ways your brain saying what comes next what is the most yes what normal rational smart what funny provocative next phrase right based off of everything that i know and so i i do like that a lot what i found comforting is this idea that yes we can throw as much compute and as many weights and as much pre-trained data and it gets a little bit better or maybe a lot a bit better right it's it starts to do something emergent that feels powerful and yet at the same time the fundamental human thing is like the being a sack of meat walking through the world getting sunburned you know seeing a baby cry doing whatever right and that feeling like there is nothing in the pre-training or the training or the whatever that can actually get to like the physical you have you have you have you have you have senses totally feeling that makes that that impacts reasoning more than i think a lot of people are talking about or thinking yes and i think it's jan lecune has this big point about this right like unless it's got human vision and human touch and human smell and like you're like just even at a at a kind of empirical level the amount of data you're having it is nothing compared to the amount of data that a human gets through their senses right right you could read the whole internet it's doesn't touch like a year in the life of a two-year-old right right um so but what i think is interesting about that there's two there's that to me that's interestingly a double-edged sword and this comes out in the conversations i have with michael paul and david chalmers about consciousness which is like this has made me more humanist in some ways this whole this moment um but it's also like if we keep pushing on that right if the if the big difference is that it doesn't it's not the embodied meat sack that we are and it doesn't have the senses like it's also not clear to me that's a theoretical limit as a human being and i think as opposed to just a limit right now say more about that well i don't know if you build the robot that's got like vision and some version of hearing and it's got some sort of olfactory sense and you build sensors and you give it a model five years from now and unleash it on the world i like things that i thought would only be us have fallen in very quick order which is which is both scary but also i think creates a little humility about what is that thing you know i mean you already see it in the way people move the goalposts on ai particularly when they're skeptical of it like well it can't do this and then it does it well it can't do this it's like well it can't love it's like okay well it can't love but it just went through my entire inbox and told me like i should respond to these three emails and it was right about that and six months ago it couldn't have done that so like i don't know if it's it's going to be able to love in six months well one thing that i think about with this as a as a positive offshoot that sort of you know bridges the two gaps in in that what i love about the consciousness research and the in the research of all that is is not like oh is the ai conscious like let's prove it let's you know let's give anthropic another thing to to stand on or something i don't really care about its corporate utility what is awesome to me is when scientists are like i'm we're starting to ask different questions than we wanted to ask in 2019 because of the way that we don't understand how these things are doing this we also don't know how this thing is doing it so now we get to like we get to do a different course of study and i think to the extent that this revolution could impact other areas of like let's figure out how this stuff works we actually know nothing about consciousness you know that to me is like really inspiring and interesting and cool and i agree and i think actually the place that this that's that's at the expert level but to me at the folk level at the level of just ordinary people it's like and one of the reasons i did the podcast is you know my background as an undergraduate philosophy i've always loved philosophy like it prompts a question like what it is what makes us human what what is what is special about us what what is distinct about being human why is that important what and and i actually think we're in a moment in our politics where you know it's it is so much trench warfare and and it is such an intense national emergency and an emergency i feel very deeply obviously and spend most of my waking moments devoted to trying to uh figure out these sort of grounding foundational values like i i it's scary to think about a challenge from machine to my own personhood but it also is doing something useful and important which is all of us to think about what do we have in common what does make us human what do we care about where where do our values come from like and why should you treat people with kindness like all again this is this is the glory and the difficulty of philosophy is ask very very basic and simple questions that have incredibly elusive and difficult answers and we don't have a lot of opportunity in our normal navigation of the world and the news cycle to have those but if anything prompts it it's this yeah i i i feel that so much and i also feel the opposite part of that which is like i don't really want like elon musk and sam altman being the people who are like forcing me to answer these questions when i'm still or like mark zuckerberg what i'm still grappling with in my day job and i think we're all societally grappling with all of the stuff that they built and like the mess that has been left in the wake and it's like okay no no we're we're gonna like it's almost there's like a toddler element to it where it's just like we're moving to the other room and we're gonna make more legos and it's gonna be another mess you're like but that you gotta put away the mess i mean the tom and daisy line from the great gatsby which is now one of those kind of cliches you know like the party told you to disbelieve the evidence your eyes um that just everywhere on the internet but they you know they were careless people and they broke things and left other people to clean up the mess i mean it's just so true i mean i saw you know i saw a clip of the the all-in dudes who are you know they're talking about you know our word maxing very like self-satisfied with their like transgressiveness and like just do stuff and try it's like yeah well you know things have worked out for you you know but the person that like used to handle baggage for spirit airlines like the just do stuff like let's start a war that iran didn't work out for that person right nor did it work out for the families of the children that were killed on the first day so certain people in certain positions can just try stuff and have a boundless risk appetite and never experience the downsides and what happens is the other people experience the downsides and this has been true forever if you read the history of the wars of europe of like who's starting the wars and who's dying in the wars uh you know that's that sort of ever has it been thus but it really feels that way right now in a way that i find kind of intolerable actually and and and pretty pretty radicalizing i want to talk just about the like the actual what it's doing to us right now also in relation to you know you wrote this wonderful book on attention in the attention economy one of the salient parts in it is even just talking about our own capacity for boredom the ways that you know all of the internet all these tools are playing with our mind how that's that idea of boredom that's sitting with your thoughts has been eradicated for most kids most adults even and i as i was thinking about this and how to frame it to you i came across a wired piece that came out about this survey from carnegie mellon mit oxford ucla top line takeaway it's really good for a headline is using ai chat bots for even just 10 minutes may have a shockingly negative impact on your ability to think and problem solve i saw this i'm wondering how you are thinking about this also coming off of the social media you know this the deepening and fracturing of our attention our ability to to attend to other things and ourselves and then it being turbocharged by ai on this scale in ways that we can't even grasp like what is what's the sirens call analysis of this of just like ai use right now my first cut at the answer is that like it's obviously going to make people dumber like i mean i just think it's clearly and here's i think a distinction that i have made in my own ai usage and i think it's an analog to a distinction i talk about in the sirens call about how people use technology i put texting with your friends in a totally different category than scrolling vertical video like texting with your friends is a thing that you're using the medium to do something that's like a human thing i used to talk to my friends on the phone every night like vertical video is doing like some other thing algorithmically to your attention sensors and yes it's both the screen but to me they're they're actually quite distinct and i feel this way strongly about ai in this respect people do a lot of really like the idea of ai doing the thinking brainstorm ideas generate i never use it for that right i don't want it doing that i use it a lot to be like can you help me find this stuff can you go through my emails like the this distinction to me between like generative and creative thinking and like basically what i would call grunt work i really think there's a distinction between that and i think one of the weird things also about the way ai got marketed from the beginning was like we're going to do all the thinking now we're going to do all the generation we're going to make the paintings and make them and like and what then it's like well what am i going to do right i want to do that stuff i want to come up with the title for my show i don't want ai to come i want to do that i do want ai to like tell me which emails i missed that i need to reply to one of the things they talk about in that paper which i was reading earlier today is like brainstorming and i just think man that is a dangerous dangerous road to go down because if you're having it do your thing like you're brainstorming the muscles are going to get weaker and i don't want my brain that's my livelihood my career is coming up with stuff i got to keep that that. Now, maybe in five years, they'll just have an AI do my show and the AI will generate all the takes and the AI will talk and I'll be out of a job. Right. Fine. That's where InPress comes in. It's a social platform on top of factual journalism, not the other way around. Track your reading and earn points. It's like Strava for your brain. Plus, you can connect with other users in your city who share your genuine curiosity. Ditch the echo chamber for reality with InPress. Download it today for iOS or Android at InPress.app. That's I, and as in news nerd, press. This episode is brought to you by Google Groups. You think you know a browser, but Gemini and Chrome, that's new. Check responses, setup required, compatibility and availability varies 18 plus. What's so frustrating is there's always this, I mean, first you have the, you have the reality that the news thing that's supposed to make you more productive is just going to free up time for more work, right? Email kills the memo. No, it doesn't. Slack kills emails. No, it doesn't, you know, whatever. Like all these work productivity tools, they just, I think it's called Parkinson's law. Yep. Is, is it just, it fills the time. Anyway, you had this conversation in, in the first episode of the podcast where you're talking about writing and you pause it, like maybe writing is similar to being handy, right? When everything was analog and you had to know how to fix your sink, your lawnmower, your car, whatever. A lot of people had those skills. Things became less analog, harder to fix. Yep. It was easier to get things fixed. Less, fewer people are handy in that way that, you know, my grandfather was handy. Maybe that's like writing and that technology. And it's like absolutely terrifying because writing, like it's not just a skill. And I don't say this just because I'm a writer. It's the same as brainstorming. The creative act, whatever it is, it's the same as brainstorming. It's the same as those constraints of the mind and thinking and creativity are just how you do everything else. Like it's the building block for whatever. It doesn't have to be writing. Yes. And I just think like, if you get rid of that, like that's the paperclip maximizer to me. That's the society. That's like, okay, we don't have anything to do here anymore. Like we're, we're doing WALL-E now, you know? Yes. I mean, I feel the same way. And I think this sort of question of like, are humans even necessary at a certain point is, is, is the question you end up sort of barreling in a world of AI increased automation and declining birth rates. It's like, what, what, what do you need us around for anymore? I got a lot of feedback to that. Cause I think it's, it's sort of a useful one. The reason that I said it to myself was, you know, in the context of that conversation, Derek is like, I'm a writer. Like I have encountered handy people in my life who have remarked as I mentioned something that I'd hired someone to do be like a little, like, why'd you do that? You can do that. You can figure that out. And it's like, yeah, I probably could, but you devoted myself to a bunch of other skills and maybe I'm just precious about writing. Cause that's what I do. But I totally agree that it's in, you know, writing is thinking, brainstorming is thinking. And I think this, you know, it's interesting to come back. You're talking about programmers. Anil Dash made this point that I thought was really useful. It's actually surfaced in conversations I've had with my, my good friends who are software engineers. We all have in our jobs, right? The stuff that's like the fun stuff and the drug. Yes. All of us have some version of that. And the, the reason programmers are so insane about cloud code is because it's, it's doing the drudgery and they're doing the fun stuff in the world of programming. It perfectly does partly, I think, because the models are built by coders. Like I, again, to come back to the embodied sociological reality of this technology, which was not just like handed down from heaven. Right. You know, my, my friend even said this to me, he said a code, a session of work used to be like fun stuff, drudgery, fun stuff, drudgery. You sort of like be sort of toggling back and forth. It's like for you and me, it's like when we're like, if you're doing footnotes, it's now just like fun stuff, fun stuff, fun stuff, fun stuff, fun stuff. And then like in parallel sequences, it's like, someone's just like doing the drudgery and, and it's right. Right. And it's awesome. I'm more productive. It's better. And it's like, when you describe it to me that way, I'm like, well, that does sound awesome. But again, the question of, is that how it's going to be deployed? Is that how people adopt it? You know, the, the fun stuff, when we talk about fun stuff, we have fun jobs. We won the lottery that we're doing intellectually stimulating work. Like a lot of people don't. And a lot of people also don't, aren't lucky enough to have been introduced to thinking or writing in these endeavors in a way that is fun and is creative or does make them feel good about themselves. It is drudgery to them. And so you do really worry about this kind of mass automation. And then there's just mass atrophying of people's brains, similar to what we saw happen to people's health and fitness in the dawn of like, it does, you know, modern supersize me capitalism. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Well, and also like the, I love the Ethan Mollick. I think it has the phrase, but the, the jagged frontier of AI, right. That this is like what you're saying with coders, like seeing this, like unbelievable, like how could you not, how could this tool not be handed down from heaven because of look what it does for me. Right. And look, look how, how it's, how transformative it is versus like somebody who like paints all day and is like, what are we doing? This is just stealing my paintings and, and letting people make paintings and not pay me for the paintings. Like what have we done? Exactly. And like, there's part of that, but I do think in that sense, if the people on the, on the frontier part of it, right. That, that I've, I've achieved that start making the decisions. And this is why like the discourse on X and these types of things freak me out. Sometimes it's like, you get to make the decisions about how the rest of the people who ha who's the lives and careers and jobs haven't caught up they get to make those decisions and then before you know it they're the people who really can't need to object who are like no no no no this is like actually like the foundation of creativity we need to maintain this it's like no it's just not economically viable anymore or no you can't you can't have a job that way and that to me is is a scary proposition yeah and i think you know when i think about the sort of backlash to it and i think about the resistance to it like i don't want the backlash and the resistance to go away even though it's interesting because at one level i want to sort of say to people that are on the political left or share my values like this actually is an incredibly meaningful and transformational technology it it actually does have like really clear use cases it it there are ways in which it might make the world better like 100 also like you don't have to use it you have to swallow the kool-aid like if you want to go to a protest to the local data center like good on you like i i sort of feel both those things but once i think people grapple the reality of it i i think there's kind of a there has to be a kind of productive synthesis between how different people are encountering exactly that jagged frontier that like why should a painter be psyched about this this is a great a great way to segue into the politics of this because i as you said and as i believe ai is on like a collision course with electoral politics that i think is going to be very meaningful nbc news did this survey that's like so staggering i thought 26 percent of voters say they view ai positively 46 negatively ai ranks less favorably than u.s immigration customs enforcement donald trump kamala harris the republican party feels pretty notable to me that it's uh it's it's just incredibly unpopular or people have these strong skeptical feelings that grassroots opposition to data centers is is really like kicking up and and and it feels like it's going to be a thing tell me how you see like the battle lines that are being drawn here you know as we approach the midterms but also you know as we approach 28. yeah i wish that i again i don't have anything more prophetic than the observations that we're all dealing with i mean obviously there's a growing backlash i think it's a rational assumption on the part of most people that a thing being built by billionaires who who say every time they're in front of a microphone it's going to put millions of people out of work not going to be great for most people which is not to say like sometimes masses of people are wrong sometimes the majority is wrong about stuff um and sometimes backlashes are built out of nothing i've seen it happen um but this to me i think people have good reason to be fearful um and to be skeptical and wary one of the things that i think is inescapable about the technology is how concentrated it is right so think about take a step back for a second it requires enormous nearly unprecedented amounts of capital to be invested to deploy nearly unlimited amounts of compute now compare that to the structural nature of the internet which was created in a non-commercial um environment in which there was zero profit motive in which it was created purely for um continuity of government purposes at first and then community education between research agencies and whose entire guiding structural engineering philosophy was distribution and non-concentration right and now compare that to a technology whose entire inherent philosophy and engineering is as much power in as concentrated hands as possible that's a challenge man you know dario says this the other day in a podcast about like thinking about it like the way cloud computers are this is naturally a concentrated industry and it's nationally concentrated in people that are going to be the companies that are going to be some of the most powerful that exist what will be the levers under those conditions right that produce benefits for ordinary people like and and don't and people don't get steamrolled right and i think so i think that's the way i think about it in terms of like political economy now the question is well how do you operationalize that is really complex and i i'm gonna just admit that i don't know i don't know the right answer what's the right regulatory framework i mean i you know the two examples i keep thinking of are the fed and the fda right which is like oh interesting we don't want congress voting on every like every drug to come to market and we don't want congress the president like deciding interest rates just the way that like i don't think we should like be like the president gets to decide what models get released right like there's right there are areas that we have had to build institutions in the modern regulatory state to deal with a very technically complex area that we still want democratic control in which we create mediating institutions which by the way are under attack from both this conservative supreme court and the trump administration like precisely this kind of institution the fdc the fcc the cftc the sec the fed the fda right all of these are created for the same purpose there's some really important technical powerful high risk high possible cost high reward area of activity the modern state needs democratic control and accountability of but you do not want to just have like plebiscites on or congress voting on you got to create this kind of mediated technocratic space that's sort of halfway in between it seems like the opposition to this is is relatively bipartisan in an interesting way with different quirks and whatevers i'm just curious like do you see anyone party wise like in a better position here is there is any anyone seem poised to deal with this in in a way that's going to be fascinating or is it a jump ball it's a right now it's a jump ball then yeah this is the word you know ben collins the onion my former colleague was talking about a jump ball the other day and you know desantis had some populist rhetoric about it the other day bernie sanders has been doing some interesting stuff um one of the things he's calling for his national data center moratorium i'm not personally sure if that's the right policy but it's like at this point somebody doing something people are trying stuff yeah i think it's totally a jump ball and i also think it's one of those places where the distance between the power elite the richest people in the world the most powerful people world and the rank and file is so enormous and it's you're gonna see this crazy cross pressure because these politicians are in rooms with their donors and at fancy conferences with all the people making the models all the stuff or telling them all this stuff about it and then they're going to go back home and get yelled at about electricity prices and data centers and they're going to be totally pulled in two different places so the political economy of this is really really interesting and i think it's it's going to be very interesting to see who navigates that and how and which parts of those went out i think silicon valley is in for like a really interesting reckoning with this in the sense too that like the people who are really into this technology too are also a lot of the people who are like get your hands off my social media moderation like i don't like the free speech whatever thing and yet what they're doing is building these like three companies that have taken all of their money and they're building these like three companies that have taken all of the world's information and just consolidate it and put a bunch of opaque unknown weights and references to then spit out convincing canonical answers about every fact ever and it's like oh dude you it's coming for you including this is here's the frontier man here's the frontier how are people going to go find out about politics and the candidates right and what answer is that model going to spit out and who is going to be in the wiring of that model a la elon musk and the weird thing that he did the model around white south africans that made that made grok talk about the boar war i i you know it's real cynical of you chris to go after the guy who was responsible for the mecca hitler stuff to suggest that there'd be any weird nefarious meddling here okay i i mean that's real disingenuous of you we cannot we can i should say for for for uh you know the purposes of journalistic uh rigor i i can't prove that he did that something weird happened to the grok model it's true he just opened up the door and he's like oh my god i don't know what to do with this he owns the company that's all he owns a company whose model started spitting out reliably answers that aligned with his politics but but the reason i say this is you know this is replacing what for you and me was google right and it's it's going to be the portal for information and imagine the power of being able to control what that information was about who's running for office and what they stand for and who you should vote for i mean that to me is a little bit urgent at this point that i don't i don't i don't mean just i don't think anyone's doing anything along those lines like in the wiring of the models but that that's a real possibility and it's also the kind of ominous note that we like to end galaxy brain on so that people can go and shift from whatever they're watching or listening to this too to just staring into the middle to give you the bad feeling exactly yeah we're back at the bad feeling amazing chris thank you so much for coming on galaxy brain i appreciate it so much i really really enjoyed that that's it for us here thank you again to my guest chris hayes this episode of galaxy brain was produced by renee klar and engineered by miguel carascal our theme is by rob smerciak claudina bade is the executive producer of atlantic audio and andrea valdez is our managing editor if you've liked what you saw here new episodes of galaxy brain drop every friday you can subscribe on the atlantic youtube channel or on apple or spotify or wherever it is that you get your podcasts and if you want to support this work and the work of my fellow colleagues you can subscribe to the publication at the atlantic dot com slash listener that's the atlantic dot com slash listener thanks so much and i'll see you on the internet close your eyes exhale you feel your body relax and let go of whatever you're carrying today well i'm letting go of the worry that i wouldn't get my new contacts in time for this class i got them delivered free from 1-800 contacts oh my gosh they're so fast and breathe oh sorry i almost couldn't breathe when i saw the discount they gave me on my first order oh sorry namaste visit 1-800 contacts.com today to save on your first order 1-800 contacts