Can Musk Get Trump Elected? + Steve Ballmer’s Quest for the Facts + This Week in A.I.
01:08:34 Share

This podcast is supported by KPMG. Your task as a visionary leader is simple. Harness the power of AI. Shape the future of business. Oh, and do it before anyone else does without leaving people behind or running into unforeseen risks.

Simple, right? KPMG's got you. Helping you lead a people-powered transformation that accelerates AI's value with confidence. How's that for a vision? Learn more at www.kpmg.us.ai. Oh, did you see that Mark Zuckerberg made a statue of his wife? I did see that. I didn't know how to feel about it. Because the thing is...

you know, if my husband did that for me, I would say, thank you, honey. Like, that's very sweet. On the other hand, it feels weird being like sort of essentially asked to evaluate the statue of someone else's spouse. You know? It's like, whatever you hope to get out of this, I hope you got out of it. That was my feeling. You know? My feeling is we should raise people's taxes. I mean, this is...

If you're building statues of your wife, you could be funding schools. How much did he take a statue cost? I bet you could do it for under 10K. Yeah, with like a 3D printer. Now, I assume he spent more than that. Because it was a very like... I mean, the statue was beautiful. It had like sort of mixed... Yes. You know, there was colors. And he said he was trying to bring back the Roman tradition of making statues of your wife. Which we all remember, of course. Of course. If you were a Roman and you didn't have a statue... The wife guys in ancient Rome...

We're constantly just chiseling into marble. Yeah, today, you know, if you're a wife guy, you post about her on a social network. In Roman times, you built a damn statue. It's true. Something to think about. If I made a statue of myself and gave it to you, would you put it in your house? No, and for this reason, you are not my wife. I don't care. Just because we've been doing a podcast for two years.

I'm Kevin Russo, tech columnist at The New York Times. I'm Casey Newton from Platformer. And this is Hard Fork. This week, Elon Musk is using X to try to win the election for Donald Trump. Is it working? Then, former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer stops by to discuss his effort to depolarize our politics using government data. And finally, what happened this week in AI? ♪

Well, Casey, the big news in tech this week was the budding bromance between Elon Musk and Donald Trump. The two men appeared together on a X Spaces conversation on Monday night. This was billed as a sort of friendly conversation between Donald Trump and one of his biggest campaign supporters. Did you listen? I listened to about four and a half minutes.

Yeah, I mean, I set up to listen. I cleared my calendar. I canceled my dinner plans. I was all ready. And then there were about 40 minutes where nothing was happening because they couldn't get the damn space to work. Yeah, and of course, this is not the first time this has happened. Something very similar happened when Ron DeSantis came on to announce his presidential campaign. The only difference this time was that this time around, Elon blamed the whole thing on a DDoS attack

which as far as we can determine did not actually happen. - I guess it's like theoretically possible that there was some DDoS attack, but there's no evidence that we know of for that. The Times has not been able to confirm that there was a DDoS attack. And The Verge actually talked to some ex-employees who said this was not a DDoS attack at all, but just sort of a normal tech glitch.

I think what they were facing was a distributed denial of competence within the ex-organization. But it did eventually get underway after the delay, and Elon Musk and Donald Trump talked for almost two hours about

lots of topics. They started off talking about the assassination attempt and just sort of retelling that story. They talked about climate, foreign policy, federal spending, immigration. Donald Trump praised Elon Musk for cutting the staff of Twitter when he took over the company. He called him the greatest cutter. Yeah.

They talked about closing the Department of Education. Elon Musk said that the nuclear bombs that went off during World War II actually weren't that bad because Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, still exist today. Oh, my. So overall, I would say a pretty rousing campaign appearance. Suffice to say, they've really honed in on the subjects that are most of interest to swing voters. Yeah.

Yeah. So today I want to talk about the alliance between Elon Musk and Donald Trump, less in the context of this one particular sort of glitchy campaign event and more sort of the overall picture of what it means. Because, you know, we should just

Keep in mind, this is not normal. It's totally unprecedented for a tech CEO to insert himself into a presidential race in the way that Elon Musk has this year. Like, obviously, we've had tech CEOs who have donated money to candidates or funded super PACs or, you know, endorsed, you know,

one party or another, but we've never had a tech CEO who just explicitly makes it his mission to get one specific politician elected and to use the technology product that he controls to do that. Yeah. And there is weirdly very little discussion about this. And I assume that because at this point, it just doesn't seem that surprising given what we know about Elon Musk, but it is absolutely true that we have just never seen the owner of a major social network before, uh,

essentially try to turn his entire business into a political project on behalf of one candidate. Yeah, and I think there were a lot of questions when Elon Musk took over Twitter. Like, how overtly is he going to try to use this platform as a megaphone for his own political views?

And I think we got the answer this week, which is extremely overtly right. He's not just hosting conversations with Republicans on X. He's promoting them. I frankly would not be surprised at this point if like you log into X on Election Day and there is a big banner at the top that just says go vote for Donald Trump. Yeah. So you wrote this week that you had a newsletter that had the title X is just a political project now. And.

I totally agree with that. I think it's obvious that Elon Musk no longer really views X as a financial investment or a business venture. Like this is a cultural project for him. He wants to get Donald Trump elected. He wants to undermine the legacy mainstream media. He wants to eradicate the woke mind virus. And he wants to use X as his primary means of doing all that. And

But instead of just talking about that, because I think that's sort of ground we've covered before, I want to talk about a follow-up question, which is,

If X is a political project, is it working? Is Elon Musk actually accomplishing what he wants by using his social media platform in this way? And if he's not, if he's not able to sort of steer the election the way he wants, does that tell us anything about the limits of tech power more broadly? I love this discussion. Let's get into it. So.

First of all, like, what do you think Elon Musk is after beyond just sort of electing Donald Trump? Like, what do you think his play is here? Because there's lots of theories about out there. You know, he's trying to, I don't know, get more government contracts. He's trying to cozy up to Trump in the hopes of, you know, making SpaceX more profitable and getting more more defense contracts and things like that.

But what do you think his motivation is?

the Biden administration basically from the beginning, right? Like, Musk has felt very slighted by Biden. Biden essentially never mentions Tesla when talking about, like, electric vehicle production in the United States. Like, Tesla hasn't been invited to certain events. And,

And so there's a bit of a grudge there. And yet Elon Musk needs the government because it is the government that is going to pay SpaceX to take these payloads into space, right? They're going to give subsidies to Tesla that are going to improve its balance sheet. So there actually are some pretty important reasons of rational self-interest for Elon Musk to want to kind of cozy up to the government.

What's interesting, though, is that this sort of thing is true for basically every titan of industry. If you're Mark Zuckerberg, you also need to have a good relationship with the government. If you're Satya Nadella, you need to have a good relationship with the government. And so what it is normal for these titans of industry to do is for them to hedge their bets and for them to give money to both parties and to say supportive noises about both candidates and to support whoever winds up being the winner.

The fact that Elon Musk has not done that, Kevin, I think suggests that this is not just about the money for him. So what is it about? So what it is about is his increasing turn toward the hard right. And one of the most fascinating aspects of this is that you can watch Musk's transformation in public life.

on X.com, on the former Twitter. You can go back to the beginning of his account and see his tweets. You can see the moments when he was posting about LGBT rights and bragging about Tesla's record with its LGBT employees. Talking about climate change and how important it is to move away from fossil fuels, things that would have been considered sort of left-wing positions back when he was making them. Yeah, but

Bit by bit, he gets a little bit more curious about the right. He decides that the Babylon Bee is hilarious, the sort of right-wing satire site. And he goes through some personal issues. Most prominently, his daughter transitioned.

And he took this incredibly hard, and it seemed to have really catalyzed his move toward the hard right. And when he says he wants to eradicate the woke mind virus, what I hear in that is a lot of grief about the fact that he has a trans child. Yeah. Yeah.

I think he's sort of long ago abandoned kind of rational self-interest. He is clearly emotionally invested in this. It's not just about making money for his companies. In fact, I think there are many ways in which buying Twitter and turning it into X has been bad for his companies. It's polarized the consumer base where, you know, now people who are liberals don't want to own Teslas because that's giving money to Elon Musk and they don't like his views on other subjects.

But I think if you had gone to me a couple years ago and told me that, like, a hard-right partisan billionaire is going to acquire a major social network and use it to sort of try to influence an American election—

I would have said that actually that has a pretty good chance of working because so much of our political discourse takes place online. The levers that you control as an owner of one of these platforms are vast. And I think I would have said like that's actually like a decent strategy. And yet if you look at what has happened since...

since Elon Musk took over X, I think there are ways in which it has made him and his views more prominent, but I also think there are ways that it has sort of failed to sort of catalyze support for Donald Trump. I mean, you don't see surging poll numbers for Trump after one of these appearances with Elon Musk. It doesn't seem to be, you know, making him the front runner, um,

in this matchup with Kamala Harris. And so I guess I'm just curious if you think the net effect of Elon Musk acquiring Twitter, turning it into this sort of broadcaster for right-wing views is having the effect he intended.

Well, I'm sure he wishes it were going better. But just to play devil's advocate here, let's talk through some of the ways in which if you're Elon Musk, you might think that this is going well. So Twitter was miraculous for a long time because it did feel like one of the few online places where the left and the right were talking to each other in public.

And not just any members of the left and right. We're talking about the leaders of the party, the elected officials, and even more miraculously, you have the entire press corps hanging out here all day. And so Twitter represented this incredible opportunity to set the narrative every single day.

And so if you're Elon Musk and you decide that you want to lean really hard into politics, it's hard to imagine a better lever that you could pull than something like that, right? Even owning a Fox News wouldn't give you that much leverage because Fox News is already only talking to the converted, right? Twitter represented a chance to do something differently.

So we're now almost two years into his reign over what is now called X.com. And in most ways, I think it's gone very terribly, except that a shocking number of the political reporters who were there in the Twitter days are still there on the X days. Right. And, you know, even folks like myself who won't ever post anything on X.com.

still do feel the need to check in with it, you know, most days, just to kind of get a flavor of what the people who are still there are talking about. So as he has moved it ever further to the right, as he has driven away so many users and advertisers, it remains true that it is still a potent megaphone to talk to certain audiences, and those are not just hard right audiences. Yeah, I agree with that. I think you're right that

X is not experiencing this mass exodus. There's still a lot of reporters, political elites, like people still try to get their message out on X. There's really no other sort of centralized gathering place that has gotten the kind of momentum that it has now.

And I really do think that has had an influence in sort of national political culture, right? I think a lot of the anti-woke backlash that we've seen over the past year or two has really been sort of catalyzed and has taken off on X before it has happened other places. I think, for example, that the sort of recent turn that we've talked about among tech billionaires towards supporting Trump, a lot of that

comes from the fact that they now have this app that they all spend a lot of time on where they can all sort of see each other. And it kind of creates the permission structure for them to say more incendiary things, to sort of align themselves with Trump in a way that they might not have felt comfortable doing in some previous incarnation of Twitter. So I do think Elon Musk owning X and sort of

veering it sharply to the right has had an effect on political discourse. But let's talk about the other side of this, because I think there is a real chance that Elon Musk owning Twitter and turning it into X is actually potentially

So maybe let's make that argument.

Fox News has a lot of influence. It does really set the agenda for the conservative movement. But the problem, particularly for Elon Musk, is it's really only talking to conservatives, right? And so the ability to influence outside of that sphere is just dramatically reduced.

So I think, you know, the question that might be worth asking is, if you're Elon Musk, you know, would there be a way to have the same influence over the same set of people without spending $44 billion on Twitter? And I think there probably was. Yeah. I mean, it makes me wonder if a better strategy for Elon Musk, if he really did want to sort of

turn the tide of politics in this country would have been to just do it in a much more subtle way, right? Instead of like coming out and saying, I endorse Trump, I'm going to host this conversation with him. Like we're going to make X the anti-woke social media platform. If you just kind of

Yeah.

Yeah. And that just makes me want to share a completely unrelated fact, Kevin, which is that ketamine abuse can lead to a loss of impulse control. So I've just been meaning to tell you that. And so I'm glad I was able to get that off my chest. One other thing that I'm curious about is whether you think that the sort of Elon Musk ownership of X is

has taken away one of the central claims that Republicans have made over the past few years, which is that social media companies are biased against them. Because I actually think this was a core part of the sort of

The right wing political message was that we are being suppressed and we are telling people these dangerous and uncomfortable truths that they're not hearing because the liberals in Silicon Valley are artificially suppressing shadow banning. I mean, how many times have we heard that claim from Republican leaders?

And I actually think the siege mentality that came out of that was useful for them politically. And now with Elon Musk owning X and using it to promote the Trump campaign and make his endorsements, I think that is just a much less potent message. Absolutely. And, you know, you really can't overstate the degree to which had Mark Zuckerberg invested

in 2020 had a friendly chat with Joe Biden and sent a push notification to every Facebook user saying, tune in now as Mark interviews Joe, Congress would have had an absolute meltdown, right? They had so many hearings based on these perceived slights of, why doesn't my account rank as high in search? Or,

you know, why when I click on the search, do you show me a Democrat when I'm a Republican? I mean, this was the level of discussion that was happening in Congress during the Trump administration. And now, because it's Elon, and because Republicans still control the House, it's like, yeah, no, that's just like, you know, bringing a little bit of balance into the equation, as I suspect what they would say. But you're right. It's

absolutely hypocritical. And I never want to hear about bias on social networks ever again. Yeah. John Herman had a good piece in New York Magazine this week about the sort of danger for the American right of becoming too online. Basically, this sort of phenomenon that often happens when people spend too much time on social media, where they kind of get trapped in this echo chamber. They start thinking in terms of posts and

And his point, which I also felt while I was listening to this Twitter space or this X space between Elon Musk and Donald Trump, was just like, these are people who have lost the ability to communicate outside their network of supporters. They don't really understand how to persuade people anymore. It's just, it's

It's all kind of this self-reinforcing spiral of people agreeing with each other, but not really being able to see how their arguments sound to people who are not already bought in. - So I agree with that, and yet I would also challenge the notion that anyone on this online right is trying to persuade me. I read these posts.

stuff all the time where I watch media where people are trying to persuade me of something. And it usually starts with trying to meet me where I'm at, trying to find a little bit of common ground, and then trying to move me a little bit away from that common ground toward the speaker's perspective. I never see any of that on the online right, right? With Elon from day one, it was, there is a mind virus that is destroying civilization. And if you don't get on board with me, civilization will end. That is Elon Musk's stated ideology.

That is not persuasive, unless you are the hardest court Elon Musk fan in the world and you decide to accept everything he says at face value. So yes, the right is online, and I do not see any real efforts at persuasion taking place. Yeah. I mean, we should also just say, like,

Elon Musk is not just hosting X spaces with Donald Trump. He's not just endorsing him on social media and making his platform friendlier to the sort of pro-Trump right. He's also doing some more conventional electioneering. He helped start this thing called the America Podcast.

which is a pro-Trump super PAC. He's donating to that. He's also getting involved in some of their strategy. And the Wall Street Journal actually had some good reporting this week about his sort of influence and attempts to kind of make that super PAC more efficient. He has apparently blocked out an hour every Friday on his calendar for national politics. And he's getting sort of in the weeds of how the super PAC works. And we should maybe talk about

that too. Yeah. So he is very involved, Kevin, although, and this was my favorite part of the reporting. Less than three months into this effort, Musk signed off on firing most of the vendors, and then the super PAC decided to rehire one of them. Why is this funny to me? This is exactly what happened after he bought Twitter. He fired most of the employees, then they went out and rehired some of them. So there's just kind of a lot of chaos in here. But anyways, yeah. I mean,

Look, I think all of this is going to hinge on whether or not Donald Trump actually wins the election. We should say like it's still a very close race. And I think if, you know, if Elon Musk's all of his efforts, whether it's the super PAC, whether it's sort of tilting X to the right, if that results in, you know, a couple hundred thousand swing voters in these in these, you know, decisive states going for Donald Trump, that could mean the difference between him and getting elected or not.

But I think if Donald Trump is not able to win this election, despite sort of Elon Musk putting his thumb on the scale in such an obvious and ham-handed way, I think it should really make us question like how much power these platforms really have over our politics, right? There was this narrative before.

for years after 2016, that, you know, Facebook had been responsible and Twitter had been responsible for the way that those elections went. And I think there's some truth to that. Like those platforms were decisive in getting Donald Trump elected. But I think there is a lot has changed since 2016. And part of what has changed is just that these platforms may not have the kind of

in the political economy that they used to. It may not be possible to tip an election based on making some moves on a social platform. What do you make of that? It is a very different landscape than it used to be. The dynamics that made Twitter so important don't exist anymore. It has become more of this conservative echo chamber.

And then Meta has just de-emphasized news in general. So you're just much less likely to see a news link on Facebook than you would have been in 2016 or even 2020. And political news specifically. They do not want people to be discussing contentious political topics on their platforms. Well, what they've said is that if you don't follow someone, they're not going to inject that into your feed, right? And so, yeah.

For that reason, there's just sort of a lot less politics to go around. And I'm very curious to see what the impact of that will be. Yeah. I want to sort of caveat the discussion that we've just had by saying, like, I actually do think that

X is still an important platform for political conversation in the United States and abroad. I think that Elon Musk's power and influence have grown as a result of owning this platform. I do not think this has been bad for him personally,

But on this sort of narrow issue of like, is Donald Trump more likely to be elected because Elon Musk owns X? I'm not sure the answer is yes. Kevin, this is one where I disagree with you strongly. I think just the existence of Twitter has been catastrophic in the life of Elon Musk. And I think that in the alternate reality where Jack Dorsey's harebrained SMS-based status update scheme had not accidentally turned into, uh,

the global town square, Elon Musk would be a beloved character in American history by most partisans of every stripe. Well, Kevin, that's one way that a tech billionaire could try to influence the election. But coming up after the break, we're going to talk to another one, Steve Ballmer, and he's got a totally different approach.

Whether you're starting or scaling your company's security program, demonstrating top-notch security practices and establishing trust is more important than ever. Vanta automates compliance for SOC 2, ISO 27001, and more.

With Vanta, you can streamline security reviews by automating questionnaires and demonstrating your security posture with a customer-facing trust center. Over 7,000 global companies use Vanta to manage risk and prove security in real time. Get $1,000 off Vanta when you go to vanta.com slash hardfork. That's vanta.com slash hardfork for $1,000 off.

- Hello, this is Yuande Kamalefa from New York Times Cooking, and I'm sitting on a blanket with Melissa Clark. - And we're having a picnic using recipes that feature some of our favorite summer produce. Yuande, what'd you bring? - So this is a cucumber agua fresca. It's made with fresh cucumbers, ginger, and lime.

How did you get it so green? I kept the cucumber skins on and pureed the entire thing. It's really easy to put together and it's something that you can do in advance. Oh, it is so refreshing. What'd you bring, Melissa?

Well, strawberries are extra delicious this time of year, so I brought my little strawberry almond cakes. Oh, yum. I roast the strawberries before I mix them into the batter. It helps condense the berries' juices and stops them from leaking all over and getting the crumb too soft. Mmm. You get little pockets of concentrated strawberry flavor. That tastes amazing. Oh, thanks. New York Times Cooking has so many easy recipes to fit your summer plans. Find them all at NYTCooking.com. I have sticky strawberry juice all over my fingers.

Well, Kevin, I would say that today we get to talk to a bit of a legend in the world of tech. Well, you get to talk to a legend every week on this podcast. Oh, boy. Well, lucky me, because today it's two legends, because Steve Ballmer is here. Steve spent 34 years at Microsoft. He replaced Bill Gates as CEO in 2000 before passing the baton to Satya Nadella in 2014. Since then, I think he's probably best known as the owner-owner

USA Facts, and

And the idea is that they are going to take government data and try to make it understandable to everyone and create a kind of fact-based foundation for public conversation and debate around issues. Yeah, and I will say, like, when I heard that Steve Ballmer was involved in this new sort of

fact promotion venture. I was a little surprised because I've always known Steve Ballmer as a very passionate and outspoken person. There's this video of him giving a talk at a Microsoft conference years ago that's sort of become famous in tech circles. It's called the developers, developers, developers speech. You know, he's on stage and he's

He's shouting. I think it's fair to say. He's shouting. He's whipping the crowd into a frenzy. Yes. And he's pacing around the stage and he's shouting, developers, developers, developers. It's iconic. If you haven't seen it, go look it up. It's an amazing speech. But his new venture is very dispassionate, I would say. He is trying to basically just

give people facts about the government and about the economy and about various other topics and sort of hope that that will educate them and inform them and make them better citizens. Yeah, and so why is that interesting to us? Well, you know, we live in a time where increasingly and partly because of tech problems,

people are allowed to pick their own realities. You know, you pick a sort of partisan social network to hang out on. You pick a partisan cable news channel to get your news from. You pick other partisan media to kind of shape your reality, partisan influencers. And I think this kind of thing really frustrates Balmer because he's a tech guy. He was a CEO. He spent his entire career in meetings where people were showing him numbers

and he used those numbers to decide what is the best path forward. So USA Facts is his effort to bring a little bit of that CEO-inspired decision-making into American politics. Yeah, so I watched one of the Steve Ballmer videos that is coming out of this project, because the project is not new. He's been doing this since 2015. But

he did just start putting out a series of YouTube videos in which Steve Ballmer himself sort of appears on screen and basically gives like a little lecture about some part of the government, whether it's immigration or, you know, the state of the federal debt. He's just sort of patiently and calmly walking people through all the various information. And,

And I, you know, I watched one of these last night because I was like, I wonder what Steve Ballmer sounds like in this format. And it's very interesting. It's like a 13 and a half minute video that I watched about the federal budget and the deficit. And it's just, it's sort of like Wikipedia level sort of summaries of where the money goes in the federal government, how much goes to Medicare, how much goes to social security, how much goes to the military. It is

about as dry and neutral a presentation of the facts as possible. And it's just a very interesting contrast to people like Elon Musk, who've decided that the way that they're going to use their billions that they made in tech is by throwing their support behind one candidate or another. Steve Ballmer's basically saying, I'm

just going to give you the facts and let you guys sort it out. Yeah. And look, I'll say, I think that this, uh, this project, we might describe it as a bit quixotic, right? Like I think, you know, even several years into this, this thing hasn't caught fire yet. And I'm just so fascinated by the fact that we have this one very rich, very powerful person who rather than go the full Elon route said, I'm going to do something completely different. And it just really made me want to talk to him. Yeah. So let's go ahead and bring in Steve Ballmer.

Steve Ballmer, welcome to Hardfork. Thanks. Pleasure to be here. So after being CEO of Microsoft, you could have done just about anything. How did you get interested in the media ecosystem?

It's interesting that you call it the media ecosystem. I don't think of it that way. Interesting. But given that we write things and produce videos, I guess you could call it the media ecosystem. Now, when I retired from Microsoft, my wife said, you know, it's time, dude, you got to help with the family philanthropy. You know, I got it when you were out running Microsoft, but I've been plugging away. It's time for you to work.

So I said, eh, and she was focusing in kids and families where let's just say from the time of birth, the opportunity to move up economically is not that good. So what was my lazy ass response? It was, hey, government does that. Government pays for those things. Let's just pay our taxes and be happy about that and call it a day.

She said, uh-uh, uh-uh, uh-uh. And guess what? It was uh-uh. So I went to work with her on that. But I had one of those little spousal, eh, I'm going to see if I can prove I'm right. So I went online and tried to snoop around and figure out

really what was going on for wealth transfer, what the government was really doing, how to think about that. And it was a mess. It was a mess to do what I like to do, which is put together things holistically, you know, holistically, who pays taxes holistically, what is the money being spent on? And that set me out to, to try to work on that.

I thought we had some interesting stuff. So we said, hey, let's publish that. People were kind of interested. And we've been doing that now for, I started in 2015 and we're still plugging away.

So what I'm hearing is you go out and you get some data and you share it with folks and you know that different people are going to receive it. But the hope is maybe if we just sort of share some raw data, we can get some agreement. Maybe we can have sharper policy debates and that sort of thing. Like you said, you've been at this now for almost a decade. What's happened so far? How do you feel like that's going? I would say...

I am warmed by our progress and I am daunted.

By the progress I want to make. Look, we have kind of regularly, we're doing just over a million a month in terms of visits. It's not bad. But if you really want to educate people, we need to get to more people. And I want longer interactions. We're over 200,000 newsletter subscribers. Not bad. Not bad. Not bad. But when I think about, as I said, millions...

and I think about the kind of interaction that lets you be thoughtful, which takes a little longer, I am daunted and excited about the potential. So the thing that's new this year is that you're pivoting to video. Is that right? You're putting up videos on YouTube. Are you doing any other platforms? And I guess, is that born out of a feeling that you can just reach a bigger audience through video than you could through text? Or what prompted the shift?

Pivot sounds like we took a hard left and we'll only do videos. So I would call it additionally, if you will. And I'll tell you, this was really born in 1992.

I'm looking at you guys and saying you probably don't remember what I'm about to say, but that's okay. Casey's very old, so he was a teenager, but I was in grade school. I was in sixth grade. Okay. So here's the deal. 1992, Ross Perot, who had started a tech company called EDS, decides he's going to run for president as an independent. And Ross starts buying TV time.

And he does these little poster boards, almost like from science fair. And he's trying to explain government by these poster boards, by the numbers.

So this friend of mine who'd been kind of around the beginning of USA Facts, I'd known him since college, he and I have always admired the Perot poster boards. So he comes at me this year and said, come on, man, it's an election year. We should take a winger on this. Let's try to do the modern day equivalent of the poster boards.

Let's buy Remnant TV like Ross would have done and, you know, run 15-minute videos that, you know, really are comprehensible. People can watch on TV. We'll drive them to YouTube. Let's go do – I'm not running for anything, so I'm not Ross Perot to the max. Right.

But we said, you know, let's go. And so I'm heartened. We'll see how we do with the next four videos. And what do you want people to do with the information that they get from these videos? Is it about sort of sharing it with their friends? Is it about talking to their elected officials? Or what do you hope the effect is? Yes, yes. And voting. Let me just take immigration as an issue that we've already done. At the end of the day,

We're going to have some immigration. We are. Nobody would say not. So in a way, the question becomes how many immigrants, not I'm against it. I'm for it. I mean, that's kind of a silly discussion in my opinion. It's, hey, let's step back and think how much immigration do we want?

You know, with people who have what kind of labor skills and what really is accepting people who have pain in their home country. And let's make sure our systems line up with our strategy.

I mean, we're, you know, we have, uh, no, let me check the number. We have basically facts only please, Steve. Yeah, that's all. We have about 1.3 million people.

who were released or paroled into the United States, most of whom were seeking asylum. And I can't remember off the top of my head, but let's say it's 50,000 people who were granted asylum last year. And there's many people who have 10 years before they'll even get their asylum court case. This does not compute. If we want to bring in

You know, a certain number of people. Maybe we want to bring in two million without a path to citizenship. Another, you know, one point three million with a path to asylum, whatever it is. It's just numbers. And, you know, I don't some people may think are the number of immigrants we should let in is very small. Some people would think it's very large.

I don't think anybody thinks it's zero. So debate, debate to the facts. Yeah. Debate to the facts, not, you know, just, hey, I don't like it. Hey, I do build the wall. Don't build the wall. Tear the wall down. And I'm, I'm, I'm a, you know, sort of a nonpartisan complainer in that. Yeah.

The idea that you can change minds with data feels very tech-inspired to me. I can imagine that as a CEO, you were often shown data that changed your mind about what decision to make. Do you feel like this approach is inspired by the way you tried to run Microsoft? Yes, and...

Yeah, look, dudes, I was a math guy. Actually, in second grade, the math teacher told my parents that I was going to struggle in math. And so I studied all summer so that in third grade, I wouldn't be behind. But...

It turns out I like these numbers. I went to a math camp one summer. I went to a science camp one summer. I came into college saying, hey, I'm going to major in physics or math and math, math, math. So I have a long pre-CEO heritage of being a numbers lover and a math lover. And

I also think that's very helpful. I don't know how you'd be a CEO. You don't have to be me, a math camper, but I think it's very hard to be a CEO unless you're going to dig into some numbers. Yeah. Steve, I want to sort of interrogate your theory of change here because I think there's this idea that Casey just alluded to that sort of people change their minds based on the quality and the quantity of data that is available to them. Yeah.

And I know that's a very popular idea among sort of business leaders and people with experience running companies, but I don't feel that out in the culture. And, you know, take economic data, for example. That is a domain where we actually do have very good, reliable, high-quality government data. You know, we've got the Bureau of Labor Statistics that's constantly putting out reports in the Federal Reserve reporting.

When you ask people about the state of the economy, they don't cite that data. And in fact, they often get the data wrong. There was this survey that was done earlier this year by The Guardian where they basically asked people like, do you think the stock market is up or down this year? Are we in a recession or not?

And some huge percentage of Americans believe falsely that we are in a recession and also believe that the stock market is going down when it's actually going up. So I guess my question to you is, like, what makes you confident that telling people, hey, here are the numbers, look how well the economy is doing, here's the data that proves it, is actually going to change their minds or cause them to behave any differently? Yeah.

Remember, I'm not trying to change their minds. We are trying to educate. It's a little different. Do I fundamentally disagree with what you're saying? In a way, no. People will extrapolate from their personal experience. I'm also maybe not as aspirational as you guys would have me be. Let's say we could get 5 to 10 million people. We know there's about, what, 150 million, 160 million people who vote.

If we can get some people to ground that is bigger than a bread basket, but smaller than a refrigerator, as my mom used to say, if we can do that, I view that as successful. I mean, sometimes journalists try to do these sort of like very like fact heavy stories like, hey, you know, this is like we think it's like really important. And maybe it's not about a subject that you're super interested in, but we just think that you should know that. And we often call that

you know, making readers eat their vegetables. You know, it strikes me, your whole enterprise is about making people eat their vegetables. And my guess is you're not able to do a lot of clickbait, right? Like I went to your website, there are no headlines. It's like, you know, this one government statistic will absolutely shock you. But you've sort of given yourself, I feel like, a tough challenge just by the nature of how sort of rigorously neutral you're trying to be about everything.

My wife gives me, she says, look, what do you think we should do? People are interested. To which my response in this context has to be, could we do more? One of my dreams is eventually we'll figure out how to do a point counterpoint. We get people from both sides involved.

we'd kind of referee to anchor the thing in the numbers. So you get a little more pizzazz, a little bit more energy, but it's not our opinion. It's our holding people honest, but a little point counterpoint might give us, you know, it might make us, what shall I say?

More of the amuse-bouche. It's not exactly your dessert, man, but it wets your whistle. Look, there are places I think people do a pretty good job of this. Take The Economist. The Economist does a pretty good job, actually, on their charts and numbers, and they feature them. And for that reader, I don't think it feels like vegetables, but they, as you know, they have a very particular audience. Yeah.

I'm curious, Steve, there's been a lot of chatter this year about the sort of tech elite shifting toward Donald Trump and sort of becoming more activated on the right. We've seen a number of influential people in tech come out in support of him. I'm curious, what do you make of all the Trump-curious tech CEOs and power players out there? One question I'd throw out is, and let's go back pre-Trump.

Really? Was the tech industry all Democrats? The answer's no.

It's just everything wasn't so out there. Things were not so emotionally charged. I would say on balance, you would hear more from the sort of more de-partisan folks than the are partisan folks. But I know at Microsoft, we had people who were happy to welcome Republicans on campus to speak as well as Democrats to come on campus and speak.

So I don't think it's completely different. I'm not saying it's not different, but I don't think it's completely different from days past. It's just everything's more sensationalized. That's one thing. The second thing I'd say is, you know, tech CEOs are very business focused. And that means different things to different people. And both parties try to say things to appeal to various constituencies, for sure, but

Now I'll just be completely nonpartisan. During the Trump administration, corporate income taxes went down. That's a fact.

And not only did you see it in the rates, if you go, I mean, when people talk about tax rates, that's a little bit of BS. What you should really look at is total taxes paid because that's the reality. The rates are a tool to get there, but the rates don't always drive. And I could talk more about that, but revenue went down. Well, if you're a corporate CEO, you might say, hey, that's a good thing for my shareholders. So I salute that. I support that.

So there are issues, concrete issues in which, you know, I can understand why a CEO would say one thing or another, right?

Is that why the people who are most vocal are really speaking up, whether it's on the D side or the R side? I'm not sure that's why people are really speaking up. But, you know, we generally when I was at Microsoft, we avoid I avoided doing things that were political. But there were issues that were important to our employees.

We had an issue around gay marriage, I think it was. And there was a local pastor in Bellevue, Redmond, Washington, who was stirring that pot. And we stood for our employees on that issue. But it was an issue. It wasn't a partisan issue per se.

So, you know, this is a tech podcast, but I'm sure we have plenty of sports fans who listen to us as well, Kevin. And Steve, you own the Clippers and you have a new arena opening this week. We're talking to you the week that you're opening the Intuit Dome, this massive project in Inglewood. And so I guess I just wanted to know, like, are there cool tech things that you're doing in your new arena? Yeah.

I think very much so. Now, but I want to make a point. I said when we started this thing, which was also nine plus years ago, by the way, things take time. I said to the guy, look, you may think I'm a tech guy. So we just have to do tech because we have to do tech. And I said, that will never be the mindset of this project because you see that, oh, I've got to apply my background because my background's mine and I got to strut my stuff.

No, I said we're not going to do that. But as we got into things that we wanted to do, the tech got important. I'll give you two or three examples. First, the simplest example of all. We have an acre of scoreboard, the typical NBA scoreboard's 9,000 square feet. We did it all in 4K. We couldn't go 8K. I wanted 8K. I want to see the individual pores on the players' faces when I'm watching. Yeah.

You should come take a look. No, but there's a question. Is the display quality good enough for the long run? And so you get to, how does your eye see it from the distance? Remember, we're not as close up as somebody looking at their phone or computer. Okay. Then you go to, hey, I really want to reward people who get in their seat early. Well, how do we know who's in the building?

How do we reward them? How do we know if they're sitting down or not? During the game, we want to reward them if they're standing up and making noise. And so we went through all the things we would do from a tech perspective to do that. So we have a system built in place that down to the individual seat level, we can tell how noisy you are. We put proximity sensor into the seat so we can tell, are you there or are you not there?

We put power. We wound up running power to every seat so people could charge their devices. But as soon as you have power there, then you say, what else can we do with the power? So we put lighting into every seat that we can control. We put a mini controller, a four button controller in there so people can interact with the big board sense of community.

Once we had some of this stuff, huh, we have a huge screen out in our plaza, different screen. Let's get some digital art done. What does that look like? So actually the artist takes statistical data, including, for example, data on how our team played and then creates art.

using some AI techniques and some not to create the art that goes up digitally on the big board. So did we wind up with some things that people would consider technological?

I think the answer to that is yes. Steve, have you ever considered combining your two passions of owning the Clippers and government data and maybe having at the Clippers game instead of like the half court shot at halftime to win a car? Like you have to list three figures from the most recent Congressional Budget Office report and win a car like you could really have some synergy here. That's just a free idea. Yeah.

I'll consider doing that over 43,000 square feet with four buttons. Well, Steve, this has been fascinating. Thank you so much for coming on Hard Fork. I really appreciate it. It's been a lot of fun. You guys are great. All right. Thanks, Steve. Thanks very much. Bye-bye. When we come back, we'll tell you what happened that made one software engineer say, the entire night I was hearing the boop, boop, boop.

Welcome to the new era of PCs, supercharged by Snapdragon X Elite processors. Are you and your team overwhelmed by deadlines and deliverables? Copilot Plus PCs powered by Snapdragon will revolutionize your workflow. Experience best-in-class performance and efficiency with the new powerful NPU and two times the CPU cores, ensuring your team can not only do more, but achieve more. Enjoy groundbreaking multi-day battery life, built-in AI for next-level experiences, and enterprise chip-to-cloud security.

Give your team the power of limitless potential with Snapdragon. To learn more, visit qualcomm.com slash snapdragonhardfork.

Christine, have you ever bought something and thought, wow, this product actually made my life better? Totally. And usually I find those products through Wirecutter. Yeah, but you work here. We both do. We're the hosts of The Wirecutter Show from The New York Times. It's our job to research, test, and vet products and then recommend our favorites. We'll talk to members of our team of 140 journalists to bring you the very best product recommendations in every category that will actually make your life better. The Wirecutter Show, available wherever you get podcasts.

Okay, so you know what? I'm sort of sick of talking about politics this week. Oh, me too. I know. It's hard to escape because we are in an election year, but there is also a ton happening in the tech world. And so this week, I thought we should bring back a segment that we haven't done in a while. Let's do This Week in AI. Play the theme music. That was beautiful. Thank you. Yeah. Kevin, what's been happening this week in AI? Well, first up,

The AI industry calls for a pause in regulating AI. Oh, yeah. It's about time we stopped all of these onerous regulations that have been passed everywhere. I'm just kidding. There have not been any of those. Yes. But this week, the biggest story in Silicon Valley that people are talking about that is not the election is this thing called Senate Bill 1047. This is a bill that has been proposed in California, a state bill that

that is technically called the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act. And Casey, people are really upset about this. Yeah, this is one where rather than the federal government trying to set like one standard for AI across the country, California has come in as it often does and tried to offer a template for

And while I think sometimes those approaches have been very successful with things like auto emissions, this is one where basically every single company that works on AI says, this is terrible, please do not do this. Yeah, so this bill passed the California State Senate in May, and this week it's been making its way through the California State Assembly Appropriations Committee. The next step is it's now expected to go to the full assembly for a vote. So what's in this bill? So it's a long bill, it's got a lot in it, but basically it says that

If you are making what they call a frontier AI model, one of the most advanced AI models out there, you have to conduct safety testing on it. That is the biggest or central piece of this. You have to tell the government that you're doing this. You have to conduct safety testing before you release it to the public.

The bill also empowers the state attorney general to take legal action against AI companies if their AI tools cause what they call critical harms, which they define as things like a massive cyber attack that does a lot of damage or up to and including a mass casualty event. You could then be sued if you are an AI company who makes one of these models.

There's a lot more in there, but that's sort of the thing that got everyone in Silicon Valley's hackles up and made them want to oppose this bill. Yeah, and basically, like, it's a who's who of AI when it comes to who opposes this bill. So Meta, Google, OpenAI, Microsoft, and Anthropic all oppose it or have offered some lengthy proposed amendments. Y Combinator, the big startup accelerator here, released a letter from about 140 startups who opposed.

oppose this bill. On the other side, some of the godfathers of AI, including Jeff Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, do support it. So, Kevin, what do we think of California's effort to regulate AI here?

Yeah, I think that there's been a lot of kind of inflated and hyperbolic claims being made on both sides of the debate. But I think this is a really important conversation to have because I think everyone agrees that AI needs to be regulated. But then, you know, as soon as a bill comes along that would regulate AI, it's like, oh, well, not like that. We didn't mean it like that. I'm a little skeptical that any of this is going to actually reduce the harm risk from AI. I just don't think the regulators can move...

move fast enough to keep up with this technology. And so I think they're always going to be coming from behind a little bit. But what do you make of it? Well, my feeling about this is we had the Biden executive order last year, which attempts to do some of the same things. And so far, it seems like the AI industry has proceeded along without really hurting anyone too badly, except for all the copyright owners, of course.

My preference would be let the national government lead here. Like, I do not want a patchwork of 50 different state laws regulating AI. And I don't see any pressing need for California to pass this bill now because I'm still not sure what specific harm they think that it would address even within the next few years. Yeah, I would love to see more regulation around transparency when it comes to

how these models are trained, what data are they using, what is the pre-training process, the post-training process look like, how are they, what kinds of decisions are these companies making about what their models can and can't do. Like that's the kind of thing where I think regulators could actually

move the needle in the short term. But I think you're right. I mean, these harms, some of them are still very theoretical. I think that's actually not an argument against this bill. I think we should be trying to avoid harms before they happen. But I think in this country, the way that things usually go when it comes to regulating industries is that something terrible happens, and then we pass a bill to prevent it from happening again. I think the risk here that the AI safety folks are worried about is like,

They don't think we will have that luxury. They think there will basically be, these harms will arrive in some catastrophic form in the next few years, and we basically get one shot to stop them. And if we're late, then we're doomed. I respect the point of view. This is just not how I want to solve this problem right now. Yeah.

All right. What else is happening in AI this week, Kevin? Okay. Well, the second story from AI this week is that Humane's AI pin is the must-not-have gadget of the summer. This was a story, an amazing story, The Verge last week, which reported that Humane, who built this AI pin that was basically a kind of brazenly

brooch that you'd wear on your shirt or your jacket that would let you talk to AI and project a little laser screen. The Verge reported that while Humane had brought in $9 million in sales of their AI pin, they had had more than a million dollars worth of returns, and that between May and August, according to the internal sales data that the Verge got a hold of, more AI pins were returned than purchased. Casey, is that good? Yeah.

Well, Kevin, I'm no mathematician, but, uh, that does seem very bad and, uh, like a validation of what the critics were saying, unfortunately. Yeah. I mean, look, I think a lot of people wanted to try this thing out, right? There was kind of something cool and futuristic and sci-fi about it. And this is the great thing about early adopters. They will hand you $700 just to sort of, uh,

maybe have an experience of what the future will be like. It seems like Humane's return policy was maybe a little too generous. Because, you know, there's some things you can't return. You know, it's like, if you buy underwear at the department store, you can't actually return it. I wouldn't be surprised if Humane puts out another device if the return policy...

policy is it much more limited well and making things worse apparently according to the verge they can't humane can't actually do anything with the returned ai pins like they because there's some kind of limitation on the t-mobile contracts that are associated with these devices they can't just like refurbish them and and resell them to other customers it's just a a whole uh

you know, goat rodeo. I truly feel bad for these people. They were trying to do something new, a different cool. It's hard to do things that are new, different and cool. And they did talk a very big game. And the effect of talking to very big game is they create a lot of people who are rooting against them. And so now that it does seem like everything is falling apart, like, man, it just has to be rough days over at Humane.

All right, our next story from the Week in AI. GPT-4.0 is dead? Long live GPT-4.0! Oh my goodness, what's happening? Well, Casey, you will remember that several months ago, OpenAI released the new update to their flagship AI model. This was called GPT-4.0. Mm-hmm.

And this week we got the news that they have quietly updated the model behind ChatGPT, which is now called, and I promise I'm not kidding about this, ChatGPT 4.0-latest-2024-08-06. Wow, we're one step away from OpenAI releasing ChatGPT 4.0 final, final, final. Final, final, final. You used this one? Yeah.

It's so true. So they have officially taken over the title of the worst naming conventions for AI models, a title previously held by Google. Of course. But yeah, this is...

this is an update that they have made quietly. They did not draw a bunch of attention to this. And I think this was related to a sense that we've actually heard about from some of our listeners who have written in to say, hey, does anyone notice that ChatGPT has just gotten really bad recently? Do you hear this? Yes, people have written into us about this. And for me, it's always a hard question to gauge because I don't know what you're inputting. I don't know what output you're getting. I don't know what is making you say that it seems dumber. But the

fact that these models are just sort of like getting swapped in and out and like still have basically the same names they did before is obviously very confusing. You know, I mean, like, I feel like such a, like a, an AI hipster being, you know, like back in my day, these things were called GPT-2 and then GPT-3. And it was really easy for me to keep track of. Nowadays, it's like 4.0 is gone and it's being replaced by 4.0. You lost me. Yeah.

Yeah, and it also feels like, you know, release notes when they update an app, they'll say like bug fixes and improvements, and sometimes they'll have like a little list of things they fix. They never do that for these AI models. People just sort of notice, oh, this thing seems smarter than it was or dumber than it was. It's just kind of this like, we're like trying to understand this unanswerable thing.

As always, if you know what's going on at OpenAI, please get in touch. We're trying to figure it out. Have you been following the strawberry discourse? Yes, I have. My boyfriend is obsessed with strawberry discourse, so it's become a hot topic for us lately. Okay, I'm going to try to explain it to our listeners who are not as terminally online as you and your boyfriend and I are. But correct me if I'm getting something wrong here. So for, I would say, more than a year now, there's been this sort of

I don't know, cottage industry of kind of people proclaiming to have inside information from the big AI companies and specifically with OpenAI. There are these accounts on X that sort of purport to be insiders or people with access to unreleased models who will sort of give these like

vague, mysterious statements about like something big is coming, like no one's ready for what's about to hit the internet. - And there's this norm on X where if you're an AI person, you can have an anonymous account. And like some of those anonymous accounts have actually like gotten OpenAI's attention and those people have been hired into the company. And so whereas normally you'd see an anonymous account and you would think this is obviously fake, in this particular case, it actually could be real. - Totally.

What's been happening over the past week or two is Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, recently posted a photo on X of his garden.

or a garden with some strawberries growing in it. And the caption was, I love summer in the garden. Normal post. Seems like a pretty normal post. So the sort of AI movement went nuts over this. There was a theory that was being advanced by this anonymous account called I Rule the World that

that this was actually a clue that Sam Altman was dropping, that the company's newest, next flagship model, which is codenamed Strawberry, was about to come out, and that this was going to be AGI, and that the world was not ready for this.

And I Rule the World didn't just do that, right? They had a sort of very long post on X where they talked about it in somewhat like cryptic and, you know, I would say in comprehensible terms about what exactly was going on. But the gist was essentially AGI is very, very close to...

And I will just say, I have truly no idea what to make of any of this, except to say Sam Holtman did respond to this person on Twitter without really confirming anything, but in a way that I think did stoke a little bit of speculation that, well, maybe this person is onto something. - Well, totally, and he's also dropped breadcrumbs before. Like, remember before the demo of the AI voice mode, he posted her on X, and that was sort of a breadcrumb that they were going to be doing this voice update.

So like he is sort of fueling some of these theories in a way that I think he I think he's mostly just having fun. Yeah. But there is this weird community of like people on Reddit and X and other social platforms who are just like trying to decipher all of the clues and everything that Sam Altman says.

Which I do think just speaks to the fact that if you want to get people interested in your company these days, you have to create an alternate reality game where you're sort of putting clues around the internet and there's stuff for the Reddit posters to discuss and analyze and tease apart. So they've been very effective at that. And I guess we'll have to see if any of this is real. In the meantime, though, I do think that this works as psychological warfare against Sam's enemies because if you're working at Anthropic or Gemini and you're on X and you think...

wait a minute, are they about to do, it just sort of puts that little, you know, fear into the back of your head and it messes with you in a way that I think would greatly please Sam Altman. Yeah. Yeah. We need to start dropping some more like Easter eggs. Well, let me just drop an Easter egg right now, Kevin. Watermelon. And I'll say no more. I will say no more. But let me just say those who know, no. Yeah. If you know, you know. You know. Yeah.

All right. Before we move on to our next item, here's our standard disclaimer that the lawyers want us to make every time we mention OpenAI, which is that the New York Times company has sued OpenAI for copyright infringement. And Platformer has not. And that's the difference between the two publications. Watermelon. Watermelon. Period.

Okay, next story. This week in AI, Donald Trump is accusing Kamala Harris of deepfakery. So this was a story that went around this week. Donald Trump claimed falsely that Kamala Harris has used AI to make the size of the crowds at one of her rallies look larger than it actually was.

So this was a photo that was posted online last week of a rally in Michigan where basically there is a plane, Kamala Harris's plane, and there's a massive throng of people celebrating her arrival on the tarmac. And

And this was posted online. And Donald Trump apparently thought that this was a little suspicious. And he said on Truth Social, has anyone noticed that Kamala cheated at the airport? There was nobody at the plane and she AI'd it and showed a massive crowd of so-called followers, but they didn't exist. Now, this is false. The crowd actually was there. We have well-documented evidence that this was not manipulated to make it look bigger than it was.

But this is now apparently a thing that you can just accuse your opponent of in a political campaign is using AI to fake the size of their crowd. Is this the first instance of a political candidate using AI as a verb? I think so. I think that's the first time I've ever heard anyone use AI as a verb. He AI'd it. I mean, look,

everybody knows that Trump is obsessed with the size of his crowds and he seems to have been getting more obsessed with it as Harris's crowds have grown. My initial instinct was to dismiss all of this as very silly, but it did kind of captivate

captivate the online right this week. And there were a lot of people sharing that and sort of, you know, trying to analyze the photo in Zapruder film-like detail. And at the end of the day, of course, there's nothing to analyze. This rally happened. There was so much evidence out there, people posting all sorts of photos, videos from every angle indicating that, yes, there were many, many people there, but it didn't matter. And I read a really great post on this this week from a guy named Mike

who studies sort of misinformation and related topics. And he said, this is actually really important in part because the idea that Democrats actually have small crowds is a core belief among the right.

And people like Trump promote it because it means that should Harris win, people will have been primed to believe it can't possibly be real because all along the way they've been saying, well, look, no one is even at a cross. Oh, you thought there was a big crowd there? There wasn't. It was all just AI. So while on the surface, this is an absolutely ridiculous story, we have to remember that these kinds of lies led to the violence of January 6th, and we are unfortunately seeing them again in this election. Yep. Yeah. All right.

Last story from the Week in AI. This one is about the hottest new club in San Francisco is the Waymo parking lot. Oh, yeah. It is popping off in the Waymo parking lot, Kevin. So this is a story that came out earlier this week after people started posting on the internet about

about a parking lot in San Francisco where a group of Waymo self-driving cars were gathering at night and honking at each other. Did you see this video? I did see this video, and I love this video. It's so good. It's called...

When it's 4 a.m., but the Waymos are getting aggressive in the parking lot. And if I can just describe it for our listeners, there's a parking lot on the roof of a building. Someone is sort of filming from a nearby apartment building. And it just shows these Waymos self-driving taxis kind of parked in a line, but then also kind of some of them are backing up and trying to sort of get around each other. And they're just honking and flashing their lights at each other. They're having a meeting. They're having a meeting. Can we watch this video together? Yeah, let's watch this. Okay.

So you can see they're just kind of all saying hi to each other. It's fucking 4 a.m.

What a great piece of commentary there. So, Casey, what did you make of this? Look, I always think it's beautiful to see robots getting together and just sort of talking through their differences. And this was no different. So, you know, what did Waymo say about this, Kevin? They told The Verge that they are aware that in some scenarios, our vehicles may briefly honk while navigating our parking lots.

They also said that they've figured out what's causing the behavior and they're working to fix it. I mean, it does answer a question that I had, which is where do all the Waymos go? That's one of my favorite children's books. Where do Waymos go? They have to charge, right? Because they're all electric. But then they're not, you know, it's not constant demand throughout the day. So, you know, at 4 a.m. when no one's trying to get home from the club anymore, where do they go? And it turns out they go to this one parking lot. Yeah.

I just, I love that the person who posted this video, Sophia Tong, has actually set up a live stream complete with lo-fi study beats. So at any time of day, you can just pop over to the live stream and check out what the Waymos are doing. Sophia, you're a legend. That's incredible. Amazing.

Amazing. Amazing work. It's true. I love it. We love it. You know, Casey, we should hang out in the parking lot at 4 a.m. We really should. Can we go hang out with the Waymos? I actually would like to do that some night. Almost do like a sort of David Attenborough style field recording of like, at night while San Francisco sleeps, a group of cars gathers to share their thoughts. And it sounds like this. Oh, yes. I love it. That's this week in AI. That's this week in AI. A lot going on.

BP added more than $130 billion to the U.S. economy over the past two years by making investments from coast to coast. Investments like acquiring America's largest biogas producer, Arkea Energy, and starting up new infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico. It's and, not or. See what doing both means for energy nationwide at bp.com slash investing in America.

Thank you.

Video production by Ryan Manning and Chris Schott. You can watch this full episode on YouTube at youtube.com slash hardfork. Special thanks to Paula Schumann, Wee Wing Tam, Dahlia Haddad, and Jeffrey Miranda. You can email us at hardfork at nytimes.com.

This podcast is supported by Meta. At Meta, we've already connected families, friends, and more over half the world. To connect the rest, we need new inputs to make new things happen.

And the new input we need is you. Visit metacareers.com slash NYT, M-E-T-A-C-A-R-E-E-R-S dot com slash NYT to help build the future of connection. From immersive VR technologies to AI initiatives fueling a collaborative future, what we innovate today will shape tomorrow. Different builds different.