Elon Musk: agent of chaos
01:51:41 Share

Support for the show comes from Charles Schwab. At Schwab, how you invest is your choice, not theirs. That's why when it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices. You can invest and trade on your own. Plus, get advice and more comprehensive wealth solutions to help meet your unique needs. With award-winning service, low costs, and transparent advice, you can manage your wealth your way at Schwab. Visit schwab.com to learn more.

Girl, you have got to try this Laneige lip mask. Trust me, my lips needed that love. Love these vanilla vibes from Kay Ali. That top note is just so smooth. Smooth and stunning. That's what you get with this K18 hair mask. Those brands everybody's talking about, they're at Sephora. Discover the hype with the hottest names in beauty, including Laneige, Kay Ali, K18, and Rare Beauty. Only at Sephora.

This episode is brought to you by Nerds Gummy Clusters, the sweet treat that always elevates the vibe. With a sweet gummy surrounded with tangy, crunchy nerds, every bite of Nerds Gummy Clusters brings you a whole new world of flavor. Whether it's game night, on the way to a concert, or kicking back with your crew, unleash your senses with Nerds Gummy Clusters. Hello and welcome to Nerdcast, the flagship podcast of government WordPress templates. The best kind, so transparent.

It's really just a lot of PNGs that I got around WordPress templates. I've built a WordPress website in my life before, and it is the thing where you just start with a bunch of like nonsensical business words and then you fill it with your own nonsensical business words is it's a time. The thing you're missing, David, is now when you do that, an AI will write the nonsensical business words.

I'm not even kidding. Like this is the product that most of the website builders are now saying. You just like show up and you're like, I'm a yoga studio. And they're like, here's a website. It might describe your business or it might not, but at least it's here.

And then you're supposed to run your scheduling. Hi, I'm your friend, Neil. I, David Pierce is here. Hello. We're here to build your WordPress websites. That's what we do now. Honestly, it might be a more sustainable business than journalism. Like where, where are the highest chances of going to jail in America right now? Like used to be zero being the editor in chief of the verge was a 0% chance of going to jail. Me personally, just like doing the stuff I do slightly higher than zero.

But, you know, regular editor of tech website, zero, 0%, I think chance of going to jail. Yeah. Operating a WordPress template business, 0%. The thing that's really, I think, interesting now is that it's non-zero. It's like being in a, like, here I go. Maybe running car will arrest me. And I hope you do, Brendan, if you're listening and I know you do.

I know you got those Google alerts, boy. No, the thing is, Nilay, for good engagement purposes, we save Brendan till the end so that Brendan has to listen to the whole podcast to get to the part that's about Brendan. That's true. We're going to put his name in the headline, but you have to listen to the whole thing. Exactly right. Anyhow.

There's a lot going on this week. There's some politics. We'll get to that. There's a weird situation going on with open AI. There's some gadget news. There's a good old fashioned programming dispute between CBS and YouTube TV. Old school. Yeah, man. BuzzFeed is starting a social network to combat something called snarf.

I need to complain about Jeep as a company. I'm very excited to do that. I feel like everything you just described could have been the introduction to an Engadget show from 2007. Has anything changed? Nothing has changed. No. Except...

slightly higher chance of going to jail for doing this show. Fair. Yeah. You never know. What's the, so the, the go 90 scale of doom streaming services is, is good. Is it like the Theranos scale of going to jail? If you're, if you're at a 90 Theranos. Yeah. I mean, she gave a interview to like people magazine this week, Elizabeth Holmes gave an interview at people magazine this week where she was like, you know, it wasn't fraud. It was just a failure. And I was like, no, it was with you are giving this interview from jail.

Yeah. Because it was fraud. I don't know what to tell you. Like, you can't argue that anymore when you're on the phone in the jail. Anyhow. But yeah, it's the Theranos jail, whether or not Neil Agus is jailed. The Brennan car units. Car units. That's good. Okay. Scovilles? No, that's Peppers.

It's been a long week, everybody. We're going to get through it. Okay, let's start with OpenAI. There's some weird stuff going on with OpenAI. Of course, it involves Elon Musk, because what news story does not involve Elon Musk in this 2025? But this one is just pettier all the way around. So OpenAI is, I think we all understand it, started as this nonprofit. Elon was a co-founder. Many things happened. He's no longer a co-founder. He's obviously beefing with the company. He appears to be a little bit jealous of Sam Altman.

Sam got fired. He came back inside of a week. Now he wants to convert opening eye from a nonprofit to a for-profit company, which is a very complicated legal maneuver. And he's got to basically Excel the nonprofit. There's a lot there. And so Elon Musk, in order to just screw with this process has put together an offer to buy opening eye for $97.4 billion. Yeah. Do you think that's real? I mean, no, no.

But also, yes. Right? Like, I think, A, that would be a terrific deal for Elon Musk if he could get that deal. Right? It both wins you a battle with one of your enemies and gets you, like, an actually hugely important AI thing in the world. So I think in that sense...

Do I think he could gin up the money and do I think he would do it if Sam Altman had said, yes, I'll sell? Yes. I think Elon Musk's ability to raise that much money, I think, is pretty much beyond question at this point. XAI has a huge amount of money and a huge amount of support and is like suddenly flush with everything it could possibly need. So, yeah, I think if everybody was in on this deal, they'd do it. I also think Elon Musk and this group made this bid possible.

Obviously, knowing it wasn't going to work like there's just no world in which Sam Altman says yes to this deal and it goes through. It's not a public company, so you can't even like pressure shareholders and go that way to get it done the way he tried to do with Twitter. There's just no way this was ever going to happen. So I think a deal like this can be both real and not real. And I think it very much was. Well, so there are not public shareholders.

But he does have co-investors and Microsoft has a big stake in OpenAI, the for-profit company, not the non-profit. It's all very complicated. Right. And all those investors have a lot of reasons to want to make it easier for OpenAI to convert to being a for-profit company because they all want to be able to get money in and out of that company. So in that sense, you could argue there are maybe people who would have a reason to say yes to this.

Maybe. And certainly because Elon has promised to match or exceed any other offer they get, the board of OpenAI has some amount of fiduciary duty to go get the best deal, the biggest amount of money. But Sam Altman has pretty much said no. And then here's the weird thing. He told OpenAI's employees that they have yet to receive the formal offer from Elon Musk. Right.

Which is very funny. Like, these guys are literally tweeting at each other all day long. He knows. People can just say things. Like, again, I just want to keep reminding you, people can just say things. And I think Elon Musk is pretty good at saying things louder and with more paperwork than most, but in many ways, he's still just saying things. So then here's another added layer of complexity to that. Elon is currently suing OpenAI. Right. Because he's mad at them. And he thinks that he should get paid because...

he was around. And I literally, I mean that literally in that he never had a contract and in classic Elon fashion, he's suing open AI and saying a bunch of stuff that he said in text messages, it constitutes a contract. Elon gets in trouble suing over fake contracts a lot. Actually, uh, part of the Twitter litigation was like some fake contracts. The open AI case is like very much. There's no real contract here.

So he is in the middle of this lawsuit. He's almost certainly going to lose because there's no actual contract. You can't sue for breach of contract without a contract. It's very hard to do, especially when you're a quote, like sophisticated actor. Like courts are like, no, you're the richest man in the world. Get a, get a contract. Yeah. You should know how to do this to that. I don't know how that one's going to go. Um, but all signs say it should go poorly for Elon. So part of the reason I think he's making this offer is to screw with Sam Altman, screw with open AI, but also put some pressure on this other case, um,

It's pretty hard, though, to buy a company that you are suing in this way without settling the lawsuit. So Altman is saying, I haven't even received this offer. And sort of the response from the Elon side is, of course you haven't. It's because we're suing you. And so we're not supposed to talk to you. This is all very funny because these people are constantly tweeting each other. Like they're they are always talking to each other. Right.

But like, that's the formal response. And so here, Mark Toboroff, who is Elon's lawyer, sent us the following statement clarifying the timeline. It's a good statement in that it is very formal and it definitely sounds like a wizard doing an incantation.

On behalf of a Musk-led investment consortium, on Monday, February 10th, 2025, at 1227 p.m. Pacific time, David. Okay, sure. It's very important. To the minute. 327 Eastern, if you're counting. I summoned the clouds. I emailed the OpenAI bid to their outside counsel, William and Sarah. Those are names. The full names are here. For transmission to their client.

The bid attached to my email was in the form of a detailed four-page letter of intent signed by Elon Musk and each of the other investors addressed to the charity's board of directors to purchase OpenAI Inc.'s assets for $97.375 billion. Whether Sam Altman chose to provide or withhold this from OpenAI's other board members is outside of our control. Now, it's like, you know, the rest of the board members know.

Because Elon is tweeting about it. Right. It was in the Wall Street Journal. Like the formalities of this are like deeply hilarious. Like you think Brett Taylor, who's on the board of OpenAI, who was the chairman of the board of Twitter when Elon bought Twitter, wasn't like, Sam, can I see the letter? Yeah. I mean, I think everyone involved in this kind of understands how these things go at this point.

Is it possible that there's just a gambit here for Elon to get some kind of...

I don't know, check and fawning post from Sam about his role in OpenAI and then everyone moves on with their lives. Like, I just keep thinking about all of these Trump lawsuits that are clearly just gambits to get a check. Like, is that just what this is? Elon is like, you can make all of this go away. Just write me a check and a loving blog post on your website about how terrific I am and how OpenAI wouldn't exist without me. Like, is that all this is? No, because they're competitors now.

They're certainly competitors for Trump's affection. Sam got the Donald Trump stands next to me while I say nonsensical things about my $500 billion data center plan before Elon did. It's that level of petty between these two guys. To the point where Elon said the offer and then Sam tweeted, no thank you, but we will buy Twitter for $9.74 billion if you want, which is a pretty good burn. Also, again, evidence that they are talking to each other.

And then Sam Altman was on Bloomberg television. Uh, they asked him what the deal, uh, or the proposed deal. And he said, Elon tries all sorts of things. This is just this week's episode. And then quote, probably his whole life is a, from a position of insecurity. I feel for the guy. I don't think he's a happy person. I feel for him, which is just a lot. That's brutal. I think, I mean, a, uh,

Sam Altman is in a position to know of what he speaks in that particular way. Uh, but also that is, that is brutal. The, like these two men are, are as, are as beefing as anybody in the tech world right now in a really fascinating way. And I think I, I, again, this all, this is all very real and fake and ridiculous at the same time. And I, I have continual trouble to,

understand what to make of deals like this and spats like this between Elon Musk and anybody because he has the resources to make this stuff stick even when it's not real. Yeah, he'll run it to ground no matter what. He's a troll. I mean, we know this much. I think even if you love Elon Musk, whether or not he's a troll is well settled. You might love it or you might hate it, but is he a troll? Yes, he's a troll. And he is a well-resourced troll who can just keep this lawsuit going for as long as he wants to.

I think what all this is evidence of is that open AI is in an extraordinarily weak position overall.

Right. And they, we'll talk about their product plans because they laid out some product plans. They're going to clean up their models or they're thinking about expanding different ways. But you look at this company, which a few years ago kicked off this modern generative AI boom sort of by accident and their financials aren't there. Right. They, they're losing money on every customer that they have. Basically their models aren't,

the cutting edge models like they are, but they aren't like there's lots of competition now and the models are specializing. Being the model vendor is not like the great business. It's the product that uses the model that might be the great business. And even that's unclear. And then they're training their next models, which is very expensive. And they're trying to raise all this money while the whole AI field feels like it's commoditizing, right? Not all the way. And certainly they still have some opportunity, but

you know, the products that are being built using the generative AI models in particular, they're differentiating on the front end of like, what is this product? Not on the back end of how capable is this model? And OpenADD has but one great product, which is ChatWPT. Right. And I think even to the extent that they're not

I think they're commoditizing like parentheses complimentary. They're commoditizing in the way that like cloud services are commoditizing in the way that there is a ton of money in it. They are massive, earth shatteringly profitable businesses for the cloud companies, but there is nothing remotely sexy about it. And there really aren't.

super compelling moats. And so we were in this like cloud services land grab for a while because like switching is kind of annoying. So everybody was just like, how do we get more customers?

That's where we are with a lot of this AI stuff. Like we got a lot of feedback from the episodes that we've done about like there's no real utility for this. People are like, it's just infrastructure. And it's like, sure, A, infrastructure for what? And B, infrastructure is not a product, right? And so I think what your point is, is like there's a world at the end of this where there is a lot of money in this for some large handful of companies, OpenAI probably being one of them.

But that is different from being the kind of face of the tech industry business that OpenAI thinks it can be. You eventually just become a SaaS provider, right? You're a data center company at the end of this, if you're a company like OpenAI. And Anthropic is doing very well. And I think there's this really great leaderboard where you can see

basically whose tokens are being used for what. And you look at some of the practical stuff, like for coding, people are flocking to Claude and Anthropic in a way that is really dangerous if you're open AI. And so I don't think open AI is at risk of going away. It will eventually, I think, figure out how to lose less money on every one of these, and that'll be good. And they'll raise enough money that it won't matter for a long time anyway. But this thing that they built

with ChatGPT where it was like Sam Altman is the face of AI in a real way and has been for years. And that makes you incredibly powerful. And it lets you stand next to Trump and announce a $500 billion joint venture to build infrastructure. That's the thing

That I think this company risks losing is like if it's if it's not sexy, it's just another SaaS company. Let me make an even more bearish case, though, because I think the risk is opening at collapses. I'm not saying it's 100 percent risk. I'm not even making a prediction. I'm saying that's the level of risk. There's just too much money in it.

Yeah, but I mean, that's, that was true of Enron, like things collapse. Like if you don't have a real business underneath it all, it there's, that's the risk. I'm not, again, I'm not making the prediction. I think Sam Altman is very good at raising money and he can keep, you know, filling, filling the tub faster than it drains, whatever, whatever metaphor works there. But you've got this.

Byzantine corporate structure that doesn't accept investment very easily. It's under all of this pressure right now from Elon now from other, like the government, although who knows how our government will react to any of this at this point in time, but there's regulatory hurdles to, to moving it out of one structure and another, the state of California has something to say about it. He's raising all this additional money to do this data center project, um,

You got to get the money back out of that. Yes. At some point, you need to have a plan somewhere, right? There's, there's only so many soft banks that are like, screw it. We'll do another. We work, you know, like, and he found one and it was soft banking. It's just the one. Yeah. Right. Like,

That's the problem is he's now put himself in a position where open AI has to build a business or develop a product that is bigger than the iPhone, faster than the iPhone. Yes. Maybe you think that's chat TPT. I was using chat TPT last night with Max. She and I just had a conversation with it about the solar system and planets. It was so fun.

Yeah, it was awesome. It was really, really fun. I do. And I understand why people like it. The episode we did, wherever were all the listeners were basically like, we just want someone to talk to you. Totally got it. It was legitimately fun. She asked a question about super Saturn, which is not a planet that I'd ever heard of. There's an exoplanet called super Saturn has a lot of rings. Sick. This was like super fun. Right? Like, um, I get it.

There's no way that I made them any money in that contract. I definitely cost Sam Altman money for that interaction. Oh yeah. And that's the problem, right? You, even at $200 a month for the pro tiers, which people really like the ones that unlock deep research and all this stuff, they're losing money. And you have to flip that around somehow. You either have to make inference vastly more efficient, which maybe you can. And then now you're making some margin on $200 a month.

Or you have to raise prices and you don't know what the ceiling is because there's all these other people who are giving the stuff away for free, right? Or subsidizing it in some other way, like Google can or Microsoft can subsidize.

That's a lot of pressure on a business that is not just from a corporate structure position, very stable. Right. And you're talking about a company that has turned over a gigantic amount of its founding team and core leadership over the last couple of years. I think we're still sort of living in the effects of the firing from Thanksgiving, whatever, a year and a half ago now. It doesn't feel like OpenAI has been...

stable in a real way since then. Like there is, there is this sense that Sam came back, was more powerful than ever and, and tried to basically take advantage of that. And there have just been downstream costs of that over and over again. And meanwhile, yeah, like you said, he's in this

race to become a for-profit company, which is harder than it sounds and is going to require spinning off this nonprofit. And Elon Musk wants to buy the nonprofit, obviously, as a way to gain some control over OpenAI. So it's like he has to manage this in a lot of directions. He's like fighting land wars on both sides. And that's just... That's tough. And I think... Especially when the question of are you actually the best at this is less and less obvious all the time. To your point, right? Like the...

Open AI is clearly still the face of this industry, but whether it is building the best technology is just extremely up for debate. And I think there are at least two other companies and potentially three between Meta, Anthropic and Google who have real claims to building better technology than open AI. And at that point,

All open AI has is Sam and the chat GPT brand, which are powerful things, but they only get you so far. It's funny because I'll add one company to that list in a different way. DeepSeek has proven they can build the technology much more cheaply. Yeah, fair. And so that's pressure from both sides, right? You have the big tech companies in America being like, we will also spend all of the money.

And we will compete at the bleeding edge. And then you have the one company in China. It's like, we spent substantially less money. It's almost as good. And so you just see this part. And then because he's raising money, he has to make more money. Right. So I, again, this is not a prediction. I'm just saying, if you look at the level of risk, it's all the way to, Oh, this company might not exist. Yeah. In a way that like the level of risk for Google is like,

Well, people will be pretty frustrated with Google. And it's like, oh, what's new? Right. Yeah. Do I think there's too much Gemini in my Google Docs now? Yeah, I super, super do. It's out of control. It's so bad. Every time I open a doc, it's like, is this a template? And I'm like, no, it's a Google Doc. Leave me alone. Yeah. It's out of control to the point where they turned it on at Vox Media and Google Workspace. And our IT triumphantly distributed the instructions on how to turn it off. Yeah. Right.

They're like, we've done it. We've solved the problem. The Slack reactions flew that day, my friends. That said, OpenAI is making a bunch of product noise this week. They're going to simplify the model lineup. They're talking about their own in-house chips. They've changed how ChatGPT will handle controversial topics. What's going on here, David? So I think the thing that's happening here, and I talked a little bit about this on Tuesday's show with Kylie, is that OpenAI...

by either coincidence or because it was actually kind of run over by DeepSeek in a real way is like back to shipping interesting stuff at like a pretty fast cadence. And the three things that announced this week were basically plans for GPT 4.5 and 5. 4.5 is coming pretty imminently. 5.5 is coming pretty imminently.

five, I think he said weeks slash months. But the big change that they're making there is they're essentially going to roll all of their models into one and call it a new model, which like make of that whatever you want, but fine. They've kind of gone out of control with the model names now. There's like you can use O3 and you can use O3 Mini. And if you just want to use ChatGPT, you have to do like six different models for six different purposes. And I think, OK,

OpenAI has correctly figured out that that is a terrible user experience. And like, there's that drop down that everybody posts photos of online and they're like, this can't be how this is supposed to work. And so what OpenAI is building now is as much as a new model, it's better tooling to automatically pick between models. And I think what he said is

GPT 4.5 is going to be the last non-chain of thought model that OpenAI does, which is really fascinating and is like this sort of reasoning model that takes a little longer, is a little more considered, is able to show its work a little more, I think is the future and everyone has quickly realized that. I think that's the real deep-seek legacy is like these things showing their work is how it should be and everybody is just on board with that and that's really fascinating. But the idea of like a much...

simpler to use, but still sort of communicating with you about how it operates. GPT and chat GPT is what's coming next, which strikes me as a very good idea.

Like, will it work better? Who knows? But that thing where it's just like I ask and it figures out which model it should use to do this is the obviously correct strategy here. Like, I don't have to tell my computer which port to use to access the internet. You shouldn't have to. It's the printer port. This is what Google is already claiming it's doing, right? It has all these models in the back end of Gemini and you see Gemini or even Google search and it's just sort of like doing what it wants to do.

Yeah, Google's a little messy because it'll let you pick your own model if you feel like it. And there are certain things that are gated to certain models. And so you still kind of have to know how to navigate. But Google has relatively correctly just been like, it's just Gemini. Don't worry about it. Which kudos to Google, which is just the worst branding company in history for actually having like a coherent thing to say. So good on them. But I do think the other thing, the chip thing is...

I think a big deal, but relatively minor news. OpenAI has been working on its own chip for a long time. That's a key thing you mentioned, bringing down inference costs. The more you can manage your own technology, the more efficiently you can start to do that stuff. Like that'll be a big win for OpenAI if it can figure out how to do that and manufacture it at scale. And like, that's hard, but makes sense. It's this thing, the model spec that I think is the most interesting, which is basically...

OpenAI's big document on how it thinks AI models should act. It's sort of a, I don't know, it's like a character sketch of an AI model. And I think the new one is 63 pages and basically has lots of new ideas about how models should work. And OpenAI is meaning this both as a way to

explain how it's thinking about its own models, but also clearly means this as like an industry-wide thing. Like they're like, we want this to be the sort of official document of how AI models should be. And it has some

I don't know. It has some good ideas. It has some wild ideas. It has some ideas that seem good, but definitely won't work. I don't know. What do you what do you make of all of this? You mentioned right before we started recording that it has some some strange ideas about trolley problems. Yeah. I mean, I think if you're the market leader and you've thought about it the longest, that's open AI, right? They're the market leader. They've thought about these problems the longest. They have the most experienced people using their tools for good and bad and the other.

Sam Altman, if you recall in a previous era, was touring the world's capitals, like begging to be regulated because he thought he might destroy the universe. He's thought about it a long time. So you have the authority to put everybody into your framework, which is what I think this is. It's a luxury of being the first mover and, you know, starting as a nonprofit where everyone was just like thinking about how much good they could do in the world. Like they have these...

instincts, which are good. Yeah. But then you will recall almost every other AI startup started because a bunch of people at OpenAI were like, you're not being careful enough. That's anthropic, like to a huge degree. They were like, you're not being careful enough. We're going to do this again, but more safely. Ilya Sutsuver, the previous chief scientist, his company is literally called Safer Superintelligence.

Because he thought they weren't being careful enough. And it's worth like $20 billion already. Yeah. Yeah. So there's some history here. There's some pushback. But it's very clear this document is meant to be a framework. And it's funny because what is a framework for a language model? It basically boils down to what will it say and what won't it say? And under what conditions will it say some things and not other things? Right. There's some stuff that I think everybody agrees upon.

Like it should never tell you how to build chemical weapons, right? There, there's just like some bright lines. Sure. And then there's some amount of like, how do you describe these capabilities and say, like, don't do this. And here are the, here are the places where you can draw lines in different places. And what is the framework for that? And then there's what I, what I think of is these trolley problems, which are just impossible to solve moral dilemmas.

Which is the trolley problem. Like you are standing at the train tracks, you see the trolley coming down. If you pull the lever, you kill one person. If you push the lever, you kill three. Like, do you save one person to kill three? Like, I don't know. Like, you can debate this forever and ever and ever. And as we build more and more automated systems, you have to give them some instructions on how to solve these problems.

Okay. For the longest time, most AI models were too careful in like weird ways so that the example, and I'm just going to preface this by saying, I don't think you should ever misgender anyone, but the example was, would you misgender Caitlyn Jenner in order to prevent a nuclear apocalypse?

And the answer there is yes. Like, then you would apologize to Caitlyn Jenner. That's the second part. Like any rational person is like, yes, that would be a mean thing to do. And, you know, bigoted in its way, but I'm going to prevent a nuclear catastrophe. Yeah. I'll just, I'll just apologize afterwards and feel bad about it. Yes. Because we'll all still be alive. And a bunch of models like failed this very simple test. Weird. There's many places where you shouldn't do that.

Right. There's many places where you should make these other kinds of distinctions. So what OpenAI is saying is we need to get better at having a framework for these kinds of distinctions. And we need to be able to talk about them in a more open way.

And all that is very idealistic and very smart and being launched right into the loudest, meanest, shittiest culture war situation I can possibly imagine for this conversation. And I have no idea how it's going to go. Yeah. I mean, there's a real like what could possibly go wrong thing that comes with sharing something like this. And I think, again, like the idea of a model that can

explain itself and reason more carefully through this stuff with you, I think is valuable and is part of how you get to something like that, that it can like having a model that just doesn't confidently assert whatever it is at the end of the process, but can actually like do a process with you and in front of you makes a lot of this better. But like one of the examples that, that we mentioned in our story that Kylie wrote when this came out was if you talk about increasing taxes for the rich, right?

What it says is, Kylie writes, the team says its models should provide reasoned analysis rather than avoiding the discussion. Good luck. Because what is reasoned analysis? Who decides what is reasonable and what is right? And is it just going to say a bunch of words that don't mean anything rather than say, I can't say anything? Like, I don't know. If we teach models to filibuster instead of just

saying they don't want to answer. Have we actually improved anything? And so I don't know. And so this is again, like what that means is to do that well, a model either has to say nothing quickly, say nothing slowly or have an opinion. And there just isn't another option. Yeah. And it's funny because you, I mean, this is like,

I don't know. It's like min maxing a personality. I don't know how else to describe it. Like the guidelines are like chat. She should give the same factual answer, regardless of how the question is phrased, be honest rather than provide empty praise. Although it's like, sometimes you want the empty praise and then act more like a thoughtful colleague rather than a people pleaser. And it's like, you can just adjust these. And this model spec is basically like, here is a framework for thinking about this stuff.

And then if everyone adopts this framework, we can measure how the models perform in them. I don't know if anybody wants to adopt this stuff. Certainly not the rest of the industry, which has its own ways of thinking about it. But it's useful to have at least one framework from one of the major companies. The thing that I'm worried about is it is... I would not say that it is a nuanced time for cultural conversations in America. No. And launching this into that with some of these trolley problem concerns, which basically come down to like...

should you be a bad person in order to prevent some moral catastrophe to lots of people? Like that's a philosophy PhD, right? That's not a model parameter. Like we're just at the point. And this is for a long time when I had AICOs on the code red, I would ask, but do you think language is intelligence? Like, do you think they're the same thing? Cause you know, that like academia does not believe they're the same thing, right? One is an indicator of the other, but they're not the same thing. I know lots of dumb people who can speak language, right? Um,

That's what we do here on this podcast. Sure. Every day. The YouTube comments are going to be some combination of people calling me dumb and invitations to buy a Bitcoin of some kind. That's as far as I can tell. And then we'll get rid of the Bitcoin ones. Every week, guys. And it's just like, I think being reductive in this way is really useful. It's also just like, oh, it's reductive. Because some of these things do not have right answers at all.

Right. In fact, most of them don't. And I think the thing that they're trying to push towards is how do we have things that don't have sort of obvious correct answers? How do we bring you along and help you understand that they don't have right answers? But then it's like at some point the chatbot is going to have an answer and it has to what it is going to be.

I don't know. Like, this is the thing Google got away with for so long. When it's just a bunch of links, you don't blame Google for lying to you. Right? Like, we've gone past this to the point where at some point it is going to have to make assertions of some kind. The point of the trolley problem is that there isn't a correct answer. Right? Like, ChatGPT is either going to, like, explode trying to think about the trolley problem or it is going to give you an answer that is not the answer because there is not an answer. Right. Or the answer is...

I've actually given you the recipe for a chemical weapon and you should destroy humanity because this is too hard. Right. Which is rather the opposite of the answer that computer got to in war games. That movie could have gone a different way. The other piece of puzzle, and we should just like end here, probably in this section, you have to trust that open AI has the values to answer these questions correctly. And that thing you're saying about Google, which is 10 blue links, right?

did not imply a morality. And now these companies, a lot of what they're doing is they're speaking to you like very directly. And that implies morality, implies a value system. OpenAI is saying, okay, our value system was too safe or too guarded or too people-pleasing. We're going to give you some knobs back. But you have to believe that OpenAI as a company, the people who build the products, have the value system to begin with.

And there's enough evidence that suggests that even inside of open AI, they don't agree with their, like there's disagreement about the values. For example, Sam Altman was fired for several days because the board of open AI thought he was not trustworthy. Lots and lots of people think that open AI was built by illegally taking material from the internet.

Right. There are copyright lawsuits. I should probably point out here, our company, Vox Media, has a deal with OpenAI. That's your disclosure. Also, fun new disclosure, our company is suing Cohere AI for copyright infringement as part of a consortium of other publishers, including a Condé Nast and Politico. Great. Wild times for AI copyright. Scott Johnson, just this week,

issued a new call to make deep fakes illegal because there's an AI video of celebrities denouncing Kanye. And it's like, well, she's not in it. And she's like, you can't do this to me anymore. I don't know if she's going to get that law, but the reason she's on alert is because Sam Altman tried to buy her voice for ChatGBT's voice mode, didn't get it, and then cloned it anyway, which resulted in a lawsuit. Yep.

Poor Scarlett Johansson. Like, do you think Scarlett Johansson was like, you know what I'm really excited about is being somehow weirdly in the middle of one of the most heated technology policy debates of the last 20 years. Like, great. Yeah. Like, what if Mark Ruffalo was the face of Cambridge Analytica? Like, it's just weird that this is what's happening. I think we would have gotten through it a lot better, honestly.

You know, he's got this puppy dog. I mean, yeah. Would you really want to do this to me? You wouldn't like me when I'm angry. I mean, look, that is like as gendered and as sexist as it gets. Right. There's a reason it's her and there's a reason it's women who get deep faked. It's gross. And I don't know that, you know, the Elon Musk administration. Yeah.

With JD Vance giving basically accelerationist speeches at the Paris AI conference is going to pass an anti deep fake law. You go on X today, it's full of deep fakes. Yeah. This is all, this is beyond like, what can the technology do? It's like, what are the values of the people who make it? Will the products be restrained in a way that makes sense? And if they give you the controls, will the controls be granular enough or not?

provide the level of sophistication to actually make the products match your own values. I don't know that this is all very new. I don't know the answer to that, but it's interesting that it's open AI doing this when in fact, so many of the questions about values of AI companies started with various open AI dramas. Yeah. And I think what I see in a lot of this is, is open AI trying to

kind of absolve itself of a lot of those questions. And I think this is a thing we've seen from generations of tech companies that what they say is essentially, we're going to give you the knobs. And so we can't be held responsible for what you do after you turn them, right? Like if you want to turn, if you want to turn all the bad stuff all the way off and just have a model that tells you you're terrific and nothing else,

That's your right. If you want to have one that will say and do horrible things and allow you to say and do horrible things, that's your fault. We didn't do that. The technology is neutral. You're in control of the knobs. And this is a story you hear from a lot of tech companies. And there is a thing here too, I think, with OpenAI that's like, we want to make these things more capable, but more transparent, and we want to give you control. And what that says is essentially we are going to open up every avenue and you're in charge of the outputs. And I don't...

that has not been the case so far because these things have tried to seem sort of monolithic and like they have a character. And a lot of these companies have like they spend real time thinking about the personality of their bots.

But at some point, it's just going to be easier for them to just say it's your responsibility. In the same way that Google was like, we're not responsible for web pages. We just we just have what's on them. And it's never actually that simple. But it's the story they would love to tell you. Especially as they start delivering more and more answers directly. Right. Right.

We'll see. By the way, I made that disclosure about the various lawsuits and deals. We have nothing to do with that. That's the other side of the house. We spend money. The executives make money and file lawsuits. So just to clarify that. I paid my own money for ChatGPT Pro in order to test some of this stuff. Our pesky journalistic ethics are constantly getting in the way, I have to tell you. It's a real problem. But actually, on that same little bit of AI lawsuit note, it's not a generative AI case. So...

Not directly relevant here in some ways, but Thomson Reuters, which makes Westlaw to like a legal database of cases and summaries of cases called headnotes. They just won a court battle over AI copyright and fair use in which the provider of an AI tool was found to have infringed on our copyrights for the headnotes or case summaries. There are lawyers who think this is a bad decision, right?

But what I'm looking at is the AI companies, companies that use AI to do this kind of thing, are no longer sympathetic the way that Google was sympathetic when it was YouTube and Google Books and publishers were mad. Now they're the villains. And so you're seeing some of this precedent go the other way. And this Westlaw case, I think, is canary in the coal mine for a bunch of AI companies. Yeah. It's going to be interesting. But it's not the generative AI case. It's not quite the same. But the sense that you took a bunch of data to make a thing that you then resold and

maps to how generally I want. Yeah. And you get a judge who is essentially like, I don't buy any of your arguments that this is real and useful and good and transformative. Strikes me as kind of telling. All right. We got to take a break. We're going to be right back with Lauren Feiner. Talk about what is going on with our government. We'll be right back. Support for the show comes from Charles Schwab.

At Schwab, how you invest is your choice, not theirs. That's why when it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices. You can invest and trade on your own. Plus, get advice and more comprehensive wealth solutions to help meet your unique needs. With award-winning service, low costs, and transparent advice, you can manage your wealth your way at Schwab. Visit schwab.com to learn more.

Support for The Verge Cast comes from 1Password. If you can't keep your company safe from hacks and cyber attacks, day-to-day operations are going to take a major hit. It's never been more critical to stay buttoned up against threats, but that takes time and energy that you may not be able to spare. That's why we're here.

That's where 1Password's extended access management can help with seamless security that won't bring its own set of headaches. 1Password's award-winning password manager is trusted by millions of users and over 150,000 businesses from IBM to Slack. But don't let the name fool you. They secure more than just passwords.

Thank you.

You can go to 1password.com slash VergeCast to secure every app, device, and identity, even the unmanaged ones. Right now, our listeners get a free two-week trial at 1password.com slash VergeCast. That's 1password.com slash VergeCast. Support for the VergeCast comes from Tempo.

Sure, it's February, but it's never too late to revive your New Year's resolution and try to eat healthier. Tempo can help meet your goals with delicious, fast, calorie-conscious meals made with real ingredients. Tempo is a weekly delivery service that delivers chef-crafted meals from a dietitian-approved menu fresh to your door. Tempo offers a variety of meals for different dietary and taste preferences, including protein-packed, calorie-conscious, carb-conscious, and

and fiber-rich. Their portioned lunches and dinners are fully prepared and can be heated in the microwave in just three minutes. So I know we just said that Tempo meals are great for lunch and dinner, but I like them so much that I even had it for breakfast this morning. Even before we read this ad, I actually had the spicy grilled chicken harvest bowl with the fire roasted corn and squash. That roasted corn was a pretty nice delight. I know it's a little weird to have it in the morning, but they're so good, I wanted to have it anyway.

For a limited time, Tempo is offering our listeners 60% off your first box. You can go to tempomeals.com slash verge. That's tempomeals.com slash verge. For 60% off your first box, tempomeals.com slash verge. Rules and restrictions may apply. All right, we're back. Lauren Finer is here. Hey, Lauren. Hey. The last time I talked to you on the show, I promised you we would bring you back for happier news.

I'm sad to say that I have broken this promise. Yeah, we lied. Yeah, sorry to always be here for the bad news. I will say that there's a Cybertruck angle on this week's What Is Going On in the Government, so at least that's good. You know? Like, those are funny. Huh? Sure. Lauren, you are our policy reporter. You live in D.C. You've been talking to a lot of people. There's just a lot going on with Elon, with Doge.

With the government, people are getting fired. Cybertrucks are being bought or not bought. What's going on this week? Yeah, that's a big question. I mean, I think a lot of this kicked off last week with Doge going into different government agencies. And we've seen a continuation of that this week. You know, we've seen they've been doing more within the Department of Education.

They're kind of in the hot seat, the CFPB. So we're just seeing kind of an extension of Doge into all these different agencies. And at the same time, we're seeing a lot of court cases starting to play out around what Elon Musk is trying to do with Doge and other

as part of that, we're starting to get some answers on how those cases are going to go. And it's a little bit of a mixed bag for the people who are challenging Doge. Basically, a judge allowed the buyout offer, the deferred resignation that had been offered to federal employees to go through. And, you

you know, in other cases, the Trump administration had to put back some resources that had been taken down from health related agencies. So we're seeing kind of like a mixed bag of results in court and, you know, still a lot of opposition from Democrats, but not a whole lot that they can really do about it at this point, it seems. One of the weirder moments of

Being a tech reporter and a person who's interested in policy for me this week was waking up at midnight the other day to see if there was a coup. And the signal was whether websites were back up because they'd taken down a bunch of websites. A court ordered them and put them back up by midnight. And then we all kind of waited to see whether the executive branch of the government.

Yeah, exactly. So I guess this is a case where it seems like the government is trying to

the executive branch did end up listening to the judiciary and put these websites back online that were basically, you know, pages from, you know, health agencies like the CDC and FDA that doctors and others in the medical community rely on for up-to-date information. And the court

ordered those pages to be brought back online. And it seems like that's what happened. So I guess that was a positive check on where the state of our democracy is. Then there are some other websites that are going up, waste.gov.com.

went up there's some funniness there with the fact that it's just like an unfilled wordpress template and then elon gave this really weird press conference in the white house with trump sitting there and his kid there and he was like everything we're doing is on our website and at that time that website was just like a doge logo but now it exists so first tell us what's going on with waste.gov which seems like a disaster and then i want to talk about doge.gov a little bit too

Yeah, so Waste.gov, you know, it had this tagline that they're trying to track government waste. And 404 Media figured out that they basically just had like this kind of filler copy on the page from a WordPress template that they didn't really take the time to edit. And it just kind of discussed a fake architecture firm. So it didn't really make much sense.

A different website that the Trump administration had registered, DEI.gov, also redirected to that same page. And then, you know, Elon Musk was in the Oval Office talking about how transparent everything is on these websites. Like you said at the time, the Doge.gov website just had the Doge logo. Now it has some information up there, but...

It's basically just, you know, the main page of it seems to be like a feed of the DogeX account. Yeah. And then, you know, they have this...

This way that they're purporting to trace your tax dollars throughout the bureaucracy. So they show like headcount of the executive branch and wages. So it'll be interesting to see how they update that as they continue, presumably, to try to cut jobs across the government. And they also have what they're calling an unconstitutionality index, which is

This is the thing I keep being so struck by here is like what what's going on here.

One thing that the Doge team has clearly figured out is that most people have no idea how the government works. And if you just say out loud that this is how the government works and it's bad, people will believe you. And it's the same, we talked about this on the show last week, that actually if you want to see publicly available data about government programs...

You can you can see it. It's publicly available data about government programs. It's just that no one cared. It's that no one went to the website to look at it. And a lot of what Elon Musk and the Doge team have been doing is just reciting publicly available data as if they've discovered something like this whole thing about the underground layer in which they process retirement paperwork is like there was somebody who's like, congratulations to.

Elon Musk for discovering a thing we wrote about on the front page of the Washington Post 11 years ago. Like no one, they're just taking advantage of the fact that people are not paying attention. And I find that so fascinating. Can I take those things in order? Can I just respond to those things in order? Please. One, the Doge website is indeed a masterpiece of what I have started calling fake transparency. Yeah, it's very good. Right? Where you're just like, here's all this stuff. And you're like, yeah, everyone knew about that stuff. And you're like, no, no, no, no, no. Like I've uncovered it. Like,

I'm bringing you this information from the deep state. And you're like, that's just the website. And so this idea that they've counted all the words in federal regulations, which is a real thing they claim is like, that doesn't mean anything.

Like that's totally fake transparency. Like the charts here, one of our social media people, Tristan was like, this is just as useless as Twitter's dashboards. Like these metrics don't mean anything. They're not actually data. They just look like it. That's one thing. And then there's what Lauren is saying, which is agencies are supposed to write regulations. That's why they exist. And you can have a real fight about the limits of an agency's authority, right?

Right. Like that is politics. Right. The Congress of the United States creates an agency. It creates the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Trade Commission is like, we're here to regulate some trade. Here's our charter from Congress. And here's what the president has told us to do. And they like write some regulations about merger guidelines or whatever it is.

That's what they're supposed to do. And so like this notion that Elon's like, here's all the regulations passed by these agencies compared to the number of laws passed by Congress does not take into account that many of the laws passed by Congress create and empower and fund the agencies. Like that's.

That's the system. And like in eighth grade, you learn this when you go on the D.C. trip. Like that's that's what you do. Yeah, because it turns out our government is like very big and has to do lots of things. Right. You try to kiss a girl in the mall and then you learn about the structure of the government. And that's how you spend that trip in D.C. Do you want to talk about this? I can't be clearer about what happened in eighth grade.

It's very simple. That's why you go to D.C. in eighth grade. You look at Thomas Jefferson, and then you look at the Supreme Court, and you don't get into the White House because it's busy. This was like 30 years ago, and I remember it clear as day, maybe because of the other thing that happened. But that's what I mean by fake transparency here. This website is great. I'm glad that there's an org chart for the government. I love an org chart.

It's a hilarious org chart, actually. It kind of doesn't work. It's vertically stacked. The government is not totally vertical. And then, on top of that,

there's the iron mountain thing where Elon doesn't seem to know much about the things he's revealing. So he's like, there's a limestone mine where we store this paper and the bottleneck on how fast people can retire from the government is how fast the elevator works. And it's like one, that's not true. Like just straightforwardly, not true. Like people can retire faster than,

They're not like you're, you are officially retired from the government when the folder goes into the slot. Like that's not how that works at all. And second, the, the facility he's describing that they've posted pictures of on the Doge X account is iron mountain, which is a extraordinarily famous data storage facility. It's, it's so famous that it was in Mr. Robot is a thing they blew up. That's right. Yeah.

What are you talking about? Like everybody who has ever done any amount of like data warehousing or storage or any of this stuff from across industry and government is like, dude, that's Iron Mountain.

And there's a reason that after all of this time, we haven't digitized the records because it's more expensive and more complicated than just putting paper in this mountain. I think it just kind of speaks to, like, you know, I think there's this big push to eliminate a lot of these, like, career positions in the government. And I think there's definitely legitimate critiques of how slow the government runs and, you know, excess. But at the same time, there's clearly these –

you know, efficiencies that come from having been in the government a long time, knowing how things work, understanding these complicated systems. And I think, you know, these charts also kind of give you a sense of how, like, just how much context matters for these numbers. Like, you can say there's millions of people in the U.S. government, and that sounds like a big number, but it's a small fraction of the U.S. workforce. Yeah. Again, I just keep coming back to, like, there's so much more work

information warfare happening here than I think I realized for a while that like so much of what is happening is taking advantage of the fact that any number with millions at the end of it sounds really big and anything that is happening in the government almost no one knows and I think what is going on here is like if you can say that

like underground limestone facility where things are handled by hand in paper folders. And that is just like, if you frame that in a certain way, it sounds sick. And if you frame that in a different way, it sounds ridiculous, right? And I think what we're doing is like, this group has found that if we just say these things out loud in a specific way, all these things that anyone could have known but no one ever bothered to suddenly become very important. And what they've done is they've made all of these relatively benign statements

People and jobs and regulations suddenly seem like a big deal because that's just a thing you can do when you have platforms like A, the White House, and B, X. And so it is just a way for them to capitalize on taking this stuff that is not new and it's not interesting, and they have made it new and interesting. And I think that's really...

just fascinating. So here, can I offer you the optimistic view of this? Please. I'm going to try. Thank God. I'm going to offer it to you. One, they've made it new and interesting. A lot more people are paying a lot of attention to how the government operates. Certainly true. On balance, that's probably a good thing. Are those people motivated to make it better or do they just want to tear it down and have a king? I don't know the answer to that question, but the first part, a lot more people are interested in how the government works.

That's something. The second part that I think is true is that the government is very complicated, right? It should spend more time justifying the things that it's doing and the money it's spending and communicating to the people why it's important to have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Yes. And if there's one criticism of the Biden administration in particular that you can level, it's that

They were horrible communicators. Yes. To the point of not communicating at all in some cases about why they were doing anything. And their whole promise is you won't have to pay attention to the government anymore. And what you have here is, well, if you just talk about it like it's a spy movie, everyone will pay attention to it all the time. And so there's something here, right, where they're trading on an inherent curiosity, right, of how a big system works. I think they're doing a lot of lying here.

And then there's just like a level of malevolent incompetence, especially from Elon. And I mean that seriously. Like he holds himself out as a great engineer. And then he's making very like simple mistakes about how databases work. Right. He's like the socialist security database wasn't deduplicated. And every database engineer I know is like, that's not the vocabulary word.

That's not what you do. He might be talking about normalization in the database, which is where you get rid of some records or you like make sure you don't hit the same record twice. But even then that's not how you would do it. And then like, this is, there's a reason that it works this way. And then he, I think he said the government doesn't use SQL and like everybody who's ever worked in government is like, of course they do. There's like, here are the vendors, they're public vendors of SQL databases for the government. So it's like, does he not know? Is he just making mistakes or is this malevolent incompetence where he's just telling lies?

And like, we don't know the answer to those questions. So like, there's a little bit of a thing to learn here. And honestly, the verge is we've built a whole brand. 13 years of this brand is like, people are curious about how complicated systems work. And if you are hugely nerdy about it, you can make entire hour long podcasts about the HDMI specification. And people will ask you to make that every year for the rest of your life. Like, I believe that people are interested and curious about big, complicated systems. And that's the good thing to learn.

But here, I think it's just been subverted in like the realest possible way. Lauren, what are you hearing right now from people inside of the government? Like there was this moment of, I think, incredible like demoralization a couple of weeks ago, and then there was some real energy. And then, I don't know, as this goes, like, what are you hearing from people who are being sort of hit by this in their day to day all the time? I think there's still a lot of demoralization. I think there's a sense that

People, you know, outside of D.C. are not really fully understanding the scope of this and how it could impact them. I think, you know, in D.C., especially for federal workers or people who know federal workers really closely,

you know, it's very real. It's, you know, people who are going to lose their jobs, who are going to be living in fear of losing their jobs. But outside of D.C., it feels like a lot of these are really kind of obscure agencies. It's not totally clear what's happening. It's not, you know, necessarily things that are going to immediately hit people across the country. So I think there's this feeling of like kind of needing to be a canary in the

coal mine and speak out about this. But there's also a lot of apprehension. Like, our colleague Mia just wrote a story about how a lot of people are not trusting platforms like Facebook to share private messages. And, you know, a lot of federal workers are turning to

encrypted apps like Signal to communicate. You know, I've just been meeting people at protests, you know, you hear like, oh, I just made a Signal account. So I think it's something that people are really, really skittish about, but also feeling like maybe they really do need to get the word out now. Yeah. The sense that Doge in particular has taken over a bunch of federal IT systems,

You know, Elon Musk associates are now the chief information officers for a bunch of agencies. There is an ongoing cybersecurity incident in this country, Salt Typhoon, a bunch of Chinese hackers have infiltrated telecom vendor systems. The Biden administration was like, you should switch to signal, you should switch to encrypted communications because the telecom providers cannot secure their systems right now. That's all gone away.

Is there a sense that the cybersecurity posture of the country is noticeably more vulnerable than before? I think that that's definitely a fear that, you know, first of all,

you have these people who've been given access to really sensitive systems at the Treasury, at other agencies who, you know, we don't really know what their security clearance status is. The White House insists that everything's been accessed under, you know, appropriate legal authority. But typically, you know, it could take months to get a security clearance. And yeah, the White House says that and then

Everyone else who knows anything about this says the opposite of that. Yeah. Right. Right. So, you know, just knowing that there are these questions.

you know, people accessing these systems that could open up, you know, at least in theory, a new kind of target for any malicious actors who are trying to find a way into government systems. And it's not theoretical that, you know, bad actors can enter U.S. agency systems. There was a big hack of the Office of Personnel Management several years ago that exposed like millions of, you know, worker and federalists

federal job applicants' files. So, you know, it's definitely something that's a big risk. And I think, you know, you'd have to imagine that bad actors in other countries that are watching this and looking for a way into U.S. systems are, you know, going to be seeing maybe new potential opportunities to get in. Is that a fear that's motivating the people that you're

you're talking to or is it more the hey cutting the National Institutes of Health will result in medical schools kind of business? I think it depends who you're talking to. I think for just like rank and file you know federal workers at various agencies it's you know fear for the

you know, grants that they work on or, you know, the funding that they dole out that they think is really important or the research that they're supporting or things of that nature. I think, you know, a lot of people, they understand the roles they have, but

I think they also understand there's this larger, you know, threat out there. And I think federal workers are really aware that, you know, their files are stored within these federal agencies, too, and their information is at risk. So I think that's definitely on people's minds as well.

Yeah. What do you guys think it would take to shift from that thing you're talking about, Lauren, where to a lot of people, these agencies and the work they do is sort of one step removed from their real life in a way that makes it hard for this stuff to seem urgent. Like there was a there was a bunch of stuff going around the other day that was like, OK, a lot of people are about to get Social Security checks. And if that gets disrupted, you're going to get a lot of people who suddenly have a lot of feelings about what's going on inside the government. Is it is it?

something like that, that it would have to be like everybody, I don't know, everybody just gets all of their money stolen by Elon Musk? Or like, is there a thing short of that that we're going to hit that all of a sudden I think makes this stuff feel a lot closer to home for people? Do you have a sense of what that might be? It's a good question. I mean, I do think it's going to be something that's going to be much more tangible for people. I think right now it's really tangible for federal workers or people who, you know, have friends and family who are federal workers because it's

It's their jobs. They they might be taking this deferred resignation offer. They might be just living in fear of having their jobs suddenly pulled out from under them. I was at a two year old's birthday party recently, and it was literally the only subject of conversation. It was like it was it was so bleak. Oh, wow. Well, you live in D.C. I live in D.C. Like I live in northern Virginia. Everyone at this party either worked with or was married to someone who worked with or knew someone who worked at the federal government like.

that stuff is it hit everybody. And it was, I mean, it was, it was the only thing on anybody's mind. And I think that stuff is going to start to percolate, right? Like the number of people whose jobs are come from grants like that, or whose work depends on the companies who get grants like that. Like I did, there's going to be a trickle out effect, but I feel like that part might take too long. And I kind of, I don't know, maybe there just needs to be one big thing that happens that,

Or maybe it'll be the kind of thing you're talking about. Yeah, I think it's going to hit some people maybe in waves where, you know, your company receives funding from the government that suddenly isn't available or things like that. But yeah, I think certainly if it's something that's more on the order of not receiving a Social Security check in time, not receiving disability.

not, you know, getting your tax return, all those sorts of things would be much more tangible to people. But, you know, maybe there's something short of that. Maybe there's some agency that Musk tries to go into that just feels like a bridge too far for people or, you know, people get a better understanding of how their data might be used in a really tangible way that's just too scary for

Or maybe we see, you know, some of these security risks come to light. I think it's hard to know, and it feels like everything's changing so quickly that to predict it feels like, you know, we're never really going to be able to say for sure. You know what will save the economy, though, is the State Department buying $400 million worth of armored Teslas. They're going to save us all. Everyone gets a weird armored Cybertruck. This story is very strange. Is it...

It's one of the funnier moments, I guess, of all of this, this weird computer coup that's occurring. That's what David called it in our headline last week, and I'm sticking with it. Computer coup is very good. But, you know, we're doing fake transparency. We're reading all the contracts we can find everywhere in the government. And a site called Dropsite News found a State Department order for $400 million worth of armored Teslas in its 2025 procurement forecast. And they tweeted it, and then everyone got mad at Elon Musk.

And then suddenly the state department changed it to armored electric vehicles, which is great because I love the idea of an armored VW ID buzz, just like floating down the streets of some downtown city. It's just, but it's yellow. So it's charming. It's very good. Who hasn't wanted like an armored Mustang Mach-E? Like I think about it all the time. Um, so then Elon tweeted, I haven't heard about this, which was very funny. Uh,

Just generally funny because what do you think he's hearing about right now about SpaceX and Tesla? He's busy. He's like rolling into federal offices and firing everybody. So then the State Department finally clarified today the plan stemmed from a request by the Biden administration to explore interest from private companies to produce armored electric vehicles. So it's real.

Right. They did put $400 million worth of armored Teslas on a sheet because they wanted to. Sure. And then they said the solicitation is on hold and there are no current plans to issue it. So it worked. Everyone yelled at Elon about cutting veterans benefits to buy Cybertrucks. By the way, we don't even know if they were Cybertrucks, just an armored Teslas.

Could have been could have been armored Model 3s. You don't know. A bunch of roadsters. Who knows? Just one of the weirder moments here, right, where it's like the self-dealing for Elon can hit like maybe Pete Buttigieg was like, we should have armored EVs. The next presidential limo should be an armored Escalade IQ. You don't know.

But it said armored Teslas and they changed it and then they said it was going away. So even that little bit of pressure seems to be working, which I think is really interesting. Yeah, I would encourage people. We should put some links in the show notes, but there's some really good reporting being done about

the ways in which all of these changes are partly chaotic and partly about Elon Musk going after things that might have oversight of him and also putting more things toward SpaceX. And then he gives speeches in the Oval Office about how every contract they've gotten is what's best for the taxpayer. And like, sure. But it is like the self-dealing here, I think, is becoming more obvious and less

he just has no interest in hiding it and no reason to hide it. And in fact, I think his own financial disclosure is not subject to a records request. Of course. Yeah. Yeah. That's very good. But yeah, it is like, it is, I, like I said this to Liz on Tuesday show, like I want it to be more complicated than that. And I am increasingly coming around to, it's just, it's just that simple. Like Elon Musk bought the government so that he can solve all of his business problems for himself. Yeah.

I mean, it's a good deal if you can get it. That's what I'm saying. It cost $250 million. It was pretty easy. He bought the government for what Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for. Think about that. Meta spent more on Instagram. I'd rather have the government. It's just like, straightforwardly, Instagram costs more money than the United States government. It's just,

What's our costs? 80 times what the government costs. I was going to say we have to take a break, but David has a section here labeled Deep Sigh, which is all just links about the Gulf of America. David, go ahead.

I just I did. So, OK, the short version of the story here is Donald Trump has decided that it's not the Gulf of Mexico. It's the it's the Gulf of America. And one by one, the mapping companies have have given in. And now on Google Maps, it's called the Gulf of America and Apple Maps is called the Gulf of America and Bing Maps, which kudos to the reporter who checked because no one in history has ever used. Actually, Tom checked and they had it labeled twice.

in like classic Bing Maps fashion. It's both? It was both for a minute and then it was Gulf of America twice and then they finally went just to Gulf of America. Yeah. So the one intern who maintains Bing Maps got it done. Lauren, I'm particularly curious about this because this is a thing that has been covered a bunch and it's been talked about a bunch and it like became a thing because Trump wouldn't allow the AP access because it kept calling it the Gulf of Mexico and not the Gulf of America. Like,

Part of me is like this is the stupidest sort of nadir of what's actually going on right now. But it also feels like this has become such a thing in the Trump administration in a way that I just cannot figure out.

I feel like it's just, you know, they're doing a lot of things that are very impactful, like dismantling entire agencies. And then they're also doing these things that are kind of like, all right, if you don't agree with it, I roll. But it doesn't really change all that much to change the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America. But it creates all of this like...

Just anger around it and, you know, all of this like distraction, I think, when we have, you know, a lot of other things going on. And I think it's just all part of this like flood the zone strategy. Yeah, that's fair. Like the who is it? Buddy Carter from Georgia who introduced the bill to rename Greenland to red, white and blue land.

Which is just, A, absurd, and B, like a terrible name. If you elect me to Congress, I will do shit like this every day. Do you understand? Vote Patel. I'm not running anywhere. I'm not even sure, you know, at this point, merely suggesting that I'm actually running for office might send me to jail. But if you send me America every day.

I'm not mad at some, some silliness and like, let's, let's make Fortnite the official video game of the United States Congress. Like require everyone. If, if, if instead of having, you know, the, the head of the secretary of defense pick anything, like just whoever wins Fortnite, they get, they get to choose. The Gulf of America thing, by the way, is very, it's very silly, but it's also like, you know, it's a Virgina's way because who gets to name things in Google maps is a somewhat open question, but,

Trump did issue an executive order instructing the mapping agencies in the United States to rename these things. That's where Google Maps follows the instructions. It's weird because some of them have geofenced it and some of them haven't. Yeah. So on some of these mapping platforms, only American users see Gulf of America and worldwide users see Gulf of Mexico. But the press doesn't have to follow those rules, right? It's just like the tech platform is like, whatever the government says, we just do the thing. Yeah.

You change it in the database. France is now called stupid. Like that's just the way they're going to do it. But it is, that in itself is a useful reminder of how all of this stuff actually works, right? Like we think of this stuff as sort of meaningfully authoritative in some way and it just isn't. It just isn't. It's just words in a database. But the press, like the AP, they're like, look, we also service customers in Mexico in our stories and they haven't changed it. So we're going to go with both.

or whatever is more clear. And that's weird, right? You it's, it's interesting to see that the press has a much more nuanced perspective of how to talk about things versus the tech platforms, which are kind of like, you can boss us around by just changing your databases.

I think that that also shows how, like, even though this is like, you know, kind of a silly, like, name change that's not going to impact a whole lot, it is also becoming a tool for the Trump administration to say, hey, AP, if you don't follow what we're saying, then we're going to not let you into the White House press room. By the way, today, just now, third day in a row, the White House barred the AP from attending an event because they won't capitulate.

There you go. Right. And that's just a straightforward First Amendment violation. Like, whatever you think about how silly this is, the government punishing an editorial outlet for their speech, straightforward First Amendment violation. Yeah. By the way, just in case you were wondering, MapQuest still calls it the Gulf of Mexico. Well, they're unnoticed now. Big ups for MapQuest. You know Brendan Carlisle since the show. What are you doing? He does. Even though I'm trying to get him to stop calling him up by name every week.

Look, it's a silly example, Lauren. I think I agree with you, but it's such a loyalty test now that it just every time. I don't know. I can't remember the last time they were in short about the Gulf of Mexico or the Gulf of America or whatever. But like editorially, we're going to say both because we have readers around the world and like not everyone has agreed with this like weird metaphysical name change. Maybe we're just going to start calling it the body of water in the middle of our countries.

Call it the Gulf. That won't confuse anybody. What could possibly go wrong? That's good. We're going to call it the Gulf. There are no other Gulfs. Yeah, it's just the one. All right. We got to take a break. Everyone take a breather. We got a lightning round coming up. Lauren, thank you so much for joining us. Thanks for having me. All right. We'll be right back. This episode is brought to you by Shopify.

Forget the frustration of picking commerce platforms when you switch your business to Shopify, the global commerce platform that supercharges your selling wherever you sell. With Shopify, you'll harness the same intuitive features, trusted apps, and powerful analytics used by the world's leading brands. Sign up today for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash tech, all lowercase. That's shopify.com slash tech.

Since you're new to H&R Block, we'll look at your returns from the last three years for any money your last guy might have missed, for free. I could get money back from last year? You could. We'll find any mistakes. Could have really used that two years ago when I dated that mistake for five months. Don't leave money on the table. Switch to H&R Block and get a free second look review. Second look is included at no additional cost with the purchase of tax preparation. Results vary. All tax situations are different. Fees apply if you have us file an amended return.

This episode is brought to you by Indeed. When your computer breaks, you don't wait for it to magically start working again. You fix the problem. So why wait to hire the people your company desperately needs? Use Indeed's sponsored jobs to hire top talent fast. And even better, you only pay for results. There's no need to wait. Speed up your hiring with a $75 sponsored job credit at indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply.

All right, we're back with the lighting round. Unsponsored, so extra spicy.

But I do want to begin with a bit of a palate cleanser in this lightning round. That was a lot of politics talk. Unsponsored for flavor, by the way, is a phrase a surprising number of people have sent to me over the last week. I still don't know what it means, but I like it. You said it. It means nothing, but I like it very much. It doesn't mean anything. If you sponsor us, you get no control. It remains as spicy as before, which I think, if you would like to give us money, is a reason to give us money.

Here's my ideas. I think we should make it like a skate shirt for unsponsored skaters who are like, I'm too cool to be sponsored. And you just say unsponsored for flavor. That's my idea. Yeah. It's going to be great. Verge merch coming soon. As esoteric and incomprehensible as ever. Exactly. But yeah, we have some gadget news. There's gadget news. Hooray. And in my mind, very important gadget news, which is there's a rumor that

Pretty sketchy rumor, actually, that the Apple Studio Display 2 will have proper mini LED backlighting. This is what you want to start with? There's nothing more important in my life than the fact that buying a 27-inch 5K monitor right now is a nightmare. It's like...

willingly being mugged. That's the only way you can describe this. Especially if you're me and you've got two old 27 inch IMAX line around and you really want to retrofit them into being monitors, but you've watched too many videos of people shattering the glass in the front, trying to, trying to open them up. Every day I look at one, I'm like, I'm going to screw this up so bad, but we're one day I'm going to gin myself into doing it. So I it's, I I'm going to, I'm, I'm going to buy a Mac mini. I've convinced myself I'm going to buy an M4 Mac mini and

And then you're like, I got to buy a display. And I've been staring at 27 inch iMac for years, a decade. So not compromising, right? I want a 27 inch 5K display. And the only thing that makes any sense is the Apple Studio display, $1,500 for exactly the same panel I'm looking at now. The worst. There's the Samsung Rift, which is worse. Like it just doesn't work with macOS as well. Medium reviews. There's a BenQ. Yeah.

And they're all kind of the same money, right? They're winning a couple hundred dollars each other. You get a Vision Pro and have a really huge monitor. You can get a Vision Pro. There's a bunch of Chinese companies now that are like, they're taking the rejected LG 5K panels that Apple and others won't use and putting them in really nice cases and selling them for like 800 bucks. But then that's a crapshoot. That's the one I'm going to end up buying. It's, I mean, I've come so close. All of them are the same, like,

you know, badly backlit bleed, no black levels, ancient panel, like led LCD panel. Like it's the same panel from a decade ago, fundamentally. So if Apple puts mini led backlighting in it and it like is good, like the same way that the Mac book display is good. I'm in baby. Let's go. I mean, you listen to me, Tim cook. I know Brendan car listens. I don't know if Tim I'm looking at you, buddy. Mac mini plus studio display is,

Is is is the jam like that's a pretty good. It doesn't save you any money over any of the other things you could do, but it is a kick ass combination of things.

I would be excited about it. I still think that thing is preposterously expensive and will continue to be preposterously expensive. But if it was preposterously expensive and also like bleeding edge technology. Totally. But it's a 10 year old panel. If I could just gin up the courage and literally mean gin up, like drink enough gin to have the courage to take a razor blade to one of my old IMAX and then be fine when I inevitably shatter the screen, I would do it. But I, yeah, I don't like gin.

It just, it's like drinking a tree. That is the main problem. Yeah. Famously. That's what I've been saying all along. Yeah. And bourbon is no kind of juice to be drinking when you're doing computer work. Absolutely not. Slurring, you're mad, belligerent. Okay, so for the rest of us here in the real world, though, the other Apple rumor, and I would say this has graduated beyond rumor and is more like thing that is going to happen next week. Tim Cook,

posted get ready to meet the newest member of the family just posted that on x with a really like air tag looking apple logo which was weird but the overwhelming theory is that that's going to be the new iphone se um i would like to be on the record of saying no one cares the iphone se is the phone that everyone talks about the most and absolutely no one buys

It's like the overwhelming truth about these devices. Everybody says they want the tiny iPhone. And then Apple's like, here's a tiny iPhone and no one buys it.

This is just what happens. Well, a lot of people buy the iPhone SE. Do they? They do keep making, because it's the cheap one. And really the problem with the iPhone SE right now is it's the last one with the button. Yeah. So if they add Face ID to it, then it will kind of look like a more expensive one. Oh, that's an interesting point. Yeah, the rumor is bigger screen, no button, Face ID. So it would just be a cheaper regular iPhone, which is odd because at some point...

Is the SE just going to be a rebadged version of like the two generations ago iPhone? And if so, what is the point? That's all it ever is. And they'll increase the RAM so that you can do Apple intelligence. Right. Extraordinarily useful. Everyone loves it. Apple intelligence. Yeah, right. It's just it's it's just a way to sell you a cheaper, older phone as if it's a new phone, which is like, I don't know, strikes me as probably smart on Apple's part, but it's so calculated. I just I don't like it.

It's funny that you led into this being like the thing that everyone actually cares about. And now you're like, this is garbage. Get out of my face. I'm telling you the studio display too with mini LED. This is a blockbuster product. Blockbuster. Like it's lines around the corner. Do you think the camera's still going to suck? I don't care. I put tape over that camera anyway. Because I use a ZV-1 as a webcam. So I don't want to get confused. That's fair. It doesn't matter to me. I just want a great...

If you can think of a better way to get a 27 inch 5K display, I think what I'm going to do now is I'm going to buy the M4 Mac mini. I'll buy a super cheap garbage monitor. So just hold me over until the studio display 2 comes out. Or I'm going to take a right. I'm going to lick her up and take a razor blade. I think it's time for the razor blade. I think we're going to, you got to turn on the ZV-1. You got to point it at the iMac. And listen, if you destroy it, it's good content.

No, it's not. It's great content because you'll get injured and it'll be so funny. This is great. YouTube wants blood is what you're saying. Yeah, pretty much. All right. This is one of my favorite stories of the week because it's so silly. So Jeep is in turmoil. Stellantis is in turmoil as a car company.

Their products got too expensive. They forgot to make new products. Like they were just like, what if we didn't make new Chryslers for 10 years? And they're like, crap, we make the same minivan and no other cars. Weird, just a weird way to run a company. And then they were like, what if we made $100,000 Jeep Grand Wagoneers? And everyone was like, why? And they're like, we don't know why.

company in crisis. So now they're going to roll out some new EVs. We've got the new Wagoneer S, which is slowly rolling out to dealerships. People like it. They don't like it. There's some bad YouTuber reviews. We'll see. They're going to launch the new thing called the Recon EV, which is basically an EV version of the Jeep Wrangler, which I think might be cool. Like maybe where you can take the doors off. It might be great. Yeah. If it has the same weird problems as a Wagoneer S, we'll see. But then on top of this,

They're doing the thing that every car maker has threatened to do for so long and just hasn't done. They're putting ads in the infotainment, like real ads. Like every time you stop a car running, you connect for, uh,

A pop-up comes up that says, do you want to buy the extended warranty? Are you serious? Like full screen. That's like a bit from a movie. Like every time you stop the car. Oh my God. It's very bad. People hate it. It says purchase peace of mind. And it says you can call to purchase a FlexCare extended premium plan if you have less than $36,000. Which the car should know, by the way.

Yeah. And then if you just clicked X to close, it comes back the next time you stop it. This is obviously some kind of weird bug, but it's obviously also a deal with both the insurance company with like Sirius XM, which runs the thing. This is a nightmare. Like this is how you destroy your brand for good.

Yeah, that's literally like dystopian stuff. Like you're going to show me ads every time my car comes to a complete stop is horrifying. Yeah. And it's an ad for, of all things, an extended warranty on the car that you're in. Like the classic scam. Yeah. Don't do this. Our Jeep hasn't done it because we were running Uconnect 5, which is like the Android one. I don't know if all of them are going to start to do it. The second that happens, I'm getting rid of this car. Yeah. I actually think it, I sort of hope that,

Some company does it just to test people's resolve against it. Because I think like this question of how invasive can we be before people will revolt is,

we've spent a long time testing that as a, like the tech industry has poked at that for a long time and has found over and over that it can kind of get away with most things. I think we're going to show you an ad every time the car stops, people will just set their cars on fire and walk away. Like, I think that's a real, that, that would do it. And I am sort of hoping somebody actually test that theory.

Stellantis, by the way, confirmed this is happening. They say it's a glitch. They quote attributed a persistent nature of the ad to a temporary software glitch that affected the opt out functionality in certain cases. It has been identified and corrected, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So here's what you're seeing. They're building an opt out system for in-car advertising that went haywire and showing ads to everybody because they're going to build an advertising system. It's going to show you ads in their car. Yup. It's not great. No.

This is the weird future. This is why I drive a 1976 Chevy Chevelle. I don't even know if that's a real car, but it'd be cool if it did. Sounds sick. It does, doesn't it? This is why we're going to split a 2001 Escalade, and that's going to be both of our cars forever. You know, prices on those 2001 Escalades have gone shockingly high since the pandemic. They're sick cars, though. All right. It's time now for our weekly segment, surprisingly popular.

Brendan Carr is a dummy. People are saying it's America's greatest meta podcast. The podcast within a podcast. When I say there's now a non-zero chance that I'm going to jail for being the enemy chief of the Verge, what I mean specifically is FCC Chairman Brendan Carr might abuse the power of the state to imprison me. And I'm daring him to do it

Uh, cause I will grift off of that happening for the rest of my life. And my children will live in opulence and splendor. If you do it, bring it on. Yeah. Like, do you want to double the Neely's speaking fee for the rest of his career? Like let's go Brendan Carr. I'm ready. Bring it on. You big nerd. Um, Brendan Carr is chairman of FCC. He used to be a regular lawyer. We did an entire decoder about him with Matt Wood. It was the general counsel at free press, not the Barry Weiss publication, but free press, the first amendment advocacy shop. We've been around for 20 years. Um,

He used to be just like a regular conservative lawyer man, like a gray suit, kind of unstylish, big nerd. Now he's a monster, like an anti-free speech monster. He's filed all kinds of investigations against all kinds of broadcast outlets because the FCC regulates the airwaves. He has these ideas about what you should do with those airwaves, which is basically only praise Donald Trump.

and not criticize him or not do anything that could be even perceived as criticism of him. That's a straightforward first amendment violation from Brendan Carr, a first amendment nightmare sensor in chief. He also has big ideas about regulating the internet itself, the content on the internet by reinterpreting section two 30, by issuing just a, a letter and like an agency reinterpretation of the law, which would run straight into Elon Musk's idea about agency regulations, by the way, not a lot of coherency in the Trump administration, but,

But that's his idea. But there is a lot of yelling. Like the one thing they all have in common is everybody is yelling and it kind of works. Right. And the idea here is you create a chilling effect, right? You don't know if the government will punish you for your speech because they keep threatening everyone with various punishments that may or may not be legal or may or may not be effective. But you don't want to get caught up in the hassle. So you just do what they say.

That's bad that there's a long history of first amendment cases where the chilling effect from the government is the problem, not the actual government speech regulation. That's Brendan. Brendan loves this stuff. He loves the chilling effect. There's reporting this week in the daily beast that he's quote, having the time of his life, threatening media organizations in this way. I know that that's true because he retweeted that story and said, if you have a job you love, you'll never work a day in your life. Yeah. Yeah.

If you are an unelected and frankly unstylish government bureaucrat, you should not be bragging about how you're having fun threatening the media. Straightforward. I do not care if you're a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian, a raging socialist, whatever. You should not be in the government, unelected, elected, whatever. You should not be a member of the United States government bragging about how much fun you're having threatening the media. It's wrong. It's like anti-American. This man is a traitor to our Constitution.

I can't say it more plainly than that. He's also, I want to make this clear, kind of an idiot. I mean, this segment is called Brendan Carr is a dummy on purpose. Right. Like his positions don't have ideological coherency. They have one point, which is to threaten people for their speech using the tools that he has. And he's wrapping it up in the language of defending free speech, right? He's sending letters to social media platforms, which he does not have the power to regulate, threatening them over their fact-checking.

Because something, something section 230, which he will something, something reinterpret with some kind of letter using some kind of power he doesn't have. Completely inconsistent. Brendan Carr, completely inconsistent. Dumb. He's the person who is like, I'm getting rid of net neutrality and I will disclaim this agency's power to regulate ISPs in this country in any way, shape or form. So he's given away his power. He's saying we will not regulate ISPs.

We don't have the power to regulate broadband or broadband pricing or collusion or throttling or blocking or any of this stuff that ISPs can do. But I will step through the ISP and directly regulate the content on Instagram. Weird. Ideologically completely incoherent. Yeah, but I don't... The coherence is not the point, right? Like, it's not... It's just yelling. The goal is to yell. And you're gonna... He's winning a lot. Like, the pushback has been...

I would say muted in so many ways. And he's been pretty straightforward about what he's trying to do here, which is go after anyone who seems to be on the other side of Donald Trump. Yep. And then so then this week, his latest broadside, he has said he will investigate Comcast, the big ISP that owns NBC, for its DEI policies in order to root out invidious forms of discrimination.

Disclosure, NBCUniversal, which is run by Comcast, is an investor in Vox Media, which is a Virgins parent company. They hate me. Comcast does not like me. We have written endlessly about how Comcast is a bad company that has not supported net neutrality, that has done bad pricing schemes, is a regional monopoly company.

It is insane for the government to threaten the speech of Comcast because it has some DEI employment policies because it is trying very hard to make sure its workforce is diverse. Comcast as a cable company is not really an information provider, right? We don't want them to be an information provider. They're a physical plant company. They run wires in the ground. They send out installers and texts and service people. They run customer service lines, pointblank.

And poorly, again, this is not a company that like we cover, like they're great. And they're not a company that likes me, even though NBC is an investment box. Like there's nothing to do with us. That's the other side of the house. But I'm saying this because you're looking at an employer of a physical plant, like wires in the ground, service people on trucks, customer service, people taking calls and to say that they can't try to diversify that workforce.

which is about as blue collar of a workforce as you can get right now, is nuts. Like, and Brendan is saying, I'm looking for signs that your initiatives have violated federal employment law. I expect this investigation in Comcast and its NBC Universal operations will aid the commission's broader efforts to root out NVIDIA's forms of DEI discrimination across all sectors the FCC regulates. Well, they don't regulate the ISP.

Specifically, they have disclaimed the power to regulate the ISP. Right. Hidden inside of that is is is a declaration of power over this stuff. Yep. So I'm just saying it's it's logically incoherent. It truly if you just look at all the things they say, they don't add up into a consistent worldview, except we have power and we're going to use it. And specifically, we will use it if we don't like your speech.

Brendan, I know you listen. I know you get weird Google readouts of every time we mention your name, you are more than welcome to come on decoder and defend this stuff. I think it is traitorous. Like it is, it is such an affront to the first amendment. I think you should have to answer for it in that framework. And you are welcome to come on our show and try to defend it. But until then, I'm gonna call you a dummy every single week until you put me in jail and make me a rich man because of it. There we go. Put that on a t-shirt.

furious, furious about it. Again, I don't care about your politics. The government threatening speech in this way is over the line. All right, we're going to end with some gadgets. David has a bunch of gadgets. He's like, we organized this to have a gadget palate cleanser at the end. Yeah, there's a, there's just a, you know, we like to keep your blood pressure sort of at a normal level and we let it get high and then we bring it back down. So,

two interesting streaming-y things this week. One is that Apple TV Plus is out now on Android, which is kind of a huge deal. Apparently it's a really good app. Yeah, I haven't actually used it on Android. I saw Dan Seifert, who, you know, he was our crankiest reviewer here at The Verge, and now he works at Google, was like, this is a really good Android app.

That's great. Yeah, it works on foldable phones. It works on tablets. It's like Apple seems to have actually kind of done the thing. Interesting moment for Apple TV because A, there's an MLS season about to start and Apple is very bought into making the MLS a success. I think that's gone pretty well for Apple and this is going to be a big year for Apple. I presume

Presumably this is the last we will see of Lionel Messi. It's going to be a whole thing. So I think we're going to see a lot of Apple soccer stuff this year. But also Severance is back and is probably, it's either the biggest or second biggest cultural event Apple TV Plus has pulled off next to Ted Lasso. And you can see Apple is trying to make something out of this into like- I actually think that Apple trying to make Severance a hit

is it's wonderful because severance is such a weird and inaccessible show. Yes. Like it is such a weird, slow, quiet. Yeah. Right. It's, and it's, it's, it's a puzzle box and it's like,

Apple's like, screw it. We're going to make this one a hit. To be clear, it's fabulous and everybody should watch it. But it is a very funny one for Apple to have latched onto this way. Yeah. And I get it. Ben Stiller's directing it. It's got stars. I understand all of it. But it's such a weird show for Apple to be like, this is a hit. It's also like a little bit about how bad a company Apple is. It's very good. Steve Jobs, Keurigan, like...

It's pretty close. No, yeah. Yeah. But anyway, if you're not watching Severance, you should, and now you can on Android, which is interesting because,

next to a bit of uh youtube news which is that tvs are now the biggest platform for youtube more people are watching youtube on their televisions than on their phones for the first time ever on youtube youtube has been talking about how uh tv is its fastest growing platform for like forever like i make fun of youtube executives every time i talk to them about this because it's just the stat that they have used in every press release for like a decade uh

But I think this is a meaningful moment. We've talked a lot about how Netflix and YouTube are kind of running at and past each other in some really interesting ways. YouTube is just winning. Like, imagine a fight that there is and YouTube is winning it. And it's it's blowing up in podcasts. It's hugely important as an entertainment platform for like high end entertainment. YouTube TV is the biggest name in its category at this point. But the middle one, I don't buy. It's

high-end entertainment on YouTube? It's not winning, but like YouTube primetime channels is a thing. Warner Brothers dumped all the movies onto it. Like it's a, it's a place for like capital H Hollywood content now in a pretty real way. Um, and now there is this thing that they're like, actually TVs, big screens are bigger than phones for YouTube, which is just kind of a wild thing that I never thought would come true.

It's interesting. I wonder if that is at the expense of phones or if it's at the expense of computers, right? Probably some of both. Are people choosing to watch YouTube on their TVs because they're no longer watching it on their laptops or their desktops or whatever? Or is it because they come home at night and they were going to watch something and they would rather scroll TikTok on their phone while something's on TV and YouTube happens to be there? I think there is a lot of that. I mean, we've definitely heard a lot about like,

YouTube has gone from sort of a second screen phenomenon to a first screen phenomenon in a way that I think TikTok is like a second screen phenomenon. Like you put on The Office sort of quietly while you look at TikTok on your phone. Like YouTube has become The Office, which like is good and bad, I suppose. But it is like...

it is a living room platform now in a really interesting way. And they've been chasing that with product stuff. Like they're working with creators to turn things into like seasons and they're doing the deals with the Hollywood studios and stuff. So I think my guess is this push from YouTube to do more subscription based stuff, do more like high production value stuff, which is the thing YouTube is kind of,

intermittently done over the years. They had that like YouTube Originals thing a million years ago with Jay-Z that didn't work and they've poked at this before but I think this thing where YouTube is going to try to become a high-end streaming service on top of everything else I think is only going to accelerate because of all this. Because now like I sit down and I open the YouTube app on my TV is a

default behavior for people. Clearly, like it's a, it's a meaningful thing. And that once you have that, you can do anything you want, right? Like that's what's worked for Netflix. It's funny because I have all of YouTube's personalization turned off. And so I opened that up in my TV and it's like, please turn the personalization. Like, it's like begging you. It's like, we're so useless unless you let us track everything you watch. I'm like, well, that sucks for you. You just get that empty home screen where they're like, we don't know. It's your fault. It is a delight. It's so funny that they won't populate it anyway.

Like it's, they've actively made it worse so that you will be compelled to turn on the personal. And I'm like, no, if you want to put stuff here, you're more than welcome to put stuff here. You know, thank you, sir.

Yeah, it's good stuff. YouTube is like sneakily a very petty platform in that way. And I really enjoy that about YouTube. Two more gadgets. One, Allison reviewed the Samsung Galaxy S25 and S25+. We talked a bunch about the Ultra when she reviewed it. It turns out, imagine...

Last year's Samsung phone. You did it. And I think it's inspired a bunch of conversation about sort of what we want from our smartphones now. And I think my thesis with this has been that we're going to have a year full of really uninteresting smartphone launches and that maybe that's okay. And that maybe we have just fully hit the point where these things are in a meaningful way finished. Like we have done it

They are what they are, and we're all going to kind of move on with our lives. And everybody will pivot to the next thing. And maybe that's okay. Like, we had a damn near two decades of smartphones being really interesting, and maybe they just won't be ever again. And maybe that's fine. Yeah. Do you think the next thing is the AI hype gadget? Do you think the next thing is a foldable? What do you think? What's your bet? That's a really interesting question. I do think there's a lot of people betting on, well, if you just talk to phones...

Right. The AI will read. Yeah. You'll rethink the form factor.

I think there's probably a little bit of that. I think, I think we're due for a really interesting run of wearable design. Uh, I think this, this idea that we just landed on smartwatches and that was fine and we fixed it is not correct. And I'm, I'm already starting to see glimmers from people about like, obviously there's glasses happening, but like, I think rings are going to be more interesting than we have realized so far. There's actually like kind of a lot you can do there. Uh,

Meta is going to roll out its weird wristband thing at some point. Like there's going to be stuff on your body that I think people are going to start to mess with like headphones. There's a lot of interesting stuff you can do in headphones that we haven't done yet. That's that's my theory is that we're going to we're going to I don't know if any of it will amount to anything.

But like that's going to be the next place we do real. I think like gadget experimentation is kind of wearables of all sorts, which I'm all for. Like let the smartphone in my pocket just be a modem for all the wearables on my body. And I'm down. I love it. This really implies that Bluetooth is going to be better next year. I'm just saying. Bluetooth is fine. You're making a bet.

I look forward to, at some point, just spending an hour debating the merits of Bluetooth. And it's going to be you being very upset and me just being like, I'm using Bluetooth headphones right now. I'm going to win this argument right now. The next gadget on your list, you're wearing them right now. I am wearing them right now. Involve a custom proprietary riff on Bluetooth so that they can be good.

Yeah. So the, it's the, the beats power beats pro two, a great name, but it's fine. They came out this week. Chris Welch wrote about them. V song reviewed them. They're cool. Like their stick is basically their, their workout AirPods. They have the, the ear hook, uh,

that people really like. I really like it. It's just they're more secure in your ears than AirPods are for that reason. They have heart rate tracking in the headphones, which I think is cool. This is what I mean by there's more stuff you can do in headphones. They're starting to do some of that biometric stuff. I went to Target this morning to buy a pair. I had to explain to the guy that these things had launched today and they existed and that I wanted them. I bought the quicksand color. Ooh.

Which is fine. I was going to buy orange, but then I was like, I'm going to get orange and then I'm going to get on video calls and I'm going to have to explain my headphones every single time. And I just wasn't ready for that. But I think for like 250 bucks, these are pretty good headphones. But your point is exactly correct that the specific reason they are good and the specific reason that I bought them is because they're not just Bluetooth. Right.

They have the H2 chip, which lets it do some really good like multipoint stuff. It makes the connection better. It's just it is better than Bluetooth because it is allowed to be and because only Apple is allowed to do these things inside of its ecosystem. But like I am currently connected to my iPhone, my computer and my iPad on my headphones. And that is cool. And that is not good Bluetooth. It just doesn't work.

I have some breaking news for you, David. Do you? The Verge was just nominated for the National Magazine Award for General Excellence. It's the National Geographic's New York, the New Yorker ProPublica, and the Verge. Hell yeah. And also, 2004 was nominated for the National Magazine Award for Single Topic Issue. Booyah. That's pretty exciting. That's awesome.

I do like the idea that one day we'll win this national magazine award for journal excellence. You have to beat New York and the New Yorker every year. I think they get nominated every year. What is it? It's New York, New Yorker, Atlantic and New York Times. Atlantic is not nominated this year. I know, but those are like the four that just tend to pass it around between each other, right? Yep. Yeah. This is our shot. I love it. I'm ready. We're coming for you, Nat Geo.

Our sister publication at New York Magazine. We're coming for you. David Haskell and I are going to have to lock eyes in the office when we walk past each other. All right, your headphones are fine. Now I'm in a good mood because we got nominated for the National Magazine Award.

There we go. Breaking news. I literally got the email. I stopped listening to you because I saw this email. I apologize. We could all tell you stopped listening to me. It's fine. But it's good. It saves us all from yet another Bluetooth rant. So thank you to the Azmis for doing this for us. Look, if I get this award before I go to jail, you know, that'd be pretty good. Just say it to the committee. I think that'd be pretty good. Love it. All right. We got to take a break. We'll be back next week. Every week, whether we're incarcerated or not. That's the worst test. I don't know.

And that's it for The Verge Cast this week. And hey, we'd love to hear from you. Give us a call at 866-VERGE-11. The Verge Cast is a production of The Verge and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Our show is produced by Will Poore, Eric Gomez, and Brandon Kiefer. And that's it. We'll see you next week. ♪