Overtime – Episode #740: Byron Donalds, Molly Jong-Fast, Michael S. Roth
21m 43s
This episode features a panel discussion on major societal issues shaped by technology and politics. The conversation begins with Meta’s $18 billion settlement over social media addiction, which the panel views as a necessary step toward accountability for how platforms exploit youth and adults through addictive design. They argue that algorithmic echo chambers weaken democratic discourse and destroy local journalism, a vital check on power. The discussion then turns to artificial intelligence, where experts highlight both its immense potential—such as curing diseases and detecting fraud in government programs—and its existential risks, including the automation of nuclear conflict and the creation of harmful content. The panel stresses the urgent need for regulation, especially at the state level, to protect children, privacy, and human dignity. A related concern is the growing "beauty gap" driven by plastic surgery, which creates a divide between the wealthy and those without access to youth-enhancing procedures. Additionally, the episode critiques the Trump administration’s cuts to university research funding, warning that such political interference undermines scientific progress and public trust. Ultimately, the panel emphasizes that while technology offers powerful tools, it must be governed with transparency, ethics, and public accountability to serve the common good.
This episode is brought to you by chat GPT. Hey, it's Bill Simmons from the Bill Simmons podcast.
Have you guys heard about chat GPT work? It's the new way to use chat GPT for bigger multi-step
projects. And when you need more than just answers, give chat GPT work access to your
apps and files, and it can create real work documents like spreadsheets, slides, and
structured reports. Get started at chatgpt.com by selecting work mode available on plus and pro
plans. I'm not giving up. I am selling the building. The final season of FX is the bear.
The restaurant is flooded. Everything's either going to be okay or not. We are outgunned and
we are outmanned, but we have each other. FX is the bear. The final season, all episodes now
streaming on Disney plus.
Welcome to an HBO podcast from the HBO late night series, real time with Bill Maher.
All right, here we are in overtime with the president of Wesleyan University and author
of The Student of Short History, Michael S. Roth. Here's the Republican congressman from
Florida, the state's gubernatorial candidate, Representative Byron Donald. And she's the
host of the Fast Politics podcast and author of How to Lose Your Mother and Daughter's
No More, Molly Jean-Claire.
All right, here are the questions from the people.
What's the panel's reaction to Meta reaching an $18 billion settlement? Yes,
mentioned it in the monologue, a routine social media addiction. Is social media the new big
tobacco? Well, yes, I mentioned that too. Very kin to that. Finally, putting a flag down and
saying, no, you cannot, with impunity, just addict people, especially children, because that was an
issue with tobacco. Remember Joe Camel? And now I don't think it goes very far, this thing, but it's
a beginning, right?
Yeah, you're an anti-regulation guy, and I'm no fan of regulations most of the time.
Well, I'm not an anti-all regulation guy. I live in California, so I bitch about regulation,
which we have way, way, way too much of.
When it comes to drugs and addiction. Oh, I'm good on that.
So here we have an incredibly addictive product. An incredibly addictive product.
It is.
And holding these companies to account for. For getting kids hooked very early on this stuff is so important, and I'm glad we're going in that
direction.
Imagine how bad that trial was going to be that Meta settled. Like, imagine, because they settled
because they didn't want to go to trial.
Right.
So they, so it must have been so bad, the stuff that they were going to present, and it means
they're going to have, I mean, these are, this, remember, they're going to have many more
settlements like this, and there are many more plaintiffs, and there are, like, you know, there's
kids, but there's also, like, the Rohingya genocide.
This was not every state, but it was a lot of states. It was $18 billion, which it takes them
33 days to make.
Right.
Yeah.
Look, I think it's a step in the right direction. The apps are very addicting, there's no doubt
about that, and it's not just kids, it's adults, too. The amount of doom-scrolling that occurs
first thing in the morning when people get up, last thing before they go to sleep, you know,
all through the day, I think it's something where, you talked about our politics earlier,
it's not just politics, it's culture, it's everything, where people are really being focused
into their. Right.
Right.
Right.
Right.
They're in their corner of the world based upon their own private algorithm, and that
is somewhat destructive of Western civilization.
But this is Congress's fault, right? They never regulated any of this. They never regulated
Facebook at all. I mean, this, we, they got us here, and by the way, this has killed local
news. I mean, these big companies, like, they could have said, you know, you have to be
connected to a local news source, you have to have fact-checking. They never said any
of that. I mean, they have, there's been no regulation.
Local news killed local news.
Yeah, I. I am not mourning the death of local news.
Well, you. I'm talking about. But local news is how you keep power to account in places like Albany and. Local news is bullshit about how to carve a pumpkin and, you know, it's, it's, local news
is bullshit news.
The reporting on local. It's the weather girl and Rick Retagliagola with the sports, and it's. Well, we know what you watch, but. I don't watch it. I don't watch. Weather girl and the sports. But what about the holding the Congress?
I mean, that's only going to happen at the local level. It's not going to happen at HBO
or The New York Times.
Well, I don't know. I think right now. Now the Times is trying.
Social media has its problems. We all understand that. But in this environment, everybody having
access to just about any piece of information, true or not, is a side point. There's more
information flowing through everybody's phones today than you could ever get off of the 6
o'clock news or waiting for the Saturday evening post. And I think. More information is always better for people, not less.
Yes.
But you can't have an algorithm that just traps you in with impunity. And I think that's the
issue we're seeing in this case, and we'll see where it goes.
You also want it to be true.
Yeah, I want it to be true, but I'd rather have all the information as opposed to one
news anchor or, frankly, one editor telling me what's true through their own eyes.
It's impossible. In this current atmosphere we live in, I never believe anything I read
just from that one thing I read. It's sad.
You can't.
X has community notes, and I think community notes. I don't want to compliment X here,
but community notes works pretty well.
Well, then compliment them. Why can't you?
You just did it.
I'm doing it.
I'm doing it, yes. I'm doing it, but I don't want to.
Why love when you can hate? That's what I say.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodi, the only guy with a conscience in that field, said that AI could
make it possible to cure most human diseases.
That's crazy.
That's crazy.
That's crazy.
within five to ten years. Okay, I'm going to add something to this question, because
this question doesn't include what Bill Gates said this week. Bill Gates, I've been saying
this, and I'm no prophet, I'm just quoting the people when I sound the alarm about AI
that said it ten years ago, like Musk and the father of it, Jeffrey Hinton, who in some
ways have forgotten what they said ten years ago. I don't know if it's the money or whatever,
but I'm on the page.
that this is really dangerous, and Bill Gates this week said we are crossing thresholds,
that the industry is not doing enough, they are not taking it seriously how bad this could
be. This is Bill Gates. So, it's not my field, but it is his, and I think it's great he's
weighing in on this, because I do think it's a problem. He's talking about not just the
fact that it may take so many jobs that we just reorder society, and what do we do then
when people don't have anything to do, but also biological ways.
The fact that when they run tests against what humans would do in a certain situation,
the robots much more go for nuclear war than the humans do. Humans are pretty bad, but somehow
they've avoided it since 1945. I'm not so sure the robots will. Have a good weekend.
Anyway, the question is, is the potential upside of AI worth the risks?
Well, I think the potential upside is enormous.
There are risks, but the risks are existential, and I think that curing diseases, everybody
can clap their hands, but as you said, creating diseases, that's the problem, and automatic
weapons with nuclear warheads, it just becomes ever more likely when machines are making
those decisions.
If anybody should like it, it's us, because we're going to need it sooner than you two.
The curing diseases part.
Yeah, look, I think the answer is yes.
Thanks a lot.
Thank you.
Are there rules that are needed?
Absolutely, and this is why I think states are probably going to step up and do regulations
faster than the feds ever could, because you've got to get that through the United States
Senate, and good luck with that one, especially with the dynamics we have right now.
I think, yeah, it's a force multiplier. It does allow for advancements in medical research.
People are now finding fraud in government programs. Why? Because they're using AI to
do that.
We've never had the manpower to scrub these programs the way they're doing so quickly
now, and so that does save resources.
In part, that genie's out the bottle now.
It's what are you going to do to regulate it to make sure that kids are protected, name,
image, and likeness is protected, and there is protections of just the human experience
overall.
I think that's going to be the next big step going forward.
Okay.
Molly, you recently wrote about plastic surgery.
Could we see a beauty gap in our society in the future between those who can afford it
and those who can't?
Oh, I see.
Two Americas.
One that looks good.
One that doesn't.
Or one that looks their age and one that looks ageless.
And I think that it's the forever 35 phase.
And in fact, it's already here.
Women who make over $400,000 a year or some number like that, you know, about half of
them, maybe more, do some kind of plastic surgery.
But, you know, Fran Lebowitz had the great line on this years ago when she said, who
looks at someone 70 who's had plastic surgery and goes, "Who's that 35-year-old doing?"
Well, I think you can look, I think you, the older women, what we have, which is cool from
a feminist point of view, is we have older women in movies, in television in a way we
didn't 20 years ago.
Now, the problem is they don't really get to look like older women.
They sort of have to look like older women who really look kind of like younger women.
And so, I think it's-
They look like older women who had plastic surgery.
Right.
Exactly.
I mean, this is-
Yeah, they do.
This is, we're not in the. AI will fix this, but that's what it is.
And that's what it is.
And I don't know.
I always want to ask the question
when people do anything to themselves,
you know, bigger tits, whatever it is.
I don't know why I looked at you, Doc, about that.
I did do that.
No, no, not you.
But, like, did you think this true?
Like, how would this actually connect to my life is better?
Like, okay, I saw one of the Kardashians the other day
on TMZ saying she wanted bigger tits.
She's got big tits.
Okay.
You're a billionaire.
You're dating a movie star.
You've got big tits.
What will the bigger tits. Like, where is the connection to my life is better
because I did this?
Oh, you're asking me.
To anybody.
I mean, like, you did it.
How is it connected to making your life better?
Well, I think that a lot of people you watch on television,
a lot of actresses, a lot of television personalities
have all had plastic surgery.
Yeah.
I'm going to tell you.
I'm sure they have.
Oh, I agree.
And a lot of times when we write about that,
and I've written about this for the times,
is that we write about it in a very pejorative way
that's kind of misogynistic,
where we say plastic surgery, you know.
And the truth is, they do it because there's a lot of pressure
to not look old.
I don't care.
That's up to other people.
That's up to you.
That's what you're going to do with your money.
Do that with your money.
Let's just, you know, not my deal.
But I think if we are. I mean, if you're going to go into like a feminist thing here,
if we're going to do plastic surgery,
I think we should be honest about it
because otherwise we're setting up a sort of unrealistic sense
of how people age.
I got one clap.
That one person, I think that's my dad.
This episode is brought to you by ChatGPT.
Have you guys heard about ChatGPT work?
It's the new way to use ChatGPT.
ChatGPT for bigger multi-step projects.
And when you need more than just answers,
give ChatGPT work access to your apps and files
and it can create real work documents
like spreadsheets, slides, and structured reports.
I'm not giving up.
Everything's either going to be okay.
No, stop!
Or not.
FX is the Bear.
The final season.
All episodes now streaming on Disney+.
Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile
with your summer price forecast.
Now, unfortunately, we're seeing rising costs
across the country with possibility
that big wireless hates you 100%.
Now, over here at Mint Mobile,
we're seeing sunny skies and dropping prices.
Every plan to just $15 a month.
Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch.
Upfront payment of $45 for three months,
$90 for six months, or $180 for a 12-month plan required.
$15 per month equivalent to taxes and fees extra.
New customer offer for initial plan term only
greater than 50 gigabytes may slow when network is busy.
See terms.
Michael, what is the impact of the Trump administration
cutting federal funding for research at universities?
Well, again, there's the example of sometimes the idea has,
the merit and then the execution.
I don't know how that fights what we were talking about.
Funding to scientific diseases.
Why do that?
Well, because the Trump administration
is making war on civil society.
They've gone after entertainment shows.
They've gone after newspapers.
They've gone after law firms.
And they've gone after schools,
not because they're trying to protect Jews
or because they're upset about free speech.
They want loyal institutions.
And so to protect Jews at Harvard,
they cut scientific research.
To make Brown do more work with the community,
they find them tens of millions of dollars,
if not hundreds of millions of dollars.
And I think the point is,
we can push you around and make you obey our rules,
and that's going to decimate scientific research in this country.
But what is the endowment of Harvard, like $50 billion?
I think even more.
So they cut funding there.
What is the argument?
People who say, really, Harvard couldn't have took it out of that pocket
and made up for it, like the, I don't know how much they cut.
But whatever it is, that $50 billion endowment
couldn't have made up the shortfall?
No, it can.
You can only spend a certain amount from your endowment every year.
But in this case, they have a scientist with a contract
to do research on Alzheimer's disease.
He's been awarded a grant by another group of scientists.
And the administration just says, we're not
going to pay you because we don't like the way you're behaving.
And that should scare us all.
It's just like tying a tool to a law firm.
Is that the researcher, or are you talking about the university?
It's not paying the researcher.
No, no, but is it about what the university is doing,
or is it about what the researcher's research is about?
It's about what the university is doing,
but they punish the researcher, and hospitals, and scientific research.
My only point is, if the university has set up a culture
where kids are actually not getting an education that makes them
economically viable, then why is the federal government
continuing to pump money into that university?
Because we're already seeing the frustration with young people
all across this country.
They went and got the degree.
That was the social contract.
Then they went to the real world and realized that the money
they make in the real world was not
worth the money they paid for the piece of paper
from the university.
And it's frustrated a lot of people.
It has.
But all the statistics show that if you don't have a college
degree, your chances for economic success are much lower.
Much less.
Yes.
And the schools he's punishing, their graduates
are not in that category.
But this is about scientific research in hospitals
that are in the university.
This has nothing to do with students.
This is, you're doing cancer research in a lab at Harvard,
and Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, with Doge,
decides he's going to cut NIH funds.
And they're like, we're sorry.
We can't pay for your research anymore.
And that researcher is going to--
Can we acknowledge that this is the same NIH that was investing
in other research that shut down basically the entire planet?
Can we acknowledge that?
No.
We don't acknowledge that the NIH was funding gain
of research, gain of function research.
I do not believe the NIH caused COVID.
So then why did Fauci plead the people 114 times?
Because that's what he's saying, is that the NIH caused COVID.
Wait a second.
We don't know that.
If COVID came from a lab, and that lab was in Wuhan, which is
coincidence.
Incidentally, right where the disease started,
of course it could have come from that lab.
And of course that lab has been linked
to gain of function research.
Look, if the evidence comes out that the NIH caused COVID, OK.
But it hasn't yet.
Not to say the NIH caused it.
I said that they've not funded.
Those are two different things.
That's what I'm saying.
OK, but I'm just saying that cutting cancer research
in America has nothing to do with who may or may not
be responsible for COVID.
What I'm saying is, we cannot sit here with a blind eye
and assume that every grant that was issued by NIH,
every program that's funded by USAID is somehow actually
in the interest of the United States,
its government, and its people.
Because we do know that there are programs that
have been funded that actually have not
worked in the interest of the United States.
So why would we continue to fund that?
But the grant-- the rule now--
I mean, don't clap for that, you guys.
That's an honest assessment.
Let the crowd clap.
It's a bad faith reading on something.
Molly, you can't shut down the crowd
from clapping.
That's like trying to shut down their ability to speak.
I'm trying.
I'm censoring the crowd.
Your voters are going to vote with their claps.
That's good.
That's good.
But what's important to note is that when people get
their grants canceled today, the letter
doesn't say because it's not in the interest
of the American people or the country.
It says, your research no longer aligns with the priorities
of the president.
That's what it says.
And that should frighten all Americans.
Yes, but on this very specific issue,
we're going to have to do something about it.
And that's what we're going to have to do.
talking to people and believe me the players knew the players because they talk to each other
players the ones the ones who still can but i think i think one of the interesting things
they know the risk one of the interesting things in the research is much of the damage is done in
practice so there are ways that you can mitigate those risks and still have football much of the
the damage to the head is done in the multiple hits you take in practice and so many college
campuses today they're changing the way we practice because the people want to play the
game they they know the risk they choose to play the game but you can do it more safely well i agree
with you look my three sons all played football my oldest played college football uh the practices
have changed drastically from when my oldest started in pop warner i think when he was around
12 or so the nfl came down with some of the first concussions work and they were changing the way
they taught tackling in pop warner so that kids were not leading
with their head the way they were um one of the things we started to find though is that there
were more concussions in youth soccer than youth football because kids are running around their
head and parents think like oh it's it's safe it's easy but there's no head protection in youth soccer
and you're heading and you're just jumping in the air and they're all colliding but
at the end of the day players want to play you know my son wanted to play so as a parent
you just make sure he's aware of the information but that's what he wants to do and people want
to watch that's right and it's you know the nfl is
all right thank you everybody thank you
catch all new episodes of real time with bill maher every friday night at 10
or watch him anytime on hbo on demand for more information log on to hbo.com
this episode is brought to you by chat gpt hey it's bill simmons from the bill simmons podcast
have you guys heard about chat gpt work it's the new way to use chat gpt for bigger multi-step
projects and when you need more than just answers
gpt work access to your apps and files and it can create real work documents like spreadsheets
slides and structured reports get started at chat gpt.com by selecting work mode available on plus
and pro plans i'm not giving up i am selling the building the final season of fx is the bear
the restaurant is flooded everything's either gonna be okay
or not we are outgunned and we are outmanned but we have each other
fx is the bear the final season all episodes now streaming on disney plus
Podcast Summary
Key Points:
Meta’s $18 billion settlement over social media addiction marks a significant step in holding tech companies accountable for youth and adult mental health impacts.
The panel highlights that social media algorithms create echo chambers, undermining democratic discourse and eroding local news, which is crucial for holding power accountable.
Concerns are raised about AI’s potential risks—such as automating nuclear conflict decisions and creating diseases—despite its promise in curing diseases and improving research efficiency.
There is growing consensus that stronger, state-level regulations are needed to protect children, privacy, and the human experience in an AI-driven age.
A "beauty gap" is emerging, where wealth enables access to plastic surgery, leading to a societal divide between those who can afford to look younger and those who cannot.
The Trump administration’s cutbacks in university research funding threaten scientific progress, especially in critical areas like Alzheimer’s and cancer, undermining public trust in federal support.
The panel stresses that AI and social media both offer benefits but require ethical oversight to prevent harm, especially to vulnerable populations.
The discussion underscores the need for transparency, accountability, and public engagement in shaping future technology and policy.
Summary:
This episode features a panel discussion on major societal issues shaped by technology and politics. The conversation begins with Meta’s $18 billion settlement over social media addiction, which the panel views as a necessary step toward accountability for how platforms exploit youth and adults through addictive design. They argue that algorithmic echo chambers weaken democratic discourse and destroy local journalism, a vital check on power.
The discussion then turns to artificial intelligence, where experts highlight both its immense potential—such as curing diseases and detecting fraud in government programs—and its existential risks, including the automation of nuclear conflict and the creation of harmful content. The panel stresses the urgent need for regulation, especially at the state level, to protect children, privacy, and human dignity. A related concern is the growing "beauty gap" driven by plastic surgery, which creates a divide between the wealthy and those without access to youth-enhancing procedures.
Additionally, the episode critiques the Trump administration’s cuts to university research funding, warning that such political interference undermines scientific progress and public trust. Ultimately, the panel emphasizes that while technology offers powerful tools, it must be governed with transparency, ethics, and public accountability to serve the common good.
FAQs
ChatGPT Work is a feature that allows users to create real work documents like spreadsheets, slides, and structured reports by accessing their apps and files. It's designed for multi-step projects requiring more than just simple answers.
The settlement highlights concerns about social media's addictive nature, especially for children. Critics compare it to tobacco, noting how platforms may be exploiting user behavior and need regulation to prevent harm.
While AI holds immense potential to cure diseases and improve research, it also poses existential risks, such as enabling nuclear war decisions or creating harmful technologies. Experts stress the need for strong regulation to balance innovation with safety.
Yes, there is a growing concern that plastic surgery could create a divide between those who can afford it and those who cannot, leading to a society where some appear ageless while others age naturally.
Cutting federal funding for research, especially at universities, can disrupt vital scientific work like Alzheimer’s and cancer research, raising concerns about the politicization of science and long-term innovation.
Social media algorithms trap users in narrow, confirmation-biased content loops, reducing exposure to diverse views and weakening public discourse, which can harm democratic culture and local news.
Chat with AI
Loading...
Pro features
Go deeper with this episode
Unlock creator-grade tools that turn any transcript into show notes and subtitle files.