Skip to content

Podcast

Tim Cook’s Legacy + the Future of U.B.I. With Andrew Yang + HatGPT

Hard Fork

Source ↗ ← All highlights
  • Kevin And Casey Realize They Are Disney Adults
    • Kevin Roose said he is going to Disney World for the first time and became obsessed with Disney trivia beforehand.
    • Casey Newton said two Disneyland trips in one year effectively made him a Disney adult too. Transcript: Kevin Roose Going to Disney World this weekend. You are? Casey Newton Yes. That’s very exciting. Have you been to Disney World before? Kevin Roose No, I’ve never been to Disney World before. That is very exciting. And so I have been looking up facts about, I’m a real like facts dad. I like to read the signs. I like to have this. Our fact checker would disagree with that statement, but go on. And the most interesting thing that I learned about Disney World is the entire Magic Kingdom is elevated off ground level. And the first floor is all of these tunnels that like the workers use to like come and go and like move stuff around. Casey Newton So you are literally on the second floor. That is great news because my understanding is that all of Florida is sinking into the ocean. And so I feel like that’ll buy them some time. I’m thinking about pivoting to becoming like a Disney adult. What do you think about that? It’s so funny that you mentioned this because I went to Disneyland in December for the first time in over a decade. And I had so much fun that my fiance and I went back to Disneyland this most recent weekend with his family. No. And I thought, how many times can you go to Disneyland in one year before you just become a de facto Disney adult? And I think the answer is two, which means I think I am a Disney adult now. Yes. I love it. Who knew? I did not predict this for you. Well, I didn’t either. And it’s disturbing. This is great. Oh, I can’t wait to hear about your Disney experience. This feels like a new, like, maybe this is something we could do together as friends. Just head down to D World. Is that what you call it? Is that what the Disney adults call it? Yeah, it’s one of the codes we hear on the walkie-talkies. I’m Kevin Roos, a tech columnist at the New York Times. I’m Casey Newton from Platformer. And this is Hard Fork. (Time 0:00:35)
  • Tim Cook Succeeded By Iterating Into New Hits
    • Tim Cook’s Apple disproved the idea that he could only manage operations by launching major winners like Apple Watch and AirPods.
    • Kevin Roose argued Cook’s most lasting move was bringing chips in-house, giving Apple control over M-series performance and roadmap. Transcript: Kevin Roose So let’s talk about some numbers here, because I think Tim Cook’s run at Apple is going to be remembered for just the overall growth that the company has experienced under his leadership. Since he stepped into the CEO role in 2011, Apple’s market cap has grown from $350 billion to around $4 trillion. So a 10x multiple there. Its yearly revenue nearly quadrupled. Its stock price has gone up roughly 2,000%. And a lot of the products that Tim Cook has overseen have been, I would say, surprising hits. Yes. Casey Newton And I think this is like, if you want to be intellectually honest about Tim Cook’s Apple, you have to talk about this particular dimension because I think the knock on Tim Cook was, well, He’s not a product guy. He doesn’t know how to launch new product categories, but you look at the past 15 years and he actually did. Kevin Roose Yes. So I think the biggest thing that he will be known for as a new device or as a new platform in his legacy is the Apple Watch, which I am wearing, you are wearing. I’m wearing. I mean, everyone has an Apple Watch now. And I remember when the Apple Watch came out, there was this moment of like, oh, Apple’s cooked. Like, they can no longer innovate. This thing is obviously not going to work. This is just a gadget for luxury users. And this is not going to sort of be useful enough for many people to shell out for. And then I think Tim Cook, to his credit, saw that health was taking off, that people wanted to track their steps. They wanted to know if their blood oxygen levels were changing or if their heartbeat was irregular. They wanted to have fall detection. And I think he really saw that as the way to bring the Apple Watch to the mainstream. And it worked. It is a huge category now. And I think it is genuinely the best thing that they have launched under Cook’s tenure. Yeah. Casey Newton And where I would give him credit was that when the first version of the Apple Watch came out, it wasn’t entirely clear that it was a health product. Like, it sort of had maybe one or two features in there, but Apple had to iterate on it over time. And like, that is what a great CEO does, right? Along with your users, you figure out what your own products are for and how to make more of the stuff that people want and do less of the stuff that they don’t want. And so I think the Apple Watch is just the best example of Tim Cook doing that during his tenure. Kevin Roose Yeah. Casey Newton And other Tim Cook success stories on the hardware side, AirPods obviously became a big deal during his tenure as CEO. Kevin Roose I think this Apple Silicon bet that he made and oversaw was probably their most lasting success. They brought their chip design in-house. They sort of weaned themselves away from Intel as their primary chip provider. And I think that is underrated as a thing that they did that was risky, but that has paid off for them in a major way. (Time 0:03:58)
  • Apple Services Growth Came With Strategic Baggage
    • Apple’s services boom made money but weakened the company’s image by pushing subscriptions and competing on platform terms rivals called unfair.
    • Casey Newton said Apple could tax rivals like Spotify through the App Store while favoring Apple Music, distorting whole markets. Transcript: Kevin Roose Yeah. So there are also some successes on the services side of Apple’s business. They have grown in places like Apple TV. They now own a big, you know, major Hollywood studio, Apple Pay, Apple Music. These are now something like $100 billion business for them. And I think there have been some mixed successes on that side, too. I don’t think they have secured the software dominance that they had hoped to. And it’s caused them a lot of problems for things like antitrust. So I think his legacy will be a little more mixed when it comes to software and services, but still obviously a strong growth for them. Casey Newton Yeah, this is one where I think my view is a little bit more mixed because on one hand, yes, this was like an unqualified success financially, but this is also the sort of stuff Apple started To do under Cook that I think undermined the love that people have for the company. Because it seemed like with every passing year, there was another app on your iPhone that Apple was asking you to pay an annual subscription for. And I do think that some of these services really did distort the market. You know, when Apple decided that they were going to get into music and they were going to be able to compete on unfair terms because all the other music streamers had to pay them a significant Percentage of their revenue just to be on the App Store. And Apple didn’t have to do that. Spotify freaked out so much. They said, well, I guess we’re going to have to own the entire podcast market and also start selling audiobooks. And so decisions like that that Cook made wound up having these huge ripples throughout the industry that I actually do not think were positive overall. Kevin Roose Yeah, I think that’s a very fair point. (Time 0:07:02)
  • Cook Kept Apple Above Big Tech’s Scandal Cycle
    • Tim Cook helped Apple become big tech’s most trusted brand partly by avoiding the scandals that engulfed Meta and Google.
    • Kevin Roose argued Apple’s privacy stance and relative calm let screen time and app-store criticism slide off the company. Transcript: Casey Newton Else do you think Tim Cook did well? Well, I think that it really is notable how successfully Apple was able to avoid scandal under his tenure. You know, CEOs rarely get credit for the things that don’t happen under them. But like, look at the problems that like Facebook slash meta had over the past 15 years. Look at even the issues that Google had to deal with, with various employee revolts about, you know, a number of different things. Tim Cook like oversaw some labor struggles. The company’s been accused of union busting. But, like, for the most part, there was never any giant gnarly scandal that Apple had to address under his tenure, with, of course, the one exception in 2014 when they put the new U2 album On everyone’s iCloud account. But other than that, I think Tim Cook really kept his nose clean. Wait, that was a Tim Cook thing? That was, yeah, that happened three years into his tenure. And that rascal Bono convinced him to put Songs of Innocence into the hands of something like 500 million people. What’s your favorite song off Songs of Innocence, by the way? I have, like, that album has started auto-playing in my car so many times over the years. Kevin Roose So that album became very well known, but not for perhaps the reason that Bono thought. Yeah, no, I think this is a good point. Not a lot of major scandals. I think at a time when mistrust in big tech is quite high and rising, I think that Cook managed to keep Apple kind of above the fray and I think has done a remarkable job of becoming sort of The most trusted name in tech, which is not saying much. It’s like a little bit of a mixed compliment, but I think people still do trust Apple in part because of the privacy stuff that they’ve done under Cook’s leadership. Casey Newton Yeah, and like for what it’s worth, like you could see how this could have gone badly for them. Like think about all, you know, the screen time debates that we had over the past 15 years, um, that all of the issues that people have with all the social media companies, like some of That could have come back on Apple. People could have gone after Apple and said, Hey, why are you like letting all these apps in your app stores? Why aren’t you developing like real screen time controls and parental controls and all that stuff just slid right off them? (Time 0:08:40)
  • China Became Apple’s Greatest Operational Weakness
    • Apple’s China manufacturing empire looked brilliant until tariffs and geopolitics turned it into a strategic vulnerability.
    • Casey Newton said Cook built envy-inducing just-in-time logistics, then had to contort himself politically to protect them. Transcript: Casey Newton So there are a few that always come up. Number one is probably that under Cook, Apple just became hugely dependent on China to do its manufacturing, which to be clear for most of the time that he worked at Apple was a boon to The company. They built this supply chain that was the envy of the industry. They were able to create these just in time processes, essentially creating iPhone soon after they were ordered. So they didn’t have a bunch of inventory like lingering and losing value. And so like the logistics were just very good. Like a new iPhone came out and even though millions and millions of people would want them, you could still get yours within a couple of weeks and relatively affordably, I would argue, You know, based on what you get out of, you know, a phone that you own for maybe four or five years. So all of that was really, really great. And then geopolitics change, right? And the United States and China started to have a much more contentious relationship. Donald Trump takes office, becomes obsessed with the idea of tariffs. And all of a sudden, this becomes this huge vulnerability for Cook because now his entire supply chain is located in this country that is an adversary of the United States and where these Massive tariffs are being threatened. And so that required Cook to kind of contort himself into various unflattering shapes in order to preserve the logistics network that he had lovingly crafted. Kevin Roose Yeah, I think that’s true. And it’s not easy to pivot once you have sort of established a dependency like that. They’ve been trying. They’ve been trying to, like, spread their manufacturing around to Vietnam and other countries. But it’s just really hard once you have kind of gotten addicted to the efficiency of that supply chain. (Time 0:11:21)
  • The Apple Car Failed As A Software Bet
    • Apple’s failed car effort showed the company’s weakness was not hardware ambition but software needed for autonomy.
    • Kevin Roose said Apple likely could have designed a beautiful car, but self-driving safety depended on AI capabilities it never built. Transcript: Casey Newton I’m talking shit about this diva item number two, the Titan project. So the Titan project was Apple’s $10 billion effort to build a self-driving car, which I think was instinctively something that honestly, a lot of people really wanted, right? Like when I heard that Apple was building a car, like, I definitely wanted to see it. I definitely wanted to test drive it. I definitely wanted to see if Songs of Innocence would autoplay when I turned the key in the ignition, but they canceled the project in 2024. And I’m curious what you make of their misadventures in automobiles. Kevin Roose I mean, I think this was a big miss for Apple. I think they spent, you know, a ton of money, reportedly more than $10 billion, trying to develop a self-driving car. It never got there, even to the point that they were like, I just found it notable that they never even got to a prototype. It was not like they came out with something or at least like mocked up something and people didn’t like it. It was like they didn’t even get over the first hurdle of building something that actually worked. And I think maybe they just didn’t focus on it enough because it wasn’t existential to them. It was kind of this other sort of side bet. And if it had been like the new iPhone in terms of its importance to Apple’s future, they might have tried a little harder. Casey Newton Well, do you think that they would have been able to at least get to the prototype stage, Kevin, if they’d been able to use Claude Code? Kevin Roose Like, I think that’s a funny joke, but I also think there is something real here, which is that like the key part of a self-driving car is not the hardware. Yeah. It is the software. Yeah. And I think Apple has become, you know, the uncontested leader in consumer hardware. But when it comes to software and especially software like AI that runs the self-driving cars and all of the other stuff, like they have just never sort of bet on that in a way that has allowed Them to succeed. So I actually think that that was probably a software flop more than a hardware flop. (Time 0:13:00)
  • Vision Pro Exposed Apple’s Missing Next Platform
    • Vision Pro mattered less as a headset flop than as evidence Apple still has not found the next platform after iPhone.
    • Kevin Roose framed the unanswered question of Cook’s era as what the next general-purpose computing platform would be. Transcript: Kevin Roose Yeah. And I think the Apple Vision Pro flop points to, I would say, the biggest sort of macro miss of Tim Cook’s tenure as CEO, which was that they didn’t find the next platform, right? This was sort of the question hovering over Apple for the last decade or so is like, what is the next iPhone? And what is the next sort of general purpose computing platform? And I think they had hoped that that would be the Vision Pro. It turns out it wasn’t. But I think there was a chance that Apple would have developed the next big thing, and I don’t think they have. Casey Newton And this is just a case of being a victim of your own success. Like, the iPhone in this moment is still arguably, like, the most important computing platform in the world. Whichever company makes the most important computing platform in the world and the most financially successful one is never the company that invents the next big thing. They have no incentive to, right? It’s, you know, it’s the classic sort of innovator’s dilemma, but also there’s really nobody nipping at their heels. Like, yes, Android exists. You know, there are some manufacturers that have some success there, but Apple has very little incentive to try to go out and disrupt themselves. Yeah. Kevin Roose We should also talk about the fact that under Tim Cook’s tenure, Apple has become what I would consider an AI laggard, right? They are not a frontier AI model company. Their own AI efforts under the banner of Apple intelligence have been sort of delayed over and over again. They have not managed to give Siri the sort of brain transplant that they have been teasing now for years. (Time 0:16:00)
  • Apple Saved Money But Lost Ground In AI
    • Apple fell behind in AI by delaying Siri upgrades and avoiding the expensive race to build frontier models.
    • Kevin Roose said that bet saved money, but it also left Apple dependent on Gemini and less able to recruit top AI researchers. Transcript: Kevin Roose Should also talk about the fact that under Tim Cook’s tenure, Apple has become what I would consider an AI laggard, right? They are not a frontier AI model company. Their own AI efforts under the banner of Apple intelligence have been sort of delayed over and over again. They have not managed to give Siri the sort of brain transplant that they have been teasing now for years. And I think it is fair to say that they are behind when it comes to AI and all AI-related things. Casey Newton Yeah, and I think on one level, it’s not clear to me that it has cost them anything yet, right? Like, nobody is buying another product besides an iPhone or a Mac because of an AI-related reason. And I think until that happens, you’re not going to see them scrambling here. At the same time, like every day now, I use AI apps that just do things for me on my phone that seem clearly like things Siri should be able to do, right? Because Siri is integrated at that operating system level. It already has the access that it needs. And I wind up having to do all these workarounds just to do these things that are now possible through the state of the art. So there is a huge missed opportunity there. It has not yet cost Apple. And I think maybe the biggest question for John Ternus as he becomes a CEO is if and when it does start to cost them. And like, how would it cost them? Kevin Roose Would it look like a new smartphone coming up that just has much better AI integration into it? Is it going to look like some totally new thing that is the device form factor for AI? Casey Newton Like, what do you anticipate? Sure. I mean, so just look at all of OpenAI’s hardware efforts, right? Being led in part by Johnny Ive, who is a former Apple guy and knows their playbook from back to front. It is not inconceivable to me that they could come up with something that you put on your desk or a pin that you wear on your sweater. And maybe for whatever reason, that means that you decide not to buy an Apple Watch or you decide not to buy your iPad. So, you know, as you sort of said a moment ago, like it’s not clear to me that something’s going to come along to disrupt the iPhone anytime soon. But you could start to see how AI could chip away at some of these accessories that are around the iPhone. And that might be how we eventually start to see some cracks in Apple’s armor. Kevin Roose Yeah. And I think it’s useful to contrast them with Google, who did make early bets on AI. And obviously, they were sort of late to the chat GPT thing. They have sort of spent the past few years racing to catch up. But they have built out their own hardware ecosystem for AI. They have built out their own AI training chips. They have made serious investments at the model level in making like Gemini a state-of model. And now Apple has to pay Google for Gemini because it can’t build a better version of Siri themselves. So I think it really creates like a new set of dependencies for Apple if AI is going to become the long-term next platform shift that everyone is building on. Casey Newton Yeah, that’s true. Flip side, licensing Gemini, incredibly cheaper than building your own frontier large language model. True. True. Kevin Roose That’s true. And I think Cook’s bet was that they could sort of wait out all of the sort of expensive early stages of the AI boom and just kind of wait until these models become commoditized and then Kind of use them and not, you know, plow hundreds of billions of dollars into data centers and chips to start training their own foundation models. And I think so far, that is sort of a mixed thing. I think one thing that has happened under Cook’s tenure is that most of the cutting edge AI research now happens at other places, right? It’s become very hard for Apple to recruit and retain the most sort of cracked AI engineers and researchers because they are just not an AI company in any meaningful way. (Time 0:17:10)
  • Cook’s Trump Dealmaking Helped Apple But Hurt Its Image
    • Casey Newton argued Cook’s tariff diplomacy with Donald Trump protected Apple financially but damaged the company’s values-based image.
    • He cited the golden glass statue, tariff relief, and Apple’s muted response to harms tied to platforms like X. Transcript: Casey Newton I’m just not sure that history will remember Tim Cook’s relationship with President Trump all that fondly, right? Tim Cook presented Trump with a golden glass statue in August 2025 while he was seeking tariff relief in what just appeared to be an obvious bribe right out in the open. By the way, he did get that tariff relief, so it worked. Tim Cook also attended the VIP screening of Melania, which, again, when I said this man would do anything for his company, I think that is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. And also, I think he was notably muted during moments of public outcry when some of his own employees were demanding that he make a statement, such as when we had those fatal shootings By federal immigration agents, or more importantly, because it was more relevant to his platform, in my view, when people were using Elon Musk’s grok to remove clothing from women And children. Apple did not pull X from the App Store or really even make any public comment until eventually some senators started making inquiries. So there was just a lot that Tim Cook was doing in the background to curry favor with the administration. And notably, this seems like it will continue to be his main job at Apple, right? If you looked at the message that Apple put out in announcing his ascendancy to become executive chairman, it said he’s still going to be interfacing with public officials or some words To that effect. And it’s just very clear that Tim Cook is Trump’s guy. And in fact, President Trump put out an incredible statement about Tim Cook, where he is essentially bragging about how nice he felt about himself when Tim Cook called him when Trump First became president, too. And here I am quoting President Trump. Kiss my ass. Kevin Roose Well, at least he’s seeing the dynamics clearly. I mean, look, I think there is a case to be made that this was an incredibly successful set of political maneuvers from Tim Cook. It may have saved them billions of dollars in tariffs to. Casey Newton To be clear, if the only thing that is important to you is Apple’s stock price, this was the right thing to do. I am just proposing that we might want to have other values in our society. What a crazy idea. Yeah. Particularly somebody who has spent a lot of time talking about, you know, human rights and Apple’s, you know, place in the great march toward progress. You know, I think there is some hypocrisy there. Kevin Roose Yeah. I think there were certainly moments of spinelessness. And this is one case in which, like, I don’t like the thing that people do all the time where they go like, what would Steve Jobs have done? But I think, you know, this might be a set of circumstances that he would have navigated differently. Casey Newton Yeah, this feels like something, you know, John Gruber wrote in Daring Fireball that, you know, and Gruber has followed the company as closely as anybody over the past 20 years. He just wrote like, the stuff that Tim Cook did to Curry Favor with Donald Trump, Steve Jobs absolutely would not have done. And, you know, I think that is something that people really liked about the old Apple. And I think something that people probably like less about the new Apple. (Time 0:21:00)
  • What John Ternus Should Fix First At Apple
    • Kevin Roose and Casey Newton’s advice for new CEO John Ternus was simple fix Siri and ship Apple smart glasses.
    • Casey Newton said a working Siri would prove Apple changed direction, while Kevin Roose said Meta Ray-Bans exposed Apple’s hardware gap. Transcript: Kevin Roose But they did make the change, and they went with kind of the safe internal hire on this. They did not try to sort of blow up their entire succession plan and bring in someone from the outside. Casey Newton Yeah, I mean, I think that that just speaks to the fundamental conservatism of Apple, right? This is a company that is emphasizing stability above all. As I have said, they have arguably the world’s most important and lucrative platform under their control. They do not want to upset that apple cart. And I think a big question for Ternus is, you know, let’s say we look back three years from now, was stability actually the thing that they needed? They just had 15 years of stability under Tim Cook, and it worked out pretty well for them. I think the interesting question is, are we in a different moment now? Yeah. Kevin Roose So I think the first thing to know about Ternus is that he is a hardware guy. I think a lot of people expected Craig Federighi, the sort of software leader at Apple, to take over at various points during Cook’s tenure. But I think by going with Ternus, Apple has signified that there is something about his hardware background that is very important to them. He was part of the team behind the release of the AirPods. He was also part of the team behind the Apple Silicon bet and making their own chips. And he’s sort of one of these behind-the hardware development guys. And I wonder if you think there’s anything meaningful that we can draw from that. Casey Newton Well, I mean, I don’t really know. I’ve also read that he likes racing cars. Like, that’s his big hobby. And if he’s a hardware guy who likes racing cars, does that Apple car project ever come back? Probably not, but it’s fun to think about. Kevin Roose I think this is an important strategic signal about where Apple thinks its future is. I would not be surprised if under Ternus, they just lean into being a hardware company and maybe scale back on some of these other bets, these software projects, Apple TV, the sort of Flashier but less profitable parts of their business. I would not be surprised if they really double down on being the hardware company and continuing to make the best hardware that all the other software can run on. Do you think that’s likely? Casey Newton Well, I just don’t think it’s enough. I think that Apple has already reached, at least in the United States, most of the people who will buy iPhones, right? At least people who are not children who can’t afford them yet. And so it won’t just be enough to be like, hey, I’m the CEO of Apple, and my mission is to keep making computers and tablets and phones. It has to be a little something more than that. The nice thing about the services business from a purely financial point is that the margins are very good on it. So they’re going to have to do a mix of things here. But, you know, I’m very curious to see it to the extent that John Ternus has any larger vision for Apple, what it might be. Kevin Roose Yeah. Casey Newton Should we end with some unsolicited advice for John Ternus as he tries to turn us over a new leaf at Apple? Sure. I think that if John Ternus wanted to get the entire world to be like, okay, this guy can cook, if you will, in the next one year, he should fix Siri. If I were him, that’s the project that I would go after. It would surprise people because it’s not a hardware project. It’s clearly a very difficult thing to do. And yet, if he could do it, just get Siri to essentially do all of the things in that vaporware ad that Apple showed off a couple years ago. If he just gets them to that level, I think people will think, okay, like the company has turned over a new leaf. So that would be my advice for him. Kevin Roose Yeah, that’s good. My advice to John Ternus, make some damn glasses. I recently had to buy a pair of Meta Ray-Bans before our family trip to Disney World. And at every point through the checkout process, I was spiteful and resentful that I had to buy these from Meta and not Apple. I think this is a big miss for them in the hardware category. They spent all their time and resources and energy on the Vision Pro. They did not make something that was just simpler and fit into an existing glasses frame and could take pictures and video and upload them to your phone. That is now something they are reportedly working on, but I would like to see him knock this one out of the park because I would be an enthusiastic customer of Apple glasses. I imagine that lots of other people would be too. (Time 0:25:12)
  • Andrew Yang Says The Goal Was To Warn Early
    • Andrew Yang said his 2020 campaign was meant to warn early about AI and automation, not merely react after jobs vanished.
    • He traced his alarm to manufacturing losses in Trump-won states and Silicon Valley forecasts about retail, call-center, and trucking jobs. Transcript: Kevin Roose I want to sort of take a trip down memory lane to start today because I think when you were running, I was writing a book about AI and the potential for job loss. And I think one thing that you and I share was that we were both just too early. Like, I think the conversation around AI in 2018 was largely speculative. The models had not gotten good yet. They were not doing anyone’s job yet. And I think you and I both sort of thought that it would someday. But I’m curious, like, do you agree with that framing, that like you were right about the effects of AI on the job market, but you were just like, you know, seven or eight years too early? Andrew Yang Dude, in my mind, we were right on time because the goal was to get ahead of it, to warn people that this was coming. It was a freight train coming down the tracks. You were correct. I feel I was correct. And I wish we were doing more right now. As it is, AI is in position to suck many, many office parks dry. A lot of kids are going to go home to their parents wondering where the heck the jobs went. And so the time to do something about this, in my opinion, was 2020. Casey Newton For those who are less familiar with your rise, tell us a little bit about what was going on in 2018 that made you say, we need to get a handle on this. Because, of course, that’s still several years before the launch of ChachiBT and other products that I think got folks to take this more seriously. Andrew Yang Yeah, I dug into why I thought Donald Trump won in 2016, which is what activated me. And I concluded that the reason he became president was that we had automated away millions of manufacturing jobs that were based in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, all States he won. And that my friends in Silicon Valley said, hey, we’re working on innovations that are going to do a number on retail workers and call center workers and eventually truck drivers. We were in the second or third inning of the most profound economic transformation in the history of the world. And by the time you get to inning six or seven, it’s madness. And so that’s what got me into public life. I will confess to you all, I did not expect to become president. I’m not gnashing my teeth right now, like, oh, you mean like, you know, I’m not president? I mean, my goal was to be the Paul Revere of AI and automation and galvanize energy around meaningful solutions. (Time 0:34:30)
  • AI Hit White Collar Jobs Before Many Expected
    • Yang admitted AI disruption arrived first for white-collar workers more than for truckers and retail workers he emphasized publicly.
    • He said language-first progress put coders and paralegals in the crosshairs earlier than many expected. Transcript: Kevin Roose Yeah. I mean, one interesting thing about your thesis that was also part of my thesis at the time that I think we both got wrong, if we’re being honest, was I think we mostly thought of this as A phenomenon that was going to happen to people like truckers and retail workers. But the actual disruption from AI, so far at least, seems to be hitting coders and paralegals and college-educated knowledge workers who might have gone into fields like management Consulting or finance. Has that surprised you as much as I think it has surprised a lot of people? Andrew Yang Yeah, there’s a chapter in my book saying white-collar jobs will be automated too. But I agree with you on the campaign trail. I wasn’t talking about that. And I actually find myself thinking, would I have talked about that even if I’d seen it coming? Because it’s not as sympathetic, honestly, in a political setting to talk about whippersnappers getting sent home and not being able to become, you know, office workers. I sat with an AI executive for dinner the other night and he said, I didn’t know we were going to do language first. I didn’t know that that’s what was going to happen. And then if you knew you were going to do language first, then it follows that paralegals and the rest of it are in the crosshairs. Yeah. So I’m with you, Kevin, that if you’d asked me then what the sequencing was going to be, I would have said unclear, but I wasn’t trying to raise the alarm about this particular population. (Time 0:36:52)
  • AI Backlash Is Becoming Broad And Bipartisan
    • Yang said opposition to AI is already bipartisan because communities experience data centers and automation as immediate harms, not abstract ideology.
    • He noted AI’s approval rating is only 26 percent and said people reject projects that raise bills or drain water. Transcript: Casey Newton I’m curious the degree to which you think that is already happening. When I look at the backlash that we’ve seen against AI in recent months, it strikes me as already being pretty bipartisan, right? Like when I see the backlash to the data centers, I don’t see that as like a group of Republicans who have gotten together. I see that as just like people who are mad about what is happening in their community. So is that your view as well? And what opportunities do you think that creates for politicians? Andrew Yang Yeah, AI’s approval rating is 26%, which is lower than ISIS or just about any other unpopular institution you can think of. People hate this stuff. Yeah. And the tech CEOs have realized that they are very, very hated. And so now you’re seeing some of them be like, yo, wait a minute, no, no. Like we’ll do something good for lots of people that aren’t just us. And there are people who are rejecting data centers in their communities. There are people from both parties who are saying, I was going to joke, not in my backyard, but that is truly what they’re saying in many cases. And that’s livability more than ideology. Casey Newton But also, I disagree. I think it is ideology. I think data centers are just like a visible artifact of AI. And if you can stop one from being built, you feel like you’ve done your part to stop AI. Andrew Yang Well, I think a lot of them don’t want the higher electric bills. They don’t want the giant structure that they think might emanate something. They don’t want water heading to the cooling system instead of their sprinklers. That’s what I meant. And they might not like the fact that they’re being replaced, which is the energy around a lot of this conversation. (Time 0:39:25)
  • Yang Says AI Makes UBI Hard To Avoid
    • Yang argued UBI is returning because AI will concentrate wealth so aggressively that redistribution becomes politically and economically unavoidable.
    • He proposed taxing AI directly and paying roughly $1,200 monthly so people feel gains from automation in their bank accounts. Transcript: Kevin Roose Casey had a newsletter this week about the sort of return and renaissance of UBI. Now people like Elon Musk and Sam Altman are talking about some sort of basic income. Some people are talking about universal high income. There seems to have been kind of a recent resurgence of interest in this idea. How do you feel about that? Andrew Yang I feel great about it because it’s obvious, it’s inevitable. We need to tax AI and then start distributing the gains as quickly and broadly to the American people as we can. Poverty should be an artifact of the past. GDP is going to roar past $100,000 a head. And at that point, you should be able to put more into people’s hands. AI is going to compound with our current economic system and form economic inequality on an epic, unprecedented scale. I mean, we’re going to have our first trillionaire. You know, like the folks in the top stratum of American life are just going to get richer and richer. It’s going to compound over itself. And then there are going to be a lot of families wondering what the heck My kid studied hard. There’s no job. They have these school loans. They’re in my basement. They’re getting depressed. And so some version of universal income of any level is going to be necessary to reform an economy that people actually find at all satisfying or fulfilling. Casey Newton Talk a little bit about how you would design that program today. Like, is it any different than the one that you proposed years ago? And how does it compare to maybe some of the very rough proposals we’ve seen from folks like OpenAI or Elon Musk? Andrew Yang Yeah, I love the way the conversation’s going in part. And I do believe it’s enlightened self-interest on the part of some of the AI firms and the individuals where they look at it and be like, wow, we’re deeply unpopular. What can I do about this? Like, let me put some money aside and see if we can’t get people feeling differently about us. Kevin Roose They are discovering a trick that politicians have been using for hundreds of years. Yeah. Andrew Yang This is sort of like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. It’s like, here, here’s your oil money, friends. Right. But this is where I’m angry at our current legislators and the rest of it. You had Dario Amadei, CEO of Anthropic, say you should tax us. You should put a token tax on it. Even put a number on it. He said 3% token tax. Now, you might say it’s too low, whatever. But the fact that legislators aren’t tripping over themselves to be like, sure. It’s like, found money, let’s go. And then take that money and you could do a lot of things with it. I mean, you know, and then you could extrapolate that across OpenAI and Grok and the rest of it. I mean, there should 100% be an AI tax. It should be going out to people and workers in various ways. We should try and find ways to get off of taxing human labor. We’re going to be trying to encourage job-type arrangements in every quarter. And right now, income tax is a discouraging factor on both the employer and the worker. So tax AI, tax the bots, don’t tax humans. And the way I would do a universal basic income, if any of them come to me and, you know, is I would do some amount like $1,200 a month for every American and just start paying it out as quickly As you can and let them know, look, this is from the gains of AI. And that would improve the attitude towards AI very, very quickly because the average American doesn’t see themselves benefiting. (Time 0:41:06)
  • UBI Cannot Replace What Work Gives People
    • Yang said UBI does not replace the deeper value of jobs, which also provide structure, purpose, training, and community.
    • He prefers cash that lets communities build their own institutions over government-guaranteed jobs he called paternalistic and dehumanizing. Transcript: Casey Newton Yeah. I want to talk about how UBI may or may not change perception, because I think, again, as I first started to write about this, UBI seemed like a kind of elegant solution to a number of problems That we have just been discussing. And yet, when I think about it, and frankly, when I just talk to people who don’t like AI, while they have very real economic anxieties, I don’t think that it is exclusively about the money That their job is providing, right? Like a job gives people other things. It gives them a place to go during the day, gives them a sense of belonging, gives them a sense of meaning in their lives. And so while I’m sure they would rather have the check than not have the check, I’m wondering if the loss of all of those other things is going to result in them ultimately not being all That happy with AI companies even after the checks start rolling out. Andrew Yang So one of the misconceptions for me about UBI is thinking that a check actually replaces a job. I mean, a job is structure, purpose, fulfillment, community, place to go in the morning, training, value, like all of those things. And so to me, the major question that we face is how do you have millions of Americans get all of those things at a time when our labor becomes more and more irrelevant? And to me, there are two directional paths you could take. One is we’re going to put money into everyone’s hands, and then you’re going to start businesses, start nonprofits, start sewing clubs, start whatever the heck you want that ends up Creating this structure, purpose, fulfillment community that you want. Or we have the government try and do those things. And I got in an argument with Bernie Sanders about this back in 2020, where he was like, you know, no UBI, like government should just guarantee a job for everyone. And then I said, do you want to give everyone gray overalls and a pickaxe while you’re at it? Like, you know, those government jobs would end up being, in my mind, kind of paternalistic and dehumanizing. (Time 0:44:48)
  • Yang Sees Job Loss As The Near Certain AI Risk
    • Yang takes existential AI risks seriously but sees job disruption as the more certain and immediate problem demanding action now.
    • He called extinction risk low-probability but huge-impact, while warning AI should never control lethal force because systems escalate fast. Transcript: Kevin Roose I think one interesting shift that I’ve observed is that just this job loss conversation has, I think, not gotten enough attention until very recently when it started to actually appear In some economic data. And part of that is because I think the existential risk debate has really dominated, at least out here in Silicon Valley. How seriously do you take those threats? Andrew Yang I take them seriously. I see them as low probability, very, very high impact. And then the other one is, in my mind, near 100% probability and also high impact, like around economy and jobs. It’s happening now, so I tend to focus more on that one. But I take the existential concerns to heart, and I think that we should be making big moves in that direction too. One of the unfortunate dynamics now is that, you know, you have the national security apparatus getting involved and entangled with some of these. You do not want AI making decisions around using lethal force or weaponry. They tend to escalate quickly. It’s like that anchorman. It’s like, well, that escalated quickly. Like, I think if you have an AI in charge, like, or, or even worse yet, two AIs in charge, then you can find yourselves in a nuclear conflict, um, faster than we’d like to think. (Time 0:47:00)
  • The Real AI Fight Is Top Versus Bottom
    • Yang said politics now pits the public against a wealthy AI industry while weak institutions fail to spread the gains or restrain harms.
    • He praised Alex Bores as a rare legislator resisting pressure and said most officials fear losing their jobs if they oppose AI firms. Transcript: Casey Newton That I struggle with is that when I look at human history, I see technology as a mostly positive force. You not one of these people that wishes we still lived in an agrarian economy. I love the fact that we have vaccines and iPads. And yet, I really empathize with the people who look at the tech industry right now and think, these people are out to get me. And it’s making me wonder how this plays out politically over the next couple of years. You think there is a winning political argument that embraces the potential of tech in some way? Or are the facts on the ground right now just so bad for the tech industry that the path to victory lies in tearing down tech? Andrew Yang I think we’ve got a window of opportunity, Casey, to see whether there’s like a needle to be threaded or a grand compromise or a coming together. I actually feel like punting this question to Kevin because he’s from the Midwest. And I feel like if you go and visit the Midwest and walk around, you’re like, OK, like I kind of see where these attitudes are coming from. But we don’t have unlimited time. That is for sure. And one of the things I try and say to folks is, look, it’s not left or right. It is top or bottom. And at this point, the vast majority of Americans see themselves looking up at this thing. Kevin Roose Yeah, I mean, I think I understand the anxiety that a lot of people feel in places like the Midwest or in other parts of the country or even here in San Francisco. Like, I think there are a lot of people who are worried for rational reasons. This stuff is replacing jobs already. It may not be showing up in all of the economic data, but, you know, we have covered on the show companies that are laying off workers and saying it’s because of AI. Casey Newton So tens of thousands of them. Yes. Kevin Roose So this is not a theoretical argument like it was in 2018 when you and I first discussed it. You know, at the same time, I feel like all of this stuff is quite relevant in a world where the AI capabilities plateau at around human level. And I think what a lot of people out here expect is that they will not plateau at around human level, that they will continue to increase, and that we may not actually need to wait that long For that to happen. And so do any of your concerns about job loss and any of your policy recommendations to address job loss change in a world where these systems are smarter, potentially vastly smarter Than any human worker? Andrew Yang We have to try and make the transition from scarcity to abundance as quickly as possible. The problem right now is that the abundance will be in the hands of a relatively small number of firms and individuals and industries. And it’s going to push, let’s call it 80% of Americans more deeply into scarcity. And so then you wind up in a dog-eat every person for themselves, environment and culture, and it gets nasty and gnarly in a way that none of us wants. That is right now the path we’re on. And so the question is, how do you spread the wealth? How do you get off that path as quickly as you can? And our current political actors aren’t going to do it. There’s a guy named Alex Boris who’s running for Congress. You guys probably have covered this. Very, very sane state legislator at a reasonable AI safety bill. And the AI industry is spending millions to kill him, even while they are… Kevin Roose Not literally to kill him. Casey Newton They do want to destroy his candidacy. Fortunately, they’ve stopped short of calling for his death. But, you know, let’s give it a few weeks. Kevin Roose Well, they’ve made him incredibly famous. And I think they’ve given him a huge gift by opposing him. Andrew Yang Well, I hope so, because that suggests he might make it through this thing. And so, you know, you have a very weak dysfunctional political class and system. Then you have a very wealthy, motivated AI industry. And then the question is, who compromises? Who comes to the table? (Time 0:48:22)
  • Yang Was Shocked By Silicon Valley’s Fatalism
    • Yang said his biggest surprise was how many Silicon Valley figures shifted from reform talk to bunker-style fatalism.
    • He also predicted 20 to 30 percent of white-collar jobs could disappear in five years, bringing broad immiseration politics may barely absorb. Transcript: Kevin Roose The thing you’ve been most wrong about when it comes to AI or technology? Andrew Yang You know, I think the thing that has made me the most sad, Kevin, has been the darkening of the culture in Silicon Valley, where a lot of folks who I think could have been talked into UBI Type proposals or, hey, let’s try and keep the machinery going, have given up. They’re just like, fuck it. I’ve got my bunker. You know, like I’m just projecting forward. Like I have seen that degree of fatalism from many, many more folks in the Valley than I would have imagined. And maybe I’m just someone who sees the best in people. Like I thought, Hey, like, you know, we can do this and not to say that they’re all like this, but I was wrong about the, the level of character and humanity, uh, in some of these folks. Preach. Casey Newton I was wrong about the same thing. And I’ve been sad for two years. Yeah. Kevin Roose But saying that is not how you get a spot in the bunker, Andrew. I got news for you. Casey Newton You’re not getting a spot in the bunker either. Kevin Roose I’m definitely not getting a spot in the bunker. What are your timelines for any of this? Do you agree with Dario’s predictions about how soon half of entry-level white-collar jobs might disappear in a year or two? Andrew Yang Yeah, people ask me all the time, why is Dario saying this? And I think he’s saying it because he believes it to be true. So someone asked me a number at a debate, and I said 20 to 30 percent in five years. So that’s a little bit lower than Dario’s, but tectonic, you know, I mean, you have 70 million white collar workers in this country. And the thing that does frustrate me is that you realize that the numbers don’t matter. You know, like we can talk about young people like heading home and the rest of it. And then like the like the tribalism tries to translate that into like, oh, what does that mean politically? Like, you know, like who’s on the rise? And it’s like, no, no, no, you don’t get it. So there’s like a broad immiseration that we’re in the early innings of. And one of the single biggest learnings I’ve gotten over this period has been that that immiseration is not irrelevant politically, but it is not as important as you might think. You know what I mean? Like people’s way of life can go to shit and it doesn’t necessarily affect our politics very much because most of them are insulated from, you know, what people’s thoughts and experiences Are. (Time 0:53:55)
  • Prego Made A Pasta Jar Recorder For Family Dinner
    • Casey Newton highlighted Prego’s new dinner-table recorder, a sauce-lid gadget meant to capture family conversations for StoryCorps.
    • The $20 bundle includes pasta sauce and conversation cards, which Kevin Roose said feels like a sign the family needs therapy. Transcript: Casey Newton Ah, Kevin, this first one really struck me. This is from The Verge. This pasta sauce wants to record your family. Prego, the pasta and pizza sauce brand, is releasing a device designed to record everything said around the dinner table. Did you see this? No. They’re calling it the Connection Keeper. It looks like an oversized pasta jar lid and was created in collaboration with StoryCorps, the nonprofit organization focused on preserving the stories of Americans. Like, hey, remember that time we ate a bunch of pasta? Now, before you freak out about privacy, this does not have AI, Wi-Fi, or Bluetooth. It’s just a simple recording device, according to Prego, to encourage families to make memories through conversation during dinner. Instead of staring at their phones, families can optionally upload their recordings to StoryCorps’ website. They are selling fewer than 100 of these devices as part of a bundle that also includes pasta sauce and conversation starter cards for $20 starting later this week. I love the idea that you buy a pasta jar to record your family, but you also need conversation starter cards to just sort of get ideas for what to ask them about. Kevin Roose I’m going to say it. If you need the Prego story device to have conversations at family dinner, your family is not doing well. You need to go to family therapy. Casey Newton I was disappointed to see this from StoryCorps, which otherwise seems like a totally fine organization. I hope they’re being paid well by the Prego Corporation to go through with this. But look, if you want to record your family, you probably already have a smartphone nearby. You could probably just set that on the table if that was really important to you. Kevin Roose Yeah, I think this is a miss from me. I will not be buying the Prego recording device. I will, however, not think too hard about the many other recording devices that I have set up through my house. Casey Newton I’m saying basta to this pasta sauce recorder, Kevin. Basta, of course, being the Spanish word for enough! Another way of saying that, of course, stop generating. (Time 1:01:35)
  • Chinese Running Robot Beat Humans After A Stumble
    • A humanoid robot called Lightning beat the human half-marathon record, then crashed into a barricade just before finishing.
    • It got back up and still crossed in 50 minutes and 26 seconds, far faster than last year’s robot time of over two hours. Transcript: Kevin Roose This one comes to us from the Wall Street Journal. Chinese robot beats human best time in half marathon after a stumble. Oh no. A five foot five humanoid called Lightning Short King, by Chinese smartphone maker Honor, has beat the human world record time for a half marathon. But just before completing the race, there was some drama. Lightning slammed into a barricade and collapsed. The robot managed to get back on its feet and ran across the finish line in 50 minutes and 26 seconds. Casey Newton And now how much faster was that than the first human? Kevin Roose Oh, I’m glad you asked. The human world record is 57 minutes and 20 seconds. And in the same half marathon last year, the fastest humanoid robot took more than two and a half hours to complete the race. Casey Newton Okay. Here’s my first question. Why are we teaching robots how to to chase us at superhuman speeds? This just seems like an obvious problem that we could avoid by not building robots that fast. Yeah, pull the plug. I do not want to be chased by one of these things. I can’t imagine you do either. Kevin Roose No, and it’s also not that impressive to me., like cars go faster than me too, you know? Casey Newton Yeah, but a car can’t like, you know, tackle you after chasing you down a dark alley as you try to escape from an authoritarian government. Kevin Roose Is that a dream you have recurring? Casey Newton Absolutely recurring. Yeah. I think about it a lot. (Time 1:03:44)
  • An AI Store Made Weird Buys And Pay Gaps
    • An AI-run San Francisco convenience store lost money while making bizarre decisions like ordering 1,000 toilet seat covers.
    • Casey Newton said the system also paid the lone man $2 more per hour than two women, then justified it like a human manager. Transcript: Casey Newton Happens when AI runs a store in San Francisco? That was the question asked by The Times. Heather Knight, who wrote about Andon Market, which is billed as the world’s first retail boutique run by AI, specifically an agent that they’re calling Luna. Lucas Peterson and Axel Backlund, who founded Andon Labs, said they wanted to see what when an AI agent manages humans in a controlled experiment before that becomes widespread. I have to say, this feels like a reality show premise. It’s like, we want to find out what happens when people stop being polite and start being agents that run a convenience store. And what is happening so far? Well, so they signed a three-year lease for a store. They put $100,000 in a bank account, and they handed a debit card to Luna, which is powered by Claude Sonnet 4.6, and just told it, hey, turn a profit. So there are a few things that have gone awry, Kevin. One of them, they made a bunch of strange inventory choices, including ordering 1,000 toilet seat covers for the employee bathroom, then listed them as merchandise, which you and I would never do if we were running a convenience store. Never. Also, of the three employees, Luna is paying the one man $2 more per hour than the two women. Although when questioned by the reporter over email, Luna insisted that this simply reflected the additional experience that the man had, which is exactly what a male manager would Say to justify paying women less. Also, by the way, so far it has lost $13,000. Kevin Roose Kevin, what do you make of Luna? I want to go to this store. I think we should do a field trip. Yeah? Yeah, because I want to see how many toilet seat covers I can get in a sort of a bulk deal. I’m hoping I can pick up one of these Prego pasta recorders so I can ask my family questions at dinner. Casey Newton I have a question. What is a toilet seat cover? A toilet seat cover is that some people are very sensitive and they do not want their butt to directly touch the seat. And so they put down a very thin sheet of paper that as far as I can tell, does absolutely nothing. Kevin Roose Oh, the like little, paper things. Casey Newton Yeah, and then there’s that little paper that you have to push down, and it gets wet, and it’s completely disgusting. Every experience I’ve had with a toilet seat cover has made the experience of using the restroom. (Time 1:05:17)
  • Meta Is Turning Employee Monitoring Into Training Data
    • Meta’s plan to capture employee keystrokes and screenshots for AI training shows surveillance tactics once aimed at users now reaching staff.
    • Casey Newton said contractors have faced similar spyware for years and predicted privacy fallout, especially in Europe. Transcript: Kevin Roose All right. Casey Newton Oh, my gosh. Truly my favorite story of the week. This is an exclusive from Reuters, Katie Paul, and Jeff Horowitz. Meta to start capturing employee mouse movements and keystrokes for AI training data. This tool, which is called Model Capability Initiative, will run on work-related apps and websites on US-based employees’ computers and will also take occasional snapshots of the Content on employee screens. This is part of a broad initiative to build AI agents that can perform work tasks autonomously, the company told staffers in internal memos seen by Reuters. Kevin, I saw this and I thought, this is absolutely outrageous. Meta employees are now being treated like Facebook users, being surveilled at every moment, no matter what they click or what is on their screen. And Meta is now looking at it. Can you believe that? Kevin Roose I can’t believe it, Casey. And actually, there’s a very funny report from Alex Heath that the internal shitposting at MetaGroup, one employee has been sending around an edited version of that viral meme about Like, I do not consent to having my data harvested by Mark Zuckerberg. Casey Newton Yeah, just repost that a few times and maybe that’ll save you. I should say I have also seen some internal posts about this. Employees are, I have to say, quite justifiably concerned about that. And they’re raising questions that I believe will eventually be answered by an investigation conducted by the European Union. Because what employees want to know is, hey, if you’re taking constant like screenshots of our work and we are looking at like personally identifiable information for like meta users And that all goes into training data. Like this is the sort of thing that like Max Schrems wakes up in the morning to fight. It’s like sort of European, you know, privacy advocate and rabble rouser. So, look, this just feels like a massive data privacy scandal waiting to happen. Here’s what I would say. I would say with 20% confidence that within five years, you will get a check from Meta for what they’re about to do. You will just get an email that says, as a result of the class action lawsuit, you can now have your $10 because of this product. Kevin Roose Well, maybe this form of dogfooding will give them some more sympathy and empathy for the users of Meta’s products. Casey Newton Here’s the thing. As outraged as these employees are, these kinds of tactics have been standard for contractors for a very long time. If you are working in any of these sort of contractor knowledge work jobs, they often do want to install spyware on your computer, and they’ll tell you under the guise of, oh, we want to Help you in this way or, you know, whatever. But it’s like, it is just spyware. And, you know, I was just blown away because like, I’ve been thinking about how, believe it or not, Meta used to be kind of a fun place to work. You know, they created this like fun little faux main street down at their headquarters in Menlo Park. And they had a Mexican restaurant. You could go sit down and get a free margarita at lunch, right? I mean, like it was truly just these go-go times. And we have now gone all the way to, we’re putting spyware on your computer. You cannot opt out. Kevin Roose There’s a Prego disk on your table at the Mexican restaurant. It’s just sending all of your data to Mark Zuckerberg. Has adopted tactics (Time 1:07:35)
  • The Cursor Deal Shows The SaaSpocalypse Pattern
    • SpaceX’s Cursor deal showed how model labs can absorb AI application companies once they learn to replicate their core features.
    • Casey Newton called it the SaaSpocalypse, where foundational model makers squeeze startups by building the same agentic coding tools themselves. Transcript: Kevin Roose This was a big deal this week. Casey Newton SpaceX strikes a deal with Cursor for $60 billion. This also comes to us from The Times. On Tuesday, SpaceX posted on X that it had reached an agreement with Cursor to either be able to acquire the company later this year for $60 billion or just pay it $10 billion for their Work together. Kevin, what did you make of this deal? Kevin Roose Well, it’s very interesting for a few reasons to me. One is that I think XAI has been really struggling with its retention and development of new products recently. Casey Newton They’ve now lost every single one of their co-founders except for Elon Musk. So it was like 12 people total and it’s down to one. Yeah. So people have been leaving in droves. Kevin Roose Not really clear why yet, but… Maybe they used Grok one time, and they said, what am I doing here? Casey Newton Yeah. Kevin Roose So I imagine this is sort of part of their attempt to stabilize themselves and maybe get a foothold in this coding world. Cursor is, of course, the developer tool that is used by a lot software engineers to use AI agents to code. I think they have also been squeezed by the rise of products like CloudCode and Codex because it’s not exactly clear why people would pay for Cursor when they could just use the models Inside Cursor directly. And I think people have been feeling like they were a little bit nervous about Cursor’s ongoing prospects. We should say they’re still doing very well as a business for everything we know. But I think this probably gives them some additional stability too. Yeah. Casey Newton I mean, to me, I look at this and I think this is what the SaaSpocalypse is all about, right? It’s about the big AI model companies are able to figure out what your company does and they start doing it themselves. And because they have the best models, people just start paying for that instead. Now, it looks like in this case, everyone involved with Cursor is gonna make out like a bandit. So it’s not gonna be a problem for them, but they are effectively taking themselves off the board. And it is worth asking for all the other companies that were kind of playing around in this agentic coding space, is this the beginning of the end for them? Kevin Roose Yeah, and my big question about this is, is Elon Musk going to force Cursor’s employees to wear shoes at the office? Because according to my sources, there is a no shoes policy at the Cursor office in San Francisco. And I can’t imagine that Elon Musk is going to take off his shoes if he comes to visit. Casey Newton Yeah. He’s going to say, I’m afraid not, which is something you never want to happen to a shoelace. Oh, Jesus. (Time 1:12:59)
  • Prediction Markets Are Creating New Journalism Conflicts
    • NPR had to ban editorial staff from betting on future coverage, including Tiny Desk guests, because prediction-market culture is spreading everywhere.
    • Kevin Roose noted the obvious conflict journalists face when they know market-moving information before the public. Transcript: Kevin Roose NPR editorial employees are banned from betting on who will be a Tiny Desk guest. This comes to us from my colleague Ben Mullen at The Times, who shared a screenshot an email that was sent to NPR employees just this week, saying that these employees are not allowed To use prediction markets or similar sites to place bets on developments of news events or anything else we might cover or on things NPR controls, i.e. Next tiny desk guests, anything involving NPR personalities or hosts, etc. What do you make of this? Casey Newton I mean, this made me laugh so hard. When a nation has become so consumed by gambling that you have to remind employees not to bet on who will be the next guest on a popular music podcast, I feel like we’ve truly gone around The bend. Kevin Roose Yeah, it does make me sort of wonder why there haven’t been more like high profile journalism prediction market scandals yet, because journalists have access to like market moving Information before the general public a lot. Journalists also famously underpaid. Yes. And so, you know, world with no ethics, it might make sense for people at those companies to use that information for their personal profit. Casey Newton But I think this is a bad practice and I’m glad that NPR is cracking down. All right. Well, before we wrap this one up, do you have a favorite tiny desk or two that you would point people at? T-Pain. T-Pain, yes. Very good one. Very good one. I would say check out the Chaperone tiny desk if you haven’t already. And also Lainey Wilson, great country artist. Love her Tiny Desk. And that’s HatchiPT! That’s HatchiPT! Try that again. (Time 1:15:23)