Google’s Monopoly Money + Is the A.I. Bubble Popping? + The Hot-Mess Express
01:13:20 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.

I was very sad to learn that one of my favorite pieces of trivia about the Olympic horses was misinformation. Oh, no. So I got very excited because I saw a post going around on X that said that they have a plane that flies all of the horses to the Olympics. Yeah.

And that the plane is called Air Horse 1. Oh, come on! And so I repeated this fact to everyone I met in the span of like three or four days. And then I looked it up. And Casey, would you believe that that is made up? Oh, well, you hate to hear that. I would love for that to be true. How do the horses get over there? So there are planes that fly the horses. That part is real. And there is actually a plane called Air Horse 1, but...

But the company that runs Air Horse One did not transport any of the Olympic horses. What does Air Horse One do? I mean, it transport horses, but it's not being used in this Olympics. I mean, I think by the naming conventions of the United States, Air Horse One has only one job, and that is to fly the president's horse. So if it's not doing that, I don't know what it's doing. But I'd love to find out.

I'm Kevin Roos, a tech columnist at The New York Times. I'm Casey Newton from Platformer. And this is Hard Fork. This week, Google loses the biggest tech antitrust case in a quarter century. The Times' David McCabe joins us to discuss. Then, are we in an AI bubble? We'll hear the case for and against. Finally, it's time for a new segment. All aboard the hot mess express. Choo-choo.

All right, Kevin, it's time to play a game of tech monopoly. Namely, which tech company is a monopoly? And did it maintain that monopoly illegally? Well, this week, a federal judge ruled that Google does have a monopoly in search and it has been maintaining that monopoly illegally.

Yeah, this is a big deal. Very big deal. So Judge Amit Mehta, in a 277-page decision this week, wrote that, quote, So, Kevin, how did you react when you heard this news? Well...

I immediately went to Google and performed a search through the Google Monopoly search product to learn more about this case. And it was truly, I mean, we've been talking about the various antitrust investigations and cases against Google. This was a big win for the Department of Justice, which has been suing Google for years. It also has another act

suit against Google. But this was sort of the big one. This was the one that I thought had the best chance of succeeding. And yeah, the judge agreed. Well, you know, for me, Kevin, I have been so worried about the state of the web, and I've been so worried that Google in particular has too much control over it that when I saw this ruling, I thought, well,

maybe this actually is a chance to press the reset button on the internet, at least to some degree, and maybe improve competition, at least in search. So we want to get into what this decision says, what it means for Google and the tech industry more broadly, and we wanted to bring in an expert. And so we've asked David McCabe, who has been covering this trial from the beginning for the New York Times, back onto the show to join our conversation. David?

Welcome back to Hard Fork. It is a pleasure to be back. So heading into this decision, what was the conventional wisdom about how Judge Mehta might rule and how did the decision that we got this week compare to that? So,

I think in some ways it's hard not to be surprised or struck by the basic fact of like the ruling like this hasn't happened against a tech company in 20-ish years, right? I think the conventional wisdom was that he is a very rigorous and deliberative guy and he would probably try and kind of split the baby, right? He'd give the government some stuff, he'd give Google some stuff. Ultimately,

He gave the government the core of what it wanted. He did give Google some wins on some more minor questions. But when it came down to the center of the government's case, he ruled with them. So this is a big win for the DOJ. And I think we should just step back for just a second to remind people what this case was about. So this case was primarily about these sort of default agreements that Google has struck with Apple, with Samsung, with the manufacturers of other phones, Google's

to pay them lots of money, in Apple's case, billions and billions of dollars a year for the right to be the default search engine on Apple devices, on Samsung devices, etc., etc. And the DOJ basically alleged that this was anti-competitive, that Google not only had a monopoly in search, but that it was preserving that monopoly through the use of these agreements.

Google had argued essentially, and David, correct me if I'm wrong here, that these kind of placement deals are standard operating procedure, not just in tech, but in things like grocery stores where a company might pay to have their beverage placed on an end cap, that it's sort of not illegal to pay for promotion. And that was essentially what they were doing. That's right. And I just add right on top of that, they said, like, we are being chosen as the default because we have the better product.

product, right? The sort of quote from their lawyer that stuck in my mind was, Google is winning because it is better, right? And that was at the core of their case. And why, David, did the judge rule that it was illegal for Google to be making these payments to ensure that it is the default on iOS, on the Mozilla browser, and on so many other places?

Well, he found that it did have anti-competitive effects. So he first determined that these agreements were effectively exclusivity deals. And so that kind of crossed this bar into exclusionary conduct. And then, you know, he said that there had been these, what they call in the law, anti-competitive effects, right? That they had hurt competitors in various ways. That it had done things like limit innovation or allow them to raise ad prices far beyond, you know, where they should have been able to. And so those things kind of all added up to breaking the law. Okay.

According to the ruling, by 2020, Google had nearly 90% of all search queries on these sort of general searches. And on mobile devices, it was almost 95%. So it seems clear that, you know, whether you think that there's illegal anti-competitive stuff happening or not, you cannot deny that no one has really been able to compete with Google. So the Justice Department had argued that

These agreements help drive all of that search volume to Google. And that that gave them a lot of data, which allowed them to make their search engine better, which allowed them to make more money, which they then used to pay for these default agreements and lock the process in. And this was a central theme of the Justice Department case, this kind of flywheel or feedback loop, whatever phrase you want to use from the business books. And the judge basically agreed with that theory. He said that is happening.

He clearly bought into the idea that the default payments were central to the decision by Microsoft not to invest in its search product, Bing. Obviously, they have invested some, but they haven't invested as much as maybe they could have. And he seemed to buy the idea that Apple, one reason they might not have invested in search was the default payment. He was a little bit less...

accepting of the GOJ's argument that Apple had like fully stayed out of search as part of some, you know, complicated arrangement with Google. But broadly, right, he found that there was less investment in the search space and therefore less innovation. Right. If you are a young company that's maybe got aspirations of building a new search engine, you might not get very far because Google is just so dominant and

So why would VCs fund you? Why would you, you know, raise a bunch of money to go take on a company that has effectively locked itself in this position of dominance? That's the argument for sort of the pro-competition fallout from this ruling. Yeah, and he heard from a company, Neva, that had tried to do this, right? So he heard throughout the trial from people who had, were either operating search engines and saying, this is really hard, right, without the default position, or from startups that had said, like, we tried to do it.

We had a lot of money. Maybe we even built our own index, right? The index is the set of data that makes up the results in a search engine. And we just couldn't do it. And he seemed persuaded by that. I think there's a really interesting story here about the history of the internet. So when you think about the dawn of the web, when Google is first formed, I think it's unquestionable that they were the most innovative. They did become the most popular because they were the best. And that turns them into this monolith.

And then mobile devices come along and other people want to try new things and a lot of folks try. But Google just kind of has all of these profits sitting around. And so they can go to all of these device makers and these new browser makers and say, hey, why don't we just pay you some money, become the default, and that'll be good for everyone. And it works.

And there are these stats in the ruling, David, that just struck me so hard. In 2017, Google estimated that its default placement, so these deals that it struck, drove more than half of its overall search revenue, which was a percentage that had grown since 2014. And in 2020, Google's internal modeling projected that it would lose between 60% and 80% of the queries it gets on Google.

iOS devices if it lost its default agreement on Apple devices. So why is that fascinating to me? To me, like that is the DOJ's case in a nutshell. You know, Google keeps saying, no, no, no, we're the best. Like the reason that people keep using us is because we're the best. And yet their own internal modeling has shown if we do not make these agreements, we will lose a staggering percentage of the queries that we're getting every year and of the revenue that we're getting every year.

Well, a moment that really stuck out to me during the trial was DOJ brought in a behavioral economist at the very beginning of the trial. And he sat there and he told the judge all about the ways that defaults are really powerful. He just walked through the judge in very plain terms like you go to a coffee shop and the tip screen is there and, you know, it gives you these options. And so, of course, you're going to choose one of those tip options. And Kevin always chooses zero. That's not true.

But I do feel like they've gotten a little greedy with those options. I saw one for 25% the other day at a coffee shop. I'm like, I'm not tipping 25% on a coffee. Anyway, we're getting off track. I'm not touching tipping discourse. But like he just like made these very plain spoken, intuitive explanations of like defaults are extremely powerful. And you could tell that the judge was into it. And you know,

The judge heard from a lot of witnesses. He read a lot of paper. He seemed extremely deliberative. I'm not saying he was like convinced in this moment, right? But you could tell that it was an engaging piece of testimony. And I think it spoke to something that people intuitively understand, which is that these defaults are extremely powerful in getting you to do something. Because why would you change? But how does this square with another thing that I understand that Google argued in this case, which is that

you know, in places where there is a choice given to users, such as the EU, which has tried to sort of make this what they call a ballot screen, where basically you're setting up a new device and it's like, okay, which search engine do you want to use as your default? And users actually have a choice.

Google, from what I understand, argued that in those cases, people overwhelmingly choose Google because they prefer Google to Bing or DuckDuckGo or some other search engine. So how does this sort of square with the argument that you just laid out, Casey, which is that if these default deals went away, Google would lose some huge percentage of its search traffic and its search revenue? I mean, here's... Casey can respond to his argument in defense, but there was an interesting...

kind of element of this trial, which was there was a little bit of an argument of a catch-22, which is like the other search engines aren't as good as Google because they don't have the volume of queries every day that Google has, right? That search engines get better as they get more information about what people are looking for and how they're looking for it.

And that without that, you can't be as good as Google. And that they can't have that volume without access to the default, right? And so this was basically what Microsoft was saying, was like the default position is uniquely powerful in helping us build that kind of corpus of information that's at the center of everything.

a really good search engine. So, you know, they would argue, I think, that the quality isn't there on the other search engines in part because of Google's behavior. And then, of course, Google comes in and says, well, of course people choose Google because it's better. And they would say, well, it's better because you did this thing. Now the judge's role was against the law. Yeah.

So Kevin, on this point of, hey, didn't the EU kind of try to fix this and it didn't work because everybody just loves Google? I do think there's something to that. I do think that if Google were not the default and you presented most users with a screen, they probably would just pick Google. But I was talking with somebody who works at DuckDuckGo, which is this rival search engine, and they were telling me Google's been really good at just kind of

getting around that restriction that they have to show the screen. For example, if you set a different default, but then you ever use Google, it'll be like, hey, do you want to switch back? And it will sort of always be prodding you to do that. And she sort of laid out some other ways that Google tries to kind of undermine that ballot screen. And that's one reason why they say that if the court decides that we should move in this direction, you might actually need some kind of

monitoring body that is keeping an eye on Google saying like, hey, are you actually acting in the spirit of this agreement or are you trying to undermine it at every turn? So,

Okay, now we have this big ruling. Google is a monopoly, according to this judge, and has acted illegally to maintain its monopoly power. What happens now? Like, is this going to be trapped in appeals for years and years and years? Like, what are the actual consequences of this? Trapped in appeals for years and years? For a thousand, Alex? No, I mean...

Google has said they plan to appeal. A lot of people expect this or one of the other tech antitrust cases to go to the Supreme Court. I mean, that's a years-long proposition. Just to talk sequencing for a second, the judge has ruled that they broke the law. There will be a second phase to determine how to fix it. We'll know in about a month.

like how Google and the Justice Department want that to play out. In terms of this sort of remedies process, the judge has a lot of options, right? There's sort of two buckets here of traditional kind of fixes for antitrust problems. One is what are called structural, right? That's you break up a company, you have to spin off some unit. And then there are quote-unquote behavioral fixes, right? That's a judge says you got to change something.

X, Y, or Z about your practices. You know, something that I think stuck out to me and we all know this, I mean, covering it and intuitively, but like reading the ruling, man, search is complicated. Yeah. Like there are so many interlocking pieces in these systems, both like internally at Google and externally between Google and other companies. And so like he digested just a huge amount of information about a very complex thing. And I, I,

kind of expect he has to do that again with the remedy. Yeah. Right? Like, you have this complicated set of contracts and they feed into these technical systems and you're thinking about all this while trying to devise a fix. And of course, the more complicated the fix is, the more monitoring you have to do, the more potential for unintended consequences. Because there are, like, all these deals and all these elements. I want to...

talk about remedies here because I think that's a big question that I have is like, how do you actually fix the problems that the judge has identified?

DuckDuckGo has released a list of remedy requests, including Google can't do these deals anymore. They also want Google to be forced to share API access for search and ads with competitors so that they have sort of the same data that Google itself has. They also asked for something called public education initiatives inside and outside of product.

Basically, you can't just give people a choice about which search engine they use. You have to actually educate them about the costs and benefits of various search engines. So like a legally mandated video that's like, yes, here's what...

No, we have to go into elementary schools and teach children how to change their default browser. Why wouldn't we do that? They also asked for a choice screen that reappears regularly. So it's not just once when you set up a new phone or something that you are asked, like, which search engine? Like every month or so, maybe it'll pop up.

a new thing that says, are you sure you want to keep using Google? And I will say Apple is perfectly happy to show me a screen like every month that says, hey, do you still want to share all your photos with Google Photos? So don't tell me that that's a ridiculous thing that Apple would never do. So what do you make of these remedy requests, David? Well, so I obviously don't have this list in front of me. I think putting aside first thing on what the judge is going to do.

It's an interesting list. I think the API access, is that idea that it would be like access to the full search index? Yeah. So DuckDuckGo actually uses the Bing search API. So they want something similar for Google where they have access to the Google search index and they're able to kind of build around that. So this gets at, I think, a really interesting question in the world of

antitrust law and this kind of space, which is, can these laws and these remedies be used to sort of encourage innovation? The judge has kind of identified innovation, harms to innovation as a problem here, right? But it's a different question of like, can these laws be used as a tool to make an economy that is not just like more competitive on price, but more competitive on innovation and the quality of products? And

Something that I've been thinking about a lot in this case is in the 1950s, the government required through a settlement with AT&T. AT&T has had, I mean, decades of antitrust litigation with the government. We all know about the breakup, but like it went on forever. And in the 50s, the government reached a settlement that said they had to make licenses and access to some of the Bell Labs technology, particularly the transistor, available to other companies on reasonable terms.

And there is an argument that that was really decisive in allowing the semiconductor industry to get built and thrive. And so I do think that if you look at how the Justice Department argued this case, they argued there was this cycle of dominance that Google was engaged in. And I would expect that they will try through this remedies process to do something they think will disrupt that cycle. And so something like

Other search engines could basically have Google's results quality tomorrow when yesterday they only had Bing's kind of quality of results. Like, it is a really interesting question of, like, would...

users be more likely to consider other search engines if they had access to Google's quality on a DuckDuckGo or another search engine? I mean, personally, I would love to see this. One of the big tech conversations over the past couple of years has been this growing perception that Google search is getting worse over time. And of course, one reason why a product would get worse over time is that it has no competition.

You know, Ben Thompson made this great point in his newsletter this week where he talked about what happened when Apple decided to stop relying on Google Maps and stop making that the default on iOS and built its own Maps product. Now, at first, of course, the Maps product was very bad. I think there are still some people who are lost because they were using the Apple Maps product when it first came out.

But over time, it got to be quite good. Many people believe it's now at parity or maybe even better than Google Maps. And it is because it is the default on Apple devices, more popular on those devices than Google Maps is. How has Google responded to that? Do they give up and walk away? No, they've invested massively in making Google Maps better and better. And I don't know one person who thinks that Google Maps is worse today than it was five years ago, right? So to me, that is such a powerhouse

powerful story about what you get when you have a competitive market. And we have not had it in search in a generation. Yeah. Something that was really interesting to me was the judge,

It's not that he didn't agree that that could happen, but he did not find that that happened here. He was like, Google has continued to innovate, even in the absence of competition. And then he said something that I'm sure, like, struck some people who are supportive of Google, which was like, and that actually is behavior consistent with a monopoly, that they would continue to put money into R&D because they want to, like, kind of maintain their advantage. And then he said, like, I do know that, like,

They introduced Bard in response to ChatGPT, and that's an example of responding to competition, but notwithstanding, I largely find that they have continued to build and innovate, even in the absence of competition. To me, one of the clearest pieces of evidence that Google is a monopoly is that they were totally caught flat-footed by Bing, by ChatGPT. They were late to incorporating all this generative AI stuff into their products, and

And yet, Bing did not take market share from Google to any appreciable degree. Like, Google still maintained its dominance, even though it had more competition, theoretically, than it has had in years. Like, the numbers just didn't budge all that much. I mean, generative AI kind of hung over this case, but because it originated...

Now, four years ago, basically, and concerned conduct from like the last 15 years. It was not really a part of like the record in the case, right? They weren't fighting over chat GPT. So occasionally someone would like reference it, but they also like couldn't get really deep into it. But it's the obvious thing that hangs over this remedies discussion.

This is clearly a sort of pivotal moment for Google and for the search business. And does the remedy kind of change the game in a way that either allows new AI players to thrive or does not? I just want to say, every time one of the two of you says remedy, I think of the song Remedy by Jason Mraz and it's driving me insane. Okay.

Let's talk about what this means for the tech industry more broadly, right? Because as this remedy, there my brain goes again. I've got the remedy. We can say fix too. Yeah.

As this remedy gets decided, many companies are going to be affected. So, I mean, let's start with who could maybe be the biggest loser here, which is Apple, which is getting around $20 billion, I think, at last count from this deal. What do we think happens to them if the judge says, hey, you're not allowed to take that money anymore?

I mean, I think, do they keep Google as the default is the real question, right? Like, does not getting the money, if they stop getting the money, change their behavior and their thinking, right? Or not. Obviously, it's not good for their, it's some percentage of their services revenue, right? I mean, you may have that number in front of you. But I think more broadly, the question is, like, do they decide to invest in search in some way or, you know,

work with OpenAI or something like that. What do you guys... Okay, so let's talk about the Mozilla Corporation. Yes. So Mozilla makes the Firefox browser. That's the thing that it is best known for. And in its heyday, Firefox was, you know, one of the most popular browsers on Earth. It's really kind of fallen off, I think, over the years. But...

the Firefox community is relatively big and Google pays Mozilla hundreds of millions of dollars a year to be the default. And that is by far the largest source of Mozilla's revenue. Like 80% of Mozilla's revenue is coming from this search deal. What happens to Mozilla in a world where it loses 80% of its revenue? Is that just the end of Mozilla? I think it's the end. Yeah. I mean, David, do you think they can survive? I think it was like 80% of their revenue, you know? How do you survive that?

I mean, it's an obvious question. I think they were obviously like... They were witnesses at the trial...

My memory is they were pretty favorable to Google in their testimony. We would like the company to be able to continue paying us the vast majority of our revenue. It's so interesting because, you know, the Mozilla Ether, like, it is a non-profit. And, you know, I think there are a lot of really, you know, conscientious, civic-minded people who work there, who believe in a sort of a healthy and open internet and, you know, who I think I sort of share a lot of values with. And yet,

it has become such a sprawling and weird company that every couple of months they're emailing me with some new initiative. They tried to build a phone at one point. These folks completely lost the plot. And I almost see it as kind of a parallel to Google where just as these sort of monopoly profits drove Google into laziness, I think, over time when it came to search, so too do I think Mozilla just having hundreds of millions of dollars coming in the door every year for doing nothing and not really having to compete on

on the basis of the quality of their browser anymore actually ruin the product. That's kind of a side rant, but I've been wanting to say it for a couple years. Okay. I have sort of a big picture question, David, because there's been this feeling in the tech industry over the past couple years that this sort of

aggressive antitrust stance that the DOJ and the FTC and all these federal agencies have taken under the Biden administration with people like Lena Kahn and Jonathan Cantor at the DOJ, that they've been not getting a lot of wins. Does this ruling sort of invalidate that? Does it make you think that actually this approach to antitrust is working? You know,

It's a question I think about not surprisingly a lot, right? And particularly, how do you evaluate if any of this is quote unquote working or what it's doing? And I think at the very least, this is undeniably a massive win for the Justice Department, right? I mean, they went in, obviously the case was brought in the Trump years.

But it was tried by, you know, the team under Jonathan Cantor, who is sort of the equivalent to Lena Kahn at the FTC. And there has not been a win like this for the government since the Microsoft case. So undeniably on the question of like their record and the narrative around their record, I think this is like they've got to be thrilled, right? I think the question of has it worked or what has it done really will depend a lot on the

the remedy the court decides to impose here, and just how the industry reacts. Something that if you went to the FTC and the DOJ today and you were like, "Seems like you're losing a lot. Can you show me why you're winning?" One thing that I suspect that they tell you, and certainly the people who are very close to them would tell you, is there's a deterrent effect, particularly on mergers, that there's less deal-making happening, that more companies are trying to do it on their own versus getting bought by a big company.

It's an interesting question of whether or not there'll be a similar effect here, right? Just the fact of the ruling causes people to act differently. Does it cause some investor to be like, oh, maybe there is an opportunity in search. Maybe there is a window here. Does it cause Google to say like,

you know, in the millions of product meetings that make up the, like, the soul of a big tech company, right? Like, does it cause them to be a hair more cautious and, you know, potentially create an opening for a competitor? Because that's part of what, you know, has been argued in the Microsoft case was, like, one reason it opened the door for Google was that they just had gotten more cautious and more careful, and they were so freaked out by the experience of tangling with the OJ for years. Yeah.

You know, this hasn't not to be too I'm not sure that's the question, but this hasn't happened in more than two decades. Right. And so, like, we'll have to look and see how Google responds and how people at Google respond. So if there's no further business, I need to go listen to Remedy by Jason Mraz. All right, David, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for having me. When we come back, bubble, bubble, toil and trouble. People are worried we might be living through some inflated valuations in AI, Kevin.

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, Casey, the other big news this week is that the markets are going a little nuts and people are starting to worry about it. And what makes this a story that I want to talk about with you is that a lot of the sort of panic and worry right now is about this question of whether we are in an AI bubble that

that is bursting. Yeah. This discourse has gotten really hot this week. And of course, that is a question right in our wheelhouse. And so I'm excited to hear the news and what you think about it. So just for some background at the start of this week, markets in the U S and around the world were really volatile. Uh, the, the most valuable tech companies, what they call the magnificent seven. Um, which by the way, did we know that they were called that before this week? That was a new one for me. That

But it's also like a great name for like some sort of a figure skating troop or something. I don't know. Without looking, how many of the Magnificent Seven can you name? I think I could name all of them. All right, let's do it. Microsoft, Apple, Google, NVIDIA, Meta. Anyway, we're getting off track here.

Okay. So at the start of this week, the Magnificent Seven lost roughly a trillion dollars in market value. In the US, the S&P 500 fell 3%. In Japan, the Nikkei had its biggest one-day point drop in history. So it's just a lot of volatility. People are getting worried about their stocks, and people are trying to figure out what the heck is happening. And

some of it has nothing to do with tech, right? That like there's this sort of jobs report for July showing higher unemployment than a lot of economists expected. There's also some factors about the Fed and interest rates that people are saying have played into these market moves. But the thing that makes it a story for us is that a lot of the focus this week has been on AI and the role that it is playing in all of the market chaos.

Yes. Now, I mean, the one thing that I would say is that while it is true that stocks were down earlier this week, it did seem like they more or less immediately bounced back at least part of the way. In fact, as we're recording this, I think meta is actually up for the week. So what you said is true. There is a lot of volatility and this has been, I think, like one of the biggest subjects of the week is just what is going on with AI. I did just also want to note that. Yeah.

Yeah. So I want to sort of spend some time kind of deconstructing the argument about an AI bubble, because I think it's really interesting and important. And it is sort of the big question that is kind of hanging over the industry right now is like, is any of this sustainable? Is any of the hype that we're seeing around generative AI actually pushing the tech industry forward? Or is it just like, you know, the metaverse and crypto and all these things that sort of come and go? So

So let me just sort of lay out the steel man arguments for the case that we are in an AI bubble, and I want to hear your responses to them. So the first argument that you'll hear from people who think that we're in an AI bubble that is about to pop or that might pop soon is that the economics of all this are just unsustainable and they're actually getting worse. So far in the first six months of the year, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, and Meta have spent a combined $106 billion dollars

And that's probably too low an estimate because that only includes their capital expenditures, things like building data centers, acquiring GPUs, things like that, that doesn't include like all the engineer salaries and stuff like that. And the ad that Google ran during the Olympics. Yeah, that was probably at least a couple billion right there.

And that spending is not slowing down. In fact, it is expected to grow. We know that AI companies are going to spend a ton more money in the coming years, maybe as much as a trillion dollars, according to some estimates, to build out these AI systems.

That is just a lot of money and it's not clear that they have a plan to recoup those costs. You can't sell enough $20 a month ChatGPT Pro subscriptions to recoup the costs of spending hundreds of billions of dollars training these models.

And unlike some technology where you spend a bunch of money upfront to build something and then you can kind of sell it over and over again with no marginal costs to your company, AI spending actually scales as the products get better. Like it costs more to train the better models as they get better and more powerful, the costs actually go up. What do you make of that argument?

Well, I think that that argument has some strengths to it. I would say a few things in response. One is that I think some companies will win and some companies will lose. It's almost certainly the case that some of this vast amount of money that is being spent now is being wasted. I think it's also very likely that one or more of these companies is going to figure it out and be able to make some of that money back. And in fact, the way that this capital is being deployed is out of a sense that essentially one

one company is going to be the first to create this artificial general intelligence, and that company might become the most powerful company that ever existed, right? So that is purely speculative, and maybe we never get there. But if it turns out to be true, and you were like Andy Jassy or Mark Zuckerberg, and you said, eh, we're going to sit this one out,

history is going to look at you as like one of the worst CEOs of all time, right? Like what was the point of making all these monopoly profits if you weren't investing them into trying to build the next thing? Right. And this is sort of what tech CEOs have been bringing up on earnings calls over the last few weeks. Google CEO Sundar Pichai said that

quote, the risk of under-investing is dramatically higher than over-investing. Basically, we'd rather spend too much to develop AI than not spend enough and get beaten by someone else. Mark Zuckerberg also made a version of this argument too. So this is something that is very much out there, but the tech companies are saying, basically, the real danger here is missing the boat, not spending a few billion more than you need to.

Yeah. Now, where the economics do seem to be unsustainable, Kevin, is for the smaller companies, right? The startups like the Inflections and the Adepts and the Character AIs, companies that had raised tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and were once valued at a billion dollars or more. They're throwing in the towel saying, hey, we're going to figure out some weird way to sort of get reverse acquired back into these tech giants.

because as they look at their own balance sheets, they figure we're not actually gonna be able to hit AGI before we run out of money. So in that case, it does seem like there is a bit of a bubble bursting. Yeah.

Okay. The second argument that we are in an AI bubble is just that AI progress is slowing down. You'll hear people saying this. Like, we're just not seeing the kind of rapid capabilities gains that we saw a couple years ago. And so maybe we've already kind of gotten most of the juice out of these systems. We're close to tapping out the potential of this technology. What do you make of that?

Well, so, I mean, I am sympathetic to this argument in some ways because that has also been my frustration is that we have been promised these, you know, perfect digital assistants and so many other things, and they are kind of stuck where they were in 2022, or at least it feels...

feels that way. I think if the AI companies were here, they would point to a million things that they've improved since then, and I think there's a lot to that. But to me, the real test of this question is, what happens when these next generation frontier models come out, once we see what GPT-5 looks like or LAMA-4?

Do we actually see that step change in capability that reassures us that like, oh no, we actually are on a glide path to creating a super intelligence or no, no, no, that actually was just hype and we've run out of ideas. That is just truly a question mark. I don't know the answer to it, but again, it is in the nature of business.

business people and a venture capitalist to try things. And when you think about like, what could a transformative technology be hard to think of one that would be much more transformative than that. So it doesn't really surprise me that people are continuing to invest in it despite that uncertainty. Right. And this, I would say would be like contingent, this argument on what happens in the next six or 12 months, right? If, if open AI comes out with GPT-5 and it's,

as much improved over GPT-4 as GPT-4 was over GPT-3, if we continue to see like large capabilities increases from these models, I think that will be a signal that we just needed to kind of wait and give it a minute. But yeah, I think if the next models that come out of these big AI companies are just sort of incrementally better than the ones that we already have, I think a lot of people are going to start to say, well, why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars to train these things again?

Okay, that's the second argument AI progress has slowed. The last argument that I hear a lot from people who are sort of skeptical of all the hype around generative AI, who think that we are in a bubble, is just essentially that we haven't found the right uses for this product yet, that it doesn't have product market fit, and

Elliott Management, which is one of the biggest hedge funds in the world, sent a letter to investors recently that basically made this point. It says, there are few real uses, that's for generative AI, other than summarizing notes of meetings, generating reports, and helping with computer coding. People will also say, you know, look at how many people are just using these tools to sort of cheat on their homework.

There have been some people who have observed that the usage of ChatGPT tends to go down during school holidays, basically just saying like, this thing, it's maybe useful if you're a student, but it's not useful to sort of real professionals doing real jobs because, you know, it makes too many errors, it's too unpredictable, and the tech just isn't very useful yet. What do you make of this? This one I just think is silly. You know, it's like when you're like, well, you know, all it can really help with is computer coding. That's actually really important. Yeah.

And as it improves over time, the goal of these companies is that you create an AI system that improves the AI itself, right? They call this recursive self-improvement or RSI. But once you're able to get into that zone where the software itself is improving the software, then you enter this sort of liftoff state where it really does seem like, you know, we might achieve AGI. Right.

So when Elliot comes along and says, well, I don't know, you know, it seems like all it's really good for is like creating virtual software engineers that do the job of a human being. It's like, well, that actually seems sort of important to me. I would also say, if you don't think it's useful, ask a high school student if they think it's useful. Ask a high school student if they would miss it if it went away, right? So I think we've already discovered a pretty significant utility space for this stuff. I am a lunatic and probably pay for six or seven different AI services right now.

And like, there isn't one I would cancel, you know? Wow. You pay for six or seven different AI services? Well, Gemini, ChatGPT, Claude. I pay for it in Notion. I pay for it in ReadWise, which is like a read it later app. I pay for it in Lazy, which is another kind of reader app. And I pay for it in Raycast, which is a launcher app.

And, you know, are those services redundant and competing with each other? Yes. And am I doing this in part because I think it's part of my job to understand, you know, the state of the art in software? Yes. But again, I like all those things and I think the AI makes them better and I think they make me better at my job. Yeah, that's interesting. I do wonder if there's sort of a mismatch between what people want from these tools and what

companies are marketing them for. There was this study that I wrote about that came out of something called the Data Providence Initiative at MIT a few weeks ago, and they analyzed a bunch of different transcripts of conversations that people had had with chatbots that were part of this data set. And they found that a significant number of conversations that people had were sexual or romantic. It was like, that was what people want out of these things, but that is not

what the companies want them to be used for. They want these to be your office co-pilot, your productivity enhancer, your coding assistant. And so maybe there's just a sort of a mismatch there. But I do think we are starting to see some more questions about the utility of these things. And I would just point to

the ad that Google ran during the Olympics for Gemini, where it's like not quite clear what they want this to be used for. Is it writing letters to your favorite athlete? Is it helping you with some problem at work? Like there's a sort of use case for generative AI. I don't think the companies have been articulating that very well. I think that is true. And yet we cannot...

assess the quality of AI based on whether Google's marketing is good, Kevin. Because if we've learned one thing about Google over the years, it is that their marketing is absolutely unhinged. I mean, here's where I will agree with some folks who say that we're in a bubble. I think

it is true that lots of people try ChachiPT once or twice and can't figure out what to do with it. I think it is true that it is unreliable in ways that make it quite bad for many different use cases. And so people who have tried it and either sort of couldn't make heads or tails of it or just felt like it sucked and they didn't want to use it anymore, I'm

actually like very sympathetic to it but our job is to try to see in the future a little bit and imagine what things will be like assuming it does get five or ten or fifty percent better because it is our experience that it almost always does get five or ten or fifty percent better and so i would just not draw too strong of a conclusion based on the state of the art in august 2024

Yeah. And I'm not sure which side of the argument my next point is actually going to support here. But I would just point out that tech adoption is often very slow, right? Like one of my favorite stories about slow tech adoption is the microwave oven. So the first microwave oven was invented in the 1940s. Do you know who invented the first commercially available microwave oven? Was it Frank Microwave? Yeah.

No, it was Raytheon. Oh, okay. So they actually dropped them over Berlin to try to win World War II. Exactly. So Raytheon invents this microwave oven. The first commercially available one goes on sale in 1947. In 1971, almost 25 years later, less than 1% of U.S. households had a microwave oven in their house. They didn't achieve sort of mass adoption in the U.S. until the 1990s. So...

The point is that technology, even if it exists, even if it makes a sort of measurable difference in people's lives, people's habits are just very ingrained. And often it just takes a long time for people to cycle through one technology to get to the next thing. And so...

ChatGPT was one of the fastest growing apps in history. It got to 100 million users within two months, which is like insane by sort of historical standards for these kinds of things. But I think it could still take a lot longer for people to sort of adopt this in any sort of mass way than the AI companies think, because we know from history that it just doesn't

it sometimes takes a long time. And that reminds me, Kevin, I've been meaning to tell you, you really need to cancel your AOL dial-up subscription. You're not using that modem anymore, and it's time. But I like the CDs they send me. So Casey, after laying out the arguments for and against the existence of an AI bubble, where do you stand on this? Do you think we're in a bubble? I think I'm sympathetic to the idea that we may be in some sort of AI startup bubble.

Okay.

On the public side, I don't think we're in a bubble at all. Again, I assume that a lot of this money is going to be wasted, but I assume that corporations are wasting billions of dollars every single day. Like, that's not a surprise to me, right? But if you ask me, do I think that they are going to get somewhere that, like, makes them a lot of money? Like, yes, I do. What do you think? So I think the synthesis here and where I'm sort of coming out on all this is that you can have a bubble, but also –

That bubble exists within a sea change? It exists within a context. So I would compare it to like the dot-com bubble of the late 90s where you did have a bunch of silly overvalued companies that were raising huge amounts of money and didn't really have a business that was making any of that money back.

And a lot of those companies went broke or got sold for pieces or whatever. And that was a bubble. But at the same time, the Internet was not a bubble, right? The Internet was a transformative technology. And so we did not see the Internet go away when the dot-com crash happened. And I would compare our moment in AI to the dot-com boom.

bubble in the sense that, yes, there will be a washout. I totally agree with you. Like some of these these sort of mid-level AI startups will never make back the money that they raised and will probably end up crashing out or being bailed out. But I also think that we can't ignore the sort of sea change happening underneath that. And so, yeah, it may take a while. Investors may lose some patience along the way.

but I don't think you can sort of put this one back in the bottle. And to be clear, you're not saying that we are on the verge of like a dot-com style wipeout, right? Where like it hits the public markets and like really affects the economy. No, because most of the companies that are sort of washing out these mid-level sort of AI startups are private companies. They're not, you know, being traded on the stock exchange. The companies that are public,

the Metas and Amazons and Googles of the world, they have, you know, these massive piles of cash that they're sitting on and they have these other businesses that are kind of subsidizing their investments in AI. So,

Will Nvidia be able to sustain its current stock price? I have no idea. But I think the idea that these companies are all going to come crashing down because they spent too much developing large language models is a fantasy. The last thing that I'll say is that I had this formative experience, which is I started covering tech in 2010, which was right when the mobile boom hit, right? Like everyone started to get a really high powered smartphone and we saw dozens and dozens of companies get born, right?

And all throughout this time, people were saying, are we in a bubble? Are we in a bubble? And some startup would go under and people would say, aha, we're in a bubble. And someone, and I can't remember who, but I recall someone making a joke during that time. And it was something to the effect of, you know, reporters have successfully called 25 of the last three bubbles. Yeah.

And the idea is people are always saying there's a giant bubble. And I think, honestly, it just shows you how people still are traumatized to this day by the dot-com bust. But I think it should also give us pause when we walk around saying we're in a bubble because I think recent history has shown that the tech industry is here to stay and has generally been pretty good about figuring out where to spend its capital. Yeah. I do wonder, though, if...

the investing community has enough patience to wait this out. Sure, but also it's like, you know, what choice do they have other than to wait and see? You know, it's not like there's some other hot technology on that they're passing, you know, while they spend all their money on AI. It's like, what are they going to invest in, podcasts? Let's spend $100 billion developing a podcast. I think that could be good. Can you imagine the studio we'd have? Oh my God.

When we come back, we're going to take a ride on the Hot Mess Express. 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.

Well, Casey, all aboard! The train's pulling into the station, Kevin. Yes! So today we are playing a brand new game called the Hot Mess Express. And we even have a theme song for it. ♪

So, Casey, this segment came to us during a brainstorm recently. A train storm, even. A train storm. Because as we were looking at the tech news of the week, there were just so many stories that struck us as just being very messy. Very messy week. And so we decided to call it the Hot Mess Express. Yeah, and so how this is going to work is we have a number of stories that are going to be coming down the tracks. And when they arrive at the station, we're going to sort of tell you a little bit about them. And they...

weigh in on what kind of mess this is. And we have a scale and we'll be using it to assess sort of what was the week's biggest mess. And that's hot mess express. And if you're watching us on YouTube and you see the, the, the toy train set in front of us and you're wondering where did that come from? Well, I'll tell you, I, um, I stole it from my child. I'm not proud of that. And if you're wondering, did he melt down as I was leaving the house this morning with the train set? Uh, the answer to that is yes. Um,

Well, I'm sure I'll have a lot to say about that in therapy in a few years. But in the meantime, we thank him for his sacrifice. Yes. The train conductor hat looks great on you. Thank you. It looks great on you. Yeah. Again, if you're not watching the show on YouTube, you're really only getting half the experience. All right. Well, shall we see what's coming down the tracks first here, Kevin? Let's see what's coming down the tracks. Yes.

- All right, Keith. It's so good. I love this. Oh man, okay. So I'll reach into the boxcar here. - Oh yeah, there is a boxcar that has slips of paper that contains the week's stories. - First up on the Hot Mess Express,

This one's called Open Desks at OpenAI. This one, of course, we should preface with our standard disclosure that The New York Times has sued OpenAI for copyright infringement. So this came out of OpenAI this week. There was some news that at least three high-level leaders were either leaving the company or taking a leave of absence.

John Shulman is one of them. He is an OpenAI co-founder who had been pretty central to ChatGPT. He is leaving to go to Anthropic, the rival company, where he's going to work on AI alignment. And he said in a statement that he was not leaving OpenAI due to lack of support for alignment research, alignment being the sort of area of AI research that is concerned with how to make these models behave.

But he's still leaving to go over to Anthropic. The information also reported that another OpenAI co-founder, Greg Brockman, is taking an extended leave of absence through the end of the year, but plans to return. They also reported that Peter Deng, who was one of their product leads over there, has left. And obviously this came on the heels of a bunch of other people who've left OpenAI in the last few months, including Ilya Setskiver, one of the co-founders. Putting aside Greg Brockman, who is just

sort of on leave for now, only two of OpenAI's 11 co-founders are actually still working there day to day.

So, Casey, what is going on at OpenAI? You know, I wish I knew. And in fact, a former OpenAI employee messaged me this week and said, what's going on at OpenAI? So it's not just the reporters who are asking that question. You know, at this point, Kevin, more co-founders have quit OpenAI than most companies have co-founders. It's true.

And not only that, but this departure of Greg Brockman, I think, is super interesting. You know, Brockman is a really integral part of this company, working, you know, hand in hand with Sam Altman, the CEO, and Mira Marotti, the CTO. And, you know, I generally find him to be a pretty voluble person. He's got a lot to say. And so when he just showed up on X and said, uh,

By the way, I'm going on leave of absence. I'll be away for a while, but AI is still super important, and we got to complete the mission, which is what he did. I thought, this is weird. Like, why take this leave of absence now? And I have some irresponsible speculation, but I wonder if you have any to share first. No, I want to hear your irresponsible speculation. I'm just going to tell you what this sounds like to me, okay? Because I think, look, if they wanted to get rid of him, they would have, and if he wanted to quit, he would have quit. What this sounds...

like to me is he wanted to quit and somebody said, don't quit, take a break. And then we will revisit this later. And he sort of walked out the door and that sort of explains why this felt sort of abrupt and why he did not have a lot to share. You know, he didn't share any warm and fuzzy feelings about open AI when he said he was taking a leave of that. So that's just kind of what it felt like to me, but I'm curious what it felt like to you. Yeah. I think there's a story here that will come out in the coming weeks. I've been asking around people at open AI, um,

Greg was the surprising departure here. John Shulman, people sort of suspected that he might have been kind of, you know, disaffected or just sort of had some questions about leadership since their big board drama last year. And so people were obviously sad to see him go. He was well-liked there, but they were not shocked. But Greg, I think, was safe to say that that

that many people did not see coming. You know, I think it's possible that he is just taking a leave to kind of recharge himself because he thinks that, you know, 2025 is going to be a really big year and he's going to be really busy. He said in his statement that this was his first time to relax since co-founding OpenAI nine years ago. So maybe there is an innocent explanation, but it does seem like they are losing a lot of key personnel recently. And

And I don't really know what to make of that, except that it seems to be a drama factory over there. Well, I keep a file on my computer called OpenAI is a weird company, and I added this story to the list because I thought, once again, I'm over here scratching my head. Wait, what else is on your OpenAI is a weird company list? Oh, my God. Well, let me pull it up for you right now. Let's see. Where's my Zuttles?

Here are some things that I have. OpenAI illegally stopped staff from sharing dangers, whistleblowers say. OpenAI employees say it failed its first test to make its AI safe. Microsoft and Apple drop OpenAI board seats amid antitrust scrutiny. Employee says he was fired for raising security concerns to the board.

The Opaque Investment Empire Making OpenAI Sam Altman Rich. It's just, again, a lot of this stuff, it's like fairly innocent. It's like, oh, this happens, that happens. But you put it all in a file, Kevin, and you say, it's a weird conversation.

It's a weird company. It belongs on the hot mess express. This company, for many of its victories over the past few years, it is a hot mess. How would you rate its mess? Is it on our scale? Okay. So look, I don't think this is quite as messy as some of the open AI stories we saw last year. So Kevin, I'm going to give this a rating of a warm mess. I think it's a warm mess. Okay. Yeah, I agree with that. I think it's a warm mess that has the potential to become a hotter mess, depending on what we learn about these executive departures.

That seems very fair. Now, Kevin, do we have another mess coming down the track? Oh, there it is. Let me just run down to the station.

Now, this was a very fun one, Kevin. And this was X introduces its innovative new forced advertising plan. Do you hear about this one? I did. So X filed a lawsuit this week in a U.S. district court in North Texas against GARM. That, of course, is the Global Alliance for Responsible Media. It is an advertising industry group.

that tries to make sure that ads are brand safe, right? That, you know, your ad isn't going to run next to hate speech or violence or gore or that sort of thing. Um, and X filed a lawsuit against Garm as well as individual companies like Unilever, Mars, and CVS. And you're probably wondering, well, what did Garm do? Uh, I assume they caused, uh, you

Irreparable Garm? Is that a thing? There have been allegations of irreparable Garm. That's what's being alleged. So Garm had encouraged advertisers to avoid X after Musk bought it.

And this happened in November of 2022, which was like the month after Elon bought the former Twitter. During this boycott, 18 members of Garb stopped advertising on the platform altogether, according to the lawsuit. And dozens of others reduced their spending by 70% or more, according to the filing. We took that from the great story about this issue by Kate Conger in the New York Times.

Now, what's weird, Kevin, is just last month, X reinstated their own membership in GARM and said X is committed to the safety of our global town square and proud to be part of the GARM community. But the CEO of X, Linda Iaccarino, posted a video statement about this situation on X this week, Kevin. And, well, she had some troubling things to say. Yeah, we should watch it. Yeah, let's watch this video. Hey, everybody.

I was shocked by the evidence uncovered by the House Judiciary Committee that a group of companies organized a systematic illegal boycott against X. It is just wrong. And that is why we are taking action.

Today, we filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, four of its key members, and the World Federation of Advertisers. Okay, let's cut it off there. That's enough of that. The first thing you need to know about this video is that Linda Iaccarino is wearing two necklaces. One says mama, and the other says free speech. I saw it, dude.

What do we make of the free speech bling here? Well, you know, I found it ironic because when someone chooses not to advertise on a platform in protest of the awful things that appear there, to me, that would be a pretty pure expression of free speech, you know? And so for X to turn around and say, no, if you're organizing with others and saying, you know, don't

advertise on this website because of its policies, that seems like a pretty anti-free speech thing to do, Kevin. Sure does. What do you think? Yeah, I mean, that was the sort of widespread mockery of this lawsuit comes down to the fact that these advertisers, they are choosing not to spend their money on X because they don't like what goes on on X. They don't want their ads for, you know, beauty products appearing next to hate speech and divisive political content.

And that is their right. It's a free country. Advertisers can and do make choices all the time about where to spend their money. And in this case, they are choosing not to spend money on X. And instead of saying, well, maybe we should make our product more compelling to those advertisers by removing some of the hate speech. Instead, they are taking those advertisers to court to, I guess, sue them into changing their mind. Is that right?

A strategy you think is likely to work, Casey? You know, I talked to a First Amendment lawyer who said, like, no, basically this is exactly what the First Amendment is designed to protect. This is obviously just an expression of speech. And of course, Kevin, the whole thing is very funny, given Elon's appearance at the Dealbook Summit last year when he was asked about the advertiser boycott. And some of the things he said in response were, one, don't advertise, and two, go fuck yourself. Yeah.

And they did. They stopped advertising. And all of a sudden, this is shocking news. Yeah. And by the way, Elon's summary of those events that I just described on X This Week, quote, we tried being nice for two years and got nothing but empty words. Now it's war. So that was what being nice looked like. And I guess the lawsuit is not. But look, this obviously, I mean, I do think this whole thing is a joke, but I do think there's also a more serious dimension to it, which is

Elon found allies in the House of Representatives, in particular, Representative Jim Jordan, who held a hearing about GARM and has sent letters to lots of big advertisers asking not just, hey, why aren't you advertising on X?

but why aren't you advertising on Breitbart and the Daily Wire, these sort of conservative aligned media? And at this point, X is absolutely conservative media. So I just think that is something that people should be aware of because, uh,

you know, the folks like Linda Yaccarina who want to brandish the banner of free speech. I just find it truly upsetting given that, you know, she is working to threaten advertisers who are just truly exercising their free speech. Yeah, I agree. I think it's also a sign that X's business model is just in real trouble, right? They're not. Wait, are you saying that healthy businesses don't normally sue the people who have chosen not to be their customers?

I'm saying it's not what I would do if I ran a business and wanted to make it profitable. But clearly, they have sort of realized that their future in advertising is not bright. And so they are making a pivot to subscriptions and they're trying to convince people to pay up for X premium. But that doesn't appear to be going all that well either. So this just reeks of desperation to me. Casey, where do you rate it on the hot mess scale? Kevin, I have to say this has all the bearings of a classic hot mess.

Hot mess. This company has no idea what it is anymore. It is just acting based on Elon's whims, and they are nonsensical and desperate. What do you think? Well, I think they are creating some business for the free speech pendant necklace market, and I think we should celebrate that. That is business that didn't exist before. All right. What's the next train coming down the tracks? All right. Pulling into the station, we've got...

From friends to enemies. Casey, this is a story about a feud that has roiled the AI companionship market. This is so sad. Yeah, so you know the AI company Friend. You know, I didn't know about it before this story, although the founder had pitched me about writing about it, and I thought, I don't know. And now I kind of wish I had.

Yeah, so there's this guy named Avi Schiffman. He has an AI startup called Friend. They just announced a wearable pendant. Basically, it's like an AI that sits on a necklace, speaking of necklaces, and sort of listens to your conversations and then will text you sort of,

you know, affirmations or, or, you know, tips or whatever throughout your day. You look great today. Yeah, exactly. So, uh, this got a lot, a lot of attention, um, over the past couple of weeks in part because, uh, of the $2.5 million that this company friend had raised, it spent, uh,

nearly 1.9 million of those dollars on the domain name friend.com. Is that high? That's high. Okay. That's a lot. And they produced this teaser for this friend pendant that got a lot of attention. People said it was dystopian or weird or whatever. Some people thought it was cool. Anyway, there's now another friend.

because a second friend has entered the second friend has entered the chat. This one is run by a guy named Nick Shevchenko. It is also an AI pendant company. This is something called the friend necklace that supposedly comes out later this year. It's all open source. And after Avi Schiffman released friend number one,

Nick, a friend number two, responded by saying that he is the real friend and accused Avi of, quote, riding my wave. And Casey, he made a diss track. Oh, my goodness. Can we possibly listen to the diss track right now? Let's listen to the diss track. Yo, I'm Nick. And for those who don't know, I built a trap. Renamed your tab. Jacked my style. Built nothing real. It's been a while. Investor cash? You're very quick. I'm grinding hard. Tracks are my peak. Don't be game. Where is the proof? All you're gonna see is no roof.

You know, Linda Iaccarino could learn a lot from this guy. Yeah, bars. Yeah, if you want to make the case that you've been wronged, maybe

Maybe try to make it rhyme. Look, do I understand one word of what that man just said? No. Do I instinctively support him in this and all of his future endeavors? Yes. Nick, I'm sorry for whatever happened to you, and I hope you get justice. You know, I feel like we haven't had a good founder drama in a while.

True. You know, back in the last wave of tech, you had, you know, the Winklevoss twins accusing, you know, Mark Zuckerberg of stealing their ideas. There was like a Snapchat founder drama. People are always accusing each other of stealing each other's ideas. We haven't had one of those in a while. And so for me, this feels like nature returning. Well, what about the nine founders who have quit OpenAI? Does that count? Well, they're not arguing about who actually started it. That's true. Everyone agrees that it was Elon Musk's idea. Yeah.

It was Elon Musk's idea. It was partially his idea. So what kind of mess do we think this is? I think this is not a mess. I think this is nature healing. I think that founders arguing about who stole the other founder's idea is just a natural part of the Silicon Valley ecosystem. And frankly, I, for one, I'm glad to see it returning. I agree. I look at this and I just think this is beautiful to me. So congratulations to the friends that brought us together on that point. All right, Casey, we got one more. One more.

And this one says, Mr. Beast Carnival of Doom. This was one of my favorite stories of the last couple weeks. And we will be sharing some details here from Willing to Die for Mr. Beast and Five Million Dollars, a story in the times from Madison Malone Kircher.

the contestants in the internet stars beast games expected outlandish challenges and signed contracts that acknowledge risks of serious injury and death. Still few were prepared for the conditions on set. Kevin, do you want to tell us a little bit about what happened over at the Mr. Beast carnival? So Mr. Beast, the sort of famous YouTuber who does these like viral stunts and, you know, gets billions and billions of views and is just sort of like the Willy Wonka of YouTube famous philanthropist. Yes. Uh,

He struck a deal to develop a new reality show called Beast Games with Amazon MGM Studios in which a thousand contestants would compete for a $5 million prize. - Sounds great.

This story is basically about how the Beast Games kind of became a nightmare. Among the things that happened to contestants in these games, when they showed up to this football stadium in Nevada where they were supposed to compete in these games, not only were there twice as many contestants as they expected, there were 2,000 contestants, not 1,000 contestants.

But they had to turn over their phones and personal belongings, including medications. Things got very fire festival. Like they were given these meals that were described by several contestants as including a tiny portion of cold oatmeal, one hard boiled egg and a few pieces of raw vegetables. Apparently, several contestants said they were served food they were allergic to and that no alternatives were provided there.

They also were having trouble getting medication. One contestant had trouble getting insulin. Who needed it? Do you really need insulin? I think you do. I think that's one of those ones that you do. One contestant said that after repeatedly asking for food that was required to take some medication, she was eventually given half a banana. What did they do with the other half? I don't know. Interesting. We'll see.

This thing appears to have spiraled out of control. According to this story, contestants in the Beast Games were told to put five days worth of underwear in a bag and give it to the production staff who would sort of like dole it out to them as needed.

but several contestants said they had waited hours or even days to receive their clean underwear. One woman said that when she and a group of other contestants who were menstruating during the event had asked the production staff about getting their underwear more quickly, she was told that it was, quote, not a medical emergency, and she recalled that a nearby member of the production staff had laughed at the woman's pleading. There were also reports of various injuries among contestants. Wait, pause. Let me say something. Release the damn undies. Release...

Release the undies, indeed. Other contestants reported being injured by these competitions and not being treated well during the competition. One contestant described watching other contestants vomiting and appearing to pass out. There were apparently several hospitalizations. This appears to have just been a real mess all around.

And my favorite part of this is that when asked about all of these accusations, a spokesperson for Mr. Beast had said that the Beast Games shoot was, quote, unfortunately complicated by the CrowdStrike incident, extreme weather, and other unexpected logistical and communications issues. The spokesperson also said that Mr. Beast had started a formal review and had taken steps to ensure that we learn from this experience. Yeah.

Kevin, did you find that the CrowdStrike incident affected your supply of underwear? Only slightly, although I do keep many backups. So I was able to weather the storm. What about you? I mean, look, you know, on one hand, I understand that lots of people are rooting against Mr. Beast because he is, you know, the most famous YouTuber and he's like sort of corny. And like, yes, he does all this philanthropy, but I think people are sort of always like suspicious of his motives and want to tear him down. And I think that's a good thing.

And even given all that, though, this is just a very funny story. It's very funny. And, like, I assume that going on any reality show is actually kind of a nightmare. You know, like, they really do take away your phone and everything. You know, I'm sure these are not the— Wait, that's the part that sounds the worst to you? I mean, to me, what sounds the worst to you? Not the vomiting and the hospitalizations? That's fine. Yeah.

my friends are always doing that around me. But, you know, I think the sort of sheer accumulation of incidents here makes you wonder, like, how low was the budget on that? They're giving away $5 million. Like, presumably they had a lot of money to spend. But, you know, maybe Mr. Beast kind of saved it all for the prize and hoped that everyone else would get by on half a banana. Yeah, I,

I think that Amazon has a real opportunity here because they can not only release the Beast Games show as they intended, but they can also release the documentary about the disasters behind the scenes at the Beast Games, which would be an even bigger hit. Yeah, I was going to say, I'm going to guess that that one gets way more views than other Beast Games itself. How would you rate this on the hot mess thermometer? This feels like a hot mess. Like, I don't think it's going to truly boil over. And if anything, I think it's just built anticipation to watch the show.

But it does seem very messy, and I'm sure there'll be lawsuits and so on. What do you think? Yeah, I think so. But Mr. Beast, I think, is too big to fail. I think he's going to be fine. But I am very excited to watch this show now. You know what I would say if I were running this program and someone was complaining to me that they were hungry all the time? What would you say? I'd say, hey, the name's Mr. Beast, not Mr. Feast. LAUGHTER

And then maybe they would laugh and calm down. Yeah. You know? Have a hard-boiled egg. All right. That is the Hot Mess Express. We hope you enjoyed that segment. And if you have other ideas for segments that would also work well on a children's show, please email hardfork at NYTex.com. Maybe a puppet show next time? What do we think? What about one of those bubble shows, you know, where it's like you swing your hammer?

AI may be the most important new computer technology ever. But AI needs a lot of processing speed. And that gets expensive fast. Upgrade to the next generation of the cloud. Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, or OCI. OCI is the single platform for your infrastructure, database, application development, and AI needs. Do more and spend less like Uber, 8x8, and Databricks Mosaic.

Take a free test drive of OCI at oracle.com slash NYT. oracle.com slash NYT. Hard Fork is produced by Rachel Cohn and Whitney Jones. This episode was edited by Shreya Sinha. We're fact-checked by Caitlin Love. Today's show was engineered by Daniel Ramirez. Original music by Marion Lozano and Dan Powell. Our audience editor is Nel Galugli.

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, Kuiwing Tam, Dahlia Haddad, and Jeffrey Miranda. You can email us as always at hardfork at nytimes.com. Send us your diss tracks.

Hey Dave. Yeah Randy. Since we founded Bombas, we've always said our socks, underwear, and t-shirts are super soft. Any new ideas? Maybe sublimely soft. Or disgustingly cozy. Wait, what? I got it. Bombas. Absurdly comfortable essentials for yourself. And for those facing homelessness. Because one purchased equals one donated. Wow, did we just write an ad?

Yes. Bombas. Big comfort for everyone. Go to bombas.com slash NYT and use code NYT for 20% off your first purchase.