KQED Contributor, Sr Director of the Ryan Institute on Complexity
By Jess Love
Is Technology Making Our Lives Less Gratifying? (with Ian Bogost)
The Cybersecurity Crisis Is About More Than “Rogue AI” (with V.S. Subrahmanian)
AI, Artists, and the Future of Creative Work from Life, Automated | Close All Tabs Presents
Will We Still Learn Languages When Machines Can Translate? (with Abby Walker)
AI, Artists, and the Future of Creative Work
Why AI Might Not Change Education Much at All (With Justin Reich)
An Optimist’s Take on AI and the Future of Learning (with Sébastien Martin)
Our Chatbot Friends and Lovers (with Pat Pataranutaporn)
Chatbots Don’t Fool Us, We Fool Ourselves (With Joshua Jay)
Does AI Have to Be Bad News for the Planet? (with Meghan Busse)
To Thrive Alongside AI, Find the Bottlenecks (with Ben Jones)
Player sponsored by
window.__IS_SSR__=true
window.__INITIAL_STATE__={
"attachmentsReducer": {
"audio_0": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_0",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background0.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_1": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_1",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background1.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_2": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_2",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background2.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_3": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_3",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background3.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_4": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_4",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background4.jpg"
}
}
},
"placeholder": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "placeholder",
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-768x512.jpg",
"width": 768,
"height": 512,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-lrg": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xxsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"small": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xlarge": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 32,
"height": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-50": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 50,
"height": 50,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 64,
"height": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 96,
"height": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 128,
"height": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
}
},
"news_12104240": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12104240",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12104240",
"found": true
},
"title": "IAN FINAL(KQED)",
"publishDate": 1791928778,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12104228,
"modified": 1791929405,
"caption": null,
"credit": "Photo courtesy of Ian Bogost, image courtesy of Kellogg School of Management.",
"altTag": "(Text box asking why we miss paper menus, with a headshot of guest Ian Bogost.)",
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/10/IAN-FINALKQED-66629c88-160x90.png",
"width": 160,
"height": 90,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/10/IAN-FINALKQED-66629c88-1536x864.png",
"width": 1536,
"height": 864,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/10/IAN-FINALKQED-66629c88-672x372.png",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/10/IAN-FINALKQED-66629c88-1038x576.png",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"npr-cds-wide": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/10/IAN-FINALKQED-66629c88-1200x675.png",
"width": 1200,
"height": 675,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"npr-cds-square": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/10/IAN-FINALKQED-66629c88-600x600.png",
"width": 600,
"height": 600,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/10/IAN-FINALKQED-66629c88.png",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1080
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12101926": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12101926",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12101926",
"found": true
},
"title": "VS KQED Image",
"publishDate": 1790712909,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12101920,
"modified": 1790714185,
"caption": "(Headshot courtesy of V.S. Subrahmanian, image courtesy of Kellogg School of Management.)",
"credit": null,
"altTag": "Text box asking whether we are ready for AI to be so good at hacking, with headshot of guest V.S. Subrahmanian",
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/VS-KQED-Image-160x90.png",
"width": 160,
"height": 90,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/VS-KQED-Image-1536x864.png",
"width": 1536,
"height": 864,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/VS-KQED-Image-672x372.png",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/VS-KQED-Image-1038x576.png",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"npr-cds-wide": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/VS-KQED-Image-1200x675.png",
"width": 1200,
"height": 675,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"npr-cds-square": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/VS-KQED-Image-600x600.png",
"width": 600,
"height": 600,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/VS-KQED-Image.png",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1080
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12101059": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12101059",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12101059",
"found": true
},
"title": "CAT_Life,Automated_img",
"publishDate": 1790118675,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12101055,
"modified": 1790118748,
"caption": "KQED podcast Life, Automated explores what the rise of generative AI means for human artists and creative work. ",
"credit": "Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images; Edited by Maya Cueva",
"altTag": "Image of a female robot, AI-Da, standing behind a black table scattered with art supplies: white paper with a half-finished painting of flowers, sitting on top of a clear acrylic stand; ten pots of paint, also on top of a clear acrylic stand; a stack of three books; a finished portrait of a face inside a clear protective sleeve; a stack of pamphlets, the top one reading, “AI-Da Robot.” AI-Da has a blank expression with her mouth slightly ajar, black, chin-length hair, and visible robotic parts that make up her arms. She’s wearing a teal sleeveless shirt and dark grey denim overalls. Her elbow rests on the stack of books as she dips a paintbrush into a pot of blue paint in front of her. Behind AI-Da is a clothesline, with four of her artworks hanging on it, inside clear protective sleeves. The artwork is glitchy-looking — to the left of the image is what seems to be a self-portrait and towards the center is a tree. All of this is inside of a wooden shed-like structure. AI-Da and the shed are tinted blue.",
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/CAT_LifeAutomated_img-160x90.png",
"width": 160,
"height": 90,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/CAT_LifeAutomated_img-1536x864.png",
"width": 1536,
"height": 864,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/CAT_LifeAutomated_img-672x372.png",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/CAT_LifeAutomated_img-1038x576.png",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"npr-cds-wide": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/CAT_LifeAutomated_img-1200x675.png",
"width": 1200,
"height": 675,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"npr-cds-square": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/CAT_LifeAutomated_img-600x600.png",
"width": 600,
"height": 600,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/CAT_LifeAutomated_img.png",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1080
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12099776": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12099776",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12099776",
"found": true
},
"title": "ABBY FINAL",
"publishDate": 1789498386,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12099764,
"modified": 1789502230,
"caption": "Headshot courtesy of Abby Walker, image courtesy of Kellogg School of Management.)",
"credit": null,
"altTag": "Text box asking whether AI will change language learning, with headshot of guest Abby Walker.",
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/ABBY-FINAL-2000x1125.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1125,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/ABBY-FINAL-2000x1125.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1125,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/ABBY-FINAL-160x90.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 90,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/ABBY-FINAL-1536x864.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 864,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"2048x2048": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/ABBY-FINAL-2048x1152.jpg",
"width": 2048,
"height": 1152,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/ABBY-FINAL-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/ABBY-FINAL-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/ABBY-FINAL-2000x1125.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1125,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"npr-cds-wide": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/ABBY-FINAL-1200x675.jpg",
"width": 1200,
"height": 675,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"npr-cds-square": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/ABBY-FINAL-600x600.jpg",
"width": 600,
"height": 600,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/09/ABBY-FINAL-scaled.jpg",
"width": 2560,
"height": 1440
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12097693": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12097693",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12097693",
"found": true
},
"title": "AI and creative work radio final",
"publishDate": 1788210610,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12097687,
"modified": 1788211264,
"caption": "Illustration courtesy of Yevgenia Nayberg, image courtesy of Kellogg School of Management.",
"credit": null,
"altTag": "Text box asking whether creative workers are really doomed, with illustration of a hot air balloon by artist Yevgenia Nayberg.",
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/RADIO-FINAL-160x90.png",
"width": 160,
"height": 90,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/RADIO-FINAL-1536x864.png",
"width": 1536,
"height": 864,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/RADIO-FINAL-672x372.png",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/RADIO-FINAL-1038x576.png",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"npr-cds-wide": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/RADIO-FINAL-1200x675.png",
"width": 1200,
"height": 675,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"npr-cds-square": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/RADIO-FINAL-600x600.png",
"width": 600,
"height": 600,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/RADIO-FINAL.png",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1080
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12095788": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12095788",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12095788",
"found": true
},
"title": "Featured Image Justin Reich",
"publishDate": 1787079096,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12095781,
"modified": 1787079335,
"caption": "(Headshot courtesy of Justin Reich, image courtesy of Kellogg School of Management.)",
"credit": null,
"altTag": "ext box asking whether AI will really change our classrooms, with headshot of guest Justin Reich",
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/Featured-Image-Justin-Reich-160x90.png",
"width": 160,
"height": 90,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/Featured-Image-Justin-Reich-1536x864.png",
"width": 1536,
"height": 864,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/Featured-Image-Justin-Reich-672x372.png",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/Featured-Image-Justin-Reich-1038x576.png",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"npr-cds-wide": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/Featured-Image-Justin-Reich-1200x675.png",
"width": 1200,
"height": 675,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"npr-cds-square": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/Featured-Image-Justin-Reich-600x600.png",
"width": 600,
"height": 600,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/Featured-Image-Justin-Reich.png",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1080
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12094703": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12094703",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12094703",
"found": true
},
"title": "FINAL (4)",
"publishDate": 1786467228,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12094640,
"modified": 1786492003,
"caption": "Sébastien Martin, Associate Professor of Operations at Kellogg School of Management (courtesy of Kellogg School of Management)",
"credit": null,
"altTag": "Text box asking could AI actually improve the way students learn? Photo of episode guest Sebastien Martin",
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/FINAL-4-160x90.png",
"width": 160,
"height": 90,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/FINAL-4-1536x864.png",
"width": 1536,
"height": 864,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/FINAL-4-672x372.png",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/FINAL-4-1038x576.png",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"npr-cds-wide": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/FINAL-4-1200x675.png",
"width": 1200,
"height": 675,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"npr-cds-square": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/FINAL-4-600x600.png",
"width": 600,
"height": 600,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/08/FINAL-4.png",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1080
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12093380": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12093380",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12093380",
"found": true
},
"title": "Pat Pataranutaporn",
"publishDate": 1785505369,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12092477,
"modified": 1785505531,
"caption": "Courtesy of Pat Pataranutaporn",
"credit": "Courtesy of Pat Pataranutaporn",
"altTag": "Text box asking about turning to chatbots for emotional support with photo of guest, Pat Pataranutaporn",
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/FINAL-2-160x90.png",
"width": 160,
"height": 90,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/FINAL-2-1536x864.png",
"width": 1536,
"height": 864,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/FINAL-2-672x372.png",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/FINAL-2-1038x576.png",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"npr-cds-wide": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/FINAL-2-1200x675.png",
"width": 1200,
"height": 675,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"npr-cds-square": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/FINAL-2-600x600.png",
"width": 600,
"height": 600,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/FINAL-2.png",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1080
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12092460": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12092460",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12092460",
"found": true
},
"title": "Featured Image",
"publishDate": 1784902337,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12092457,
"modified": 1784902389,
"caption": "Courtesy of Kellogg School of Management",
"credit": null,
"altTag": "Text box asking about chatbots and illusions of reality with a headshot of guest Joshua Jay.",
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/Featured-Image-160x90.png",
"width": 160,
"height": 90,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/Featured-Image-1536x864.png",
"width": 1536,
"height": 864,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/Featured-Image-672x372.png",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/Featured-Image-1038x576.png",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"npr-cds-wide": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/Featured-Image-1200x675.png",
"width": 1200,
"height": 675,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"npr-cds-square": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/Featured-Image-600x600.png",
"width": 600,
"height": 600,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/Featured-Image.png",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1080
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12091393": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12091393",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12091393",
"found": true
},
"title": "CMS Image Busse",
"publishDate": 1784228293,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12091379,
"modified": 1784228369,
"caption": "Photo of episode guest Meghan Busse, courtesy of Kellogg School of Management\n",
"credit": null,
"altTag": "Text box asking about sustainability impact of AI plus photograph of guest",
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/CMS-Image-Busse-160x90.png",
"width": 160,
"height": 90,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/CMS-Image-Busse-1536x864.png",
"width": 1536,
"height": 864,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/CMS-Image-Busse-672x372.png",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/CMS-Image-Busse-1038x576.png",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"npr-cds-wide": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/CMS-Image-Busse-1200x675.png",
"width": 1200,
"height": 675,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"npr-cds-square": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/CMS-Image-Busse-600x600.png",
"width": 600,
"height": 600,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/CMS-Image-Busse.png",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1080
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12091074": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12091074",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12091074",
"found": true
},
"title": "Ben Jones Episode Image",
"publishDate": 1784075321,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12091073,
"modified": 1784075463,
"caption": "Text box asking whether AI will automate away jobs. (Photo of episode guest Ben Jones, courtesy of Kellogg School of Management)\n",
"credit": null,
"altTag": "Text box asking whether AI will automate away jobs with photo of episode guest Ben Jones",
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/Ben-Jones-Episode-Image-160x90.png",
"width": 160,
"height": 90,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/Ben-Jones-Episode-Image-1536x864.png",
"width": 1536,
"height": 864,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/Ben-Jones-Episode-Image-672x372.png",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/Ben-Jones-Episode-Image-1038x576.png",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"npr-cds-wide": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/Ben-Jones-Episode-Image-1200x675.png",
"width": 1200,
"height": 675,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"npr-cds-square": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/Ben-Jones-Episode-Image-600x600.png",
"width": 600,
"height": 600,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/07/Ben-Jones-Episode-Image.png",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1080
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
}
},
"audioPlayerReducer": {
"postId": "stream_live",
"isPaused": true,
"isPlaying": false,
"pfsActive": false,
"pledgeModalIsOpen": true,
"playerDrawerIsOpen": false,
"liveAudioPlayStartedAt": 0,
"liveAudioPlayContext": ""
},
"authorsReducer": {
"jlove": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "12009",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "12009",
"found": true
},
"name": "Jess Love",
"firstName": "Jess",
"lastName": "Love",
"slug": "jlove",
"email": "jessica-love@kellogg.northwestern.edu",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "KQED Contributor, Sr Director of the Ryan Institute on Complexity",
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/723149095a074e9aa227d30a332e0686f89f692011f304d6ceefa21a066391eb?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Jess Love | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor, Sr Director of the Ryan Institute on Complexity",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/723149095a074e9aa227d30a332e0686f89f692011f304d6ceefa21a066391eb?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/723149095a074e9aa227d30a332e0686f89f692011f304d6ceefa21a066391eb?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/jlove"
},
"chambrick": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11832",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11832",
"found": true
},
"name": "Chris Hambrick",
"firstName": "Chris",
"lastName": "Hambrick",
"slug": "chambrick",
"email": "chambrick@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/23cb83888bc440645af5d36d0d1909e8ecb6cef21f2fdb96abf9a55495bb19d8?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "podcasts",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Chris Hambrick | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/23cb83888bc440645af5d36d0d1909e8ecb6cef21f2fdb96abf9a55495bb19d8?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/23cb83888bc440645af5d36d0d1909e8ecb6cef21f2fdb96abf9a55495bb19d8?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/chambrick"
},
"cegusa": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11869",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11869",
"found": true
},
"name": "Chris Egusa",
"firstName": "Chris",
"lastName": "Egusa",
"slug": "cegusa",
"email": "cegusa@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3562ed52747313a4c94017da88ea89f9e85cd901f63ebc056a7d5e0adf4a03da?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Chris Egusa | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3562ed52747313a4c94017da88ea89f9e85cd901f63ebc056a7d5e0adf4a03da?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3562ed52747313a4c94017da88ea89f9e85cd901f63ebc056a7d5e0adf4a03da?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/cegusa"
},
"pbartolone": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11879",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11879",
"found": true
},
"name": "Pauline Bartolone",
"firstName": "Pauline",
"lastName": "Bartolone",
"slug": "pbartolone",
"email": "pbartolone@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Pauline Bartolone has been a journalist for two decades, specializing in longform audio storytelling. Before editing and producing for podcasts like Bay Curious, she was a health care journalist for public radio and print outlets such as CalMatters and Kaiser Health News. Her reporting has won several regional Edward R. Murrow awards, national recognition from the Society of Professional Journalists and a first-place prize from the Association of Health Care Journalists.\r\n\r\nPauline’s work has aired frequently on National Public Radio, and bylines have appeared in The Los Angeles Times, CNN.com, Washingtonpost.com, USA Today and Scientific American.\r\n\r\nPauline has lived in Northern California for 20 years. Her other passions are crafts (now done in collaboration with her daughter) and the Brazilian martial art of capoeira.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/95001c30374b0d3878007af9cf1e120a?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "pbartolone",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "podcasts",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Pauline Bartolone | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/95001c30374b0d3878007af9cf1e120a?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/95001c30374b0d3878007af9cf1e120a?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/pbartolone"
},
"mcueva": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11943",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11943",
"found": true
},
"name": "Maya Cueva",
"firstName": "Maya",
"lastName": "Cueva",
"slug": "mcueva",
"email": "mcueva@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/238c7aba67c4b6b7b891965ba8cc9e9a4928b5dbdeaf4bde6a81c13e87f49b49?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Maya Cueva | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/238c7aba67c4b6b7b891965ba8cc9e9a4928b5dbdeaf4bde6a81c13e87f49b49?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/238c7aba67c4b6b7b891965ba8cc9e9a4928b5dbdeaf4bde6a81c13e87f49b49?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/mcueva"
},
"msung": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11944",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11944",
"found": true
},
"name": "Morgan Sung",
"firstName": "Morgan",
"lastName": "Sung",
"slug": "msung",
"email": "msung@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "Close All Tabs Host",
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/34033b8d232ee6c987ca6f0a1a28f0e5?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Morgan Sung | KQED",
"description": "Close All Tabs Host",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/34033b8d232ee6c987ca6f0a1a28f0e5?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/34033b8d232ee6c987ca6f0a1a28f0e5?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/msung"
}
},
"pagesReducer": {
"author_jlove": {
"type": "pages",
"id": "12009",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "12009",
"score": 6.2871146,
"site": "authors"
},
"name": "Jess Love",
"firstName": "Jess",
"lastName": "Love",
"slug": "jlove",
"email": "jessica-love@kellogg.northwestern.edu",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "KQED Contributor, Sr Director of the Ryan Institute on Complexity",
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/723149095a074e9aa227d30a332e0686f89f692011f304d6ceefa21a066391eb?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Jess Love | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor, Sr Director of the Ryan Institute on Complexity",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/723149095a074e9aa227d30a332e0686f89f692011f304d6ceefa21a066391eb?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/723149095a074e9aa227d30a332e0686f89f692011f304d6ceefa21a066391eb?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"hasAllInfo": true,
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "kqed/staff-member",
"attrs": {
"author": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "12009",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "12009",
"score": 6.2871146
},
"name": "Jess Love",
"firstName": "Jess",
"lastName": "Love",
"slug": "jlove",
"email": "jessica-love@kellogg.northwestern.edu",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "KQED Contributor, Sr Director of the Ryan Institute on Complexity",
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/723149095a074e9aa227d30a332e0686f89f692011f304d6ceefa21a066391eb?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Jess Love | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor, Sr Director of the Ryan Institute on Complexity",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/723149095a074e9aa227d30a332e0686f89f692011f304d6ceefa21a066391eb?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/723149095a074e9aa227d30a332e0686f89f692011f304d6ceefa21a066391eb?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/jlove",
"hasAllInfo": true
}
}
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/post-list",
"attrs": {
"query": "posts?author=12009&authorName=Jess Love",
"title": "By Jess Love",
"layout": "cardArticle2",
"className": "wp-block--nomargintop",
"seeMore": true
}
}
]
}
},
"pfsSessionReducer": {},
"postsReducer": {
"stream_live": {
"type": "live",
"id": "stream_live",
"audioUrl": "https://streams.kqed.org/kqedradio",
"title": "Live Stream",
"excerpt": "Live Stream information currently unavailable.",
"link": "/radio",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "KQED Live",
"link": "/"
}
},
"stream_kqedNewscast": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "stream_kqedNewscast",
"audioUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/radio/RDnews/newscast.mp3?_=1",
"title": "KQED Newscast",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "88.5 FM",
"link": "/"
}
},
"news_12104228": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12104228",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12104228",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1791972000000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "is-technology-making-our-lives-less-gratifying-with-ian-bogost",
"title": "Is Technology Making Our Lives Less Gratifying? (with Ian Bogost)",
"publishDate": 1791972000,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "Is Technology Making Our Lives Less Gratifying? (with Ian Bogost) | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 37188,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#Transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Modern technology has generally made our lives faster, easier, and more convenient. But in swapping out stick shifts and paper menus for automatic transmissions and QR codes, have we accidentally optimized away many of the rich sensory experiences that make living so pleasurable?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Journalist, academic and award-winning video-game designer Ian Bogost joins host Jess Love to discuss insights from his book \u003ca href=\"https://smallstuffbook.com/\">The Small Stuff: How to Lead a More Gratifying Life\u003c/a>. He makes the case that we’re losing some of the everyday pleasures of interacting with the world. But if technology has disconnected us from sensory gratification, can it also be part of the solution?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is a production of the Ryan Institute on Complexity, at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management. The host is Jess Love, senior director. Distributed by \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/lifeautomated\">KQED\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Further Reading and Viewing\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://smallstuffbook.com/\">The Small Stuff: How to Lead a More Gratifying Life \u003c/a>– Ian Bogost, Atria Books\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2oV2DQ2dEA\">Why Does Mario’s Jump Feel So Awesome\u003c/a> – Game/Show, PBS Digital Studios\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Welcome to Life, Automated, the show where we explore what it means to live, work, and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines Every spring and fall during migration season, I head to Montrose Point Bird Sanctuary here in Chicago. It’s this gorgeous strip of dunes and hedges and grasses hugging the side of Lake Michigan, a waypoint for hundreds of species of birds, and it’s hugely popular with birders, a lot of whom I’ve noticed walk through the sanctuary with their phones out.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>They are almost certainly doing something related to birding, using popular apps like Merlin or eBird to ID bird calls or add to their own life lists. Or maybe they’re just taking pictures. I am aware of these possibilities because I, too, have downloaded these apps. I, too, am trying to take pictures. So here we all are on a beautiful, crisp morning with all of Lake Michigan on offer, and we’re staring at our phones.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m honestly not sure what to make of that. On the one hand, it’s birding. Whatever gets you out there, right? But on the other, what are we missing by letting technology mediate so much of this experience? I actually have this thought a lot because it’s not just birding. So much of modern life is mediated and warped by technology in ways we don’t always see because we’re just too close to it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I knew I wanted to talk about this with Ian Bogost. Ian recently wrote a book called “The Small Stuff: How to Lead a More Gratifying Life.” The book argues that we’re losing a lot of these sensory experiences that used to fill our everyday lives. As in the places we build, the objects we design, the technology we use.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Over time, in the name of convenience and efficiency, we’ve stripped them of a lot of texture, sights, sounds, physical sensations, all things that actually bring us a lot of joy. But here’s the thing. In addition to being a media scholar at Washington University in St. Louis and a journalist at The Atlantic, Ian is also a video game designer, hardly a Luddite. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So have we traded some of the simple sensory pleasures of just being in the world for more streamlined bird identification, or is there more to it than that?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is a project of Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity distributed by KQED. I’m Jess Love and this is my conversation with Ian Bogost. I began by asking Ian if he could identify a moment when he first realized we’d lost some of the sensory pleasures of actually interacting with the world.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost:\u003c/strong> The big one, the one that’s easy to identify, is the one that I talk about in the book when I wrote this kinda monster story for The Atlantic about the stick shift, the end of the stick shift. It was a monster story in the sense that a lot of people read it, not that I thought it was gonna be important. I thought it was just a little thing, you know? And the reactions from that, just the volume of them, and the passion of people lamenting and remembering their experience controlling a machine in that way.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Ian was struck by the magnitude and variety of these responses. People really missed the stick shift, and it went beyond simple nostalgia. They missed these sensory moments, like the jerkiness of it all, seeing and feeling the gearshift move. Today’s automatic transmissions are more energy efficient than stick shifts ever were. They’re easier to learn. There’s no worrying about your clutch. Logically, there’s not really much to miss, and yet a lot of people still miss it and all the experiences that came along with it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>And I was like, “Oh, okay. I see.” It’s like a family of experiences, and those… It’s not just one thing. It’s not just, like, being a gearhead or, like, wanting to control your vehicle. It’s rather that we’re surrounded by all of this stuff that seems like it’s just noise and that it’s something to get through to get to the big stuff, the good stuff. But no, those experiences matter, and they matter as first-order parts of our day-to-day lives, but then also our lives as a whole. And so it was that… That realization was confusing to me ’cause I didn’t feel like there was a name for it. I mean, I ended up naming it ‘gratification’ or borrowing the word gratification to name it. This thing that describes, like, what I call the sensory enchantment of everyday life. But I had this realization that we had all kind of agreed without agreeing that that stuff was not important, and so discovering that it was important and that it wasn’t just important to me but to everyone, that was really magical and enlightening and, kind of life-changing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Gratification. That’s the term Ian gives to the magical, enlightening, and kind of life-changing sensory stuff that we encounter all day long, or at least that we used to encounter all day long but increasingly maybe aren’t getting quite as much of. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>So think about anything you do in your daily life. I mean, you have to go shopping for groceries. And, you know, in the past you’d have to make a list, and maybe you’d write that down on paper, on a piece of scratch paper with a pen that you particularly liked using, and then you’d put it in your pocket, and you’d sort of fold it up, and it would have a certain feel of the paper as it tore off.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And maybe the paper made a sound as you tore it. And then you’d get in your car, which maybe had a stick shift and maybe didn’t, but even if it didn’t, you’d turn the key in the ignition, and you’d press your foot down on the pedal, and you’d turn the knob on the radio physically as you drove to the store.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And you’d get the cart, and the cart wobbled a little bit, but you felt it underneath you and against the cold floor, beneath your feet, and then you’d touch the produce to figure out which ones met your desired level of ripeness and all the rest of it. And, you know, you can kind of fill in all those blanks.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So it’s like we automatically got this rich and diverse sensory experience just by doing things that we had to do every day. And we may not have thought of those things as desirable, like, “Ugh, I gotta go do the grocery shopping,” but since you had to go do it, you couldn’t just Instacart your way out of that problem, all this other stuff kind of came along for the ride.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So what we lost in part wasn’t just all of those sensory encounters I just mentioned, but the very idea that they were being delivered to us continuously, so much so that we almost didn’t notice them happening. And there’s so many other examples of this, right? Like the feel of an old school Western Electric style telephone handset, the heft of it, the kind of intimacy of your voice in your own ear and against your mouth, the ability to smash it down on the hook to hang it up, the sound of the ring, the quality of the sound along the copper line, the feeling of dialing the rotary mechanism or pressing the touch tone buttons.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>It’s like that was just what making a phone call was, you know? And now it’s like, well, I’ve got this phone and the… and this has an app for a phone app on it, and it doesn’t really work well, but, like, that’s… But I, and I hate making phone calls anyway. It’s like, well, maybe what you hate is the experience that phone calls evolved into and the fact that they were so sensorily bereft that you didn’t even wanna pursue them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And then it’s like a digital line, and it’s always dropping, and you can’t hear someone anyway and all, and all the rest of it. So, I found that people love identifying and talking about these, these feelings of sensory life that they remember but have lost. And the big thing, the big collective thing is they just happened automatically. They just happened to you. They were a part of the texture and the background noise of daily life, and then they weren’t. anymore. Like during the pandemic when all of us stopped going places, and we worked from home, and we ordered delivery all the time, and, QR codes for menus became a thing. And now you go to a restaurant, and you still have a QR code maybe for a menu, and you feel in your head and in your heart and in your fingertips, you’re like, “I want a menu,” but that’s not reasonable anymore to want. Even some of it is just like a place to live spatially while you’re looking at it, and to kind of distance yourself from this device you use all the time, and to peruse this artifact that is distinctive for the restaurant you’re in, or to spill salsa on it as you’re waiting to order. Whatever you know, whatever delight happens to you, all of that just happened. It was just right there all the time, and then it wasn’t anymore. So it’s like we didn’t even know what we were losing because we didn’t notice losing it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Listening to Ian speak, I realize how rare it is to hear someone actually describe these sensations, at least outside of a poem. The feel of a paper menu between your thumb and forefinger, the satisfaction of turning a key and feeling a motor roaring to life underneath you, rumbling your seat. It feels so intimate, almost vulgar. Like, wow, Ian, getting a little personal here, aren’t we? But maybe that’s just me. Look at me. I work at a university. I spend most days sitting in front of a computer, reading words, pressing keys, reading more words, and I do this around a lot of other people who are also sitting in front of computers, reading and typing. Am I unusually deprived of these everyday sensory pleasures, like some poor neglected houseplant assuming everyone else is as thirsty as I am? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>Well, the simple answer is this is everywhere. This dematerializing effect is everywhere and affects everyone. It affects us in different ways depending on all matter of factors, socioeconomics, where we live, the kind of job we have, the kind of life we lead, whether you have kids or not…what sort of vehicle you drive or if you don’t. All of these factors play in. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Ian says that, yeah, sure, some jobs lend themselves to more gratifying experiences than others, but technology is changing a lot of these jobs too, generally in ways that make them less gratifying. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>So we’re all in it together, I think. I think we’re in it differently together. And I think that, you know, but it’s not something where it’s like, “Well, I don’t make enough money to worry about being gratified.” Like, no, do you have a human body and live in the physical world? Then this is something of concern and interest to you. It’s not an indulgence that you only undertake once your Maslow’s needs have been met. It is part of those needs.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>We have spent decades designing technology that’s faster, easier, more convenient, culminating in lives that we increasingly spend online with fewer reasons to interact with the physical world at all. And now maybe we’re dealing with some unintended and unwanted side effects. Well, one answer is to spend less time online, less time scrolling, fewer video games. And we do seem to be at a moment where at least some people are stepping back from these things. There’s apparently a 175% uptick in Etsy searches for beginner needlepoint kits. But is that the only way? Is the only answer here to retreat from modern technology? Or can technology provide its own kinds of sensory gratification? And of course, what the heck should we make of these birding apps? I try to get an answer after the break.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> I’ve been talking with Ian Bogost about how technology has allowed us to optimize away so many of the physical interactions that used to fill our lives with sensory gratification. But we increasingly live in digital and virtual worlds, and I want to understand whether gratification can be found here too.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>A different kind of gratification perhaps, but sensory gratification all the same. And I figure if there’s one place to look, it might be video games. So is gratification one of the things that you think about when you are designing games and virtual worlds? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>It didn’t used to be. In fact, in some ways I wish I had realized this far sooner, that maybe the thing about games in particular… Look, games are purposeless. They don’t need to exist. They seem stupid because they don’t, like, get something. It’s not like an app. It’s like, oh, I’ve got this productivity tool, even if it, like, is kind of questionable in terms of whether it makes you more productive, like groupware like Slack or something. Like, we know that a game doesn’t make you more productive. All it does is distract you or give you something to do with your fingers and your hands while something else is happening. And if you think about some of the most popular, most compelling kinds of digital games, like Candy Crush, say, right? Like, why is it so delightful to just move gems or candies around so that they match and then to watch the little explosions when they take place in front of you? It’s not because that particular kind of artifact has meaning in the way that a novel or a film does, which is the way that some people in the games universe want to think of games as this inherited medium that does for the twenty-first century what cinema did for the twentieth or what the novel did for the nineteenth. But, like, it’s just a thing. It’s just, like, an apparatus that you can manipulate, you know, that you can engage with and interact with. It’s almost like games are this place where we can go to experience, among other things, the pureness of gratifying experience. And it doesn’t even have to be a digital game, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, I play backgammon many nights with my daughter. We have a backgammon set set up in our house in a kind of permanent way. And like, one reason we love it is just the sound and sight of the dice spinning against the table as they resolve, and the feel of the checkers under our fingertips and as they slide across the surface and of course, the opportunity to look one another in the eye and to be present in that particular way.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I think games are like these, these kind of strange mysteries that give us a reason to do that kind of stuff, that gratifying experience, without any outcome. It’s just that they’re very deeply misunderstood as such, including among the communities that play and make games deliberately. Like, for many, many years, my interest and focus as a game developer was about the meaning of games, like the idea that they could be meaningful and serious, and you could make, like, kind of documentarian games or games about politics or about complex social and political and infrastructural issues.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I made a lot of those games, and I think they were interesting, but maybe I was wrong about what was fundamentally the most interesting thing about games and other kinds of digital experiences was just this opportunity to interact with this alien machine for no reason other than to feel what it’s like to interact with it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Why does it feel so satisfying to watch those brightly colored Tetris shapes disappear in satisfying poof when you line them up just right? Sure, there’s the goal-oriented pleasures of solving a puzzle, but there’s also the sensory pleasures of tapping your finger and having your entire visual field just rearrange itself, or hearing that celebratory little jingle. So clearly it is possible to find gratification behind a screen. A lot of gratification. While I was editing this episode, a colleague of mine sent me a YouTube video called “Why Does Mario’s Jump Feel So Awesome?” This video actually breaks down why Mario’s jump feels so awesome. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Why Does Mario’s Jump Feel So Awesome?]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>What made the jump for Super Mario Brothers so groundbreaking is that it had its own specific physics.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voicover]: \u003c/strong>But I still wonder, when do screens provide this kind of gratification and when do they just distract us from the real world with all of its sensory pleasures? Like, are we better off enjoying Mario’s awesome jumps or just, like, jumping ourselves?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So I’ve always been fascinated by these tech-mediated experiences that change how we actually experience the physical world. So example would be, we take out our phone, you’ve got your Merlin app, and that tells you what bird call you’re hearing. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>Yeah. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Or maybe you’re just taking out your phone to take a picture of the bird. And on the one hand, this does kind of get us out of that moment, but on the other hand, maybe that’s what got us outdoors in the first place. And to, to put this in the idea of, of games here, I’m sure you’re familiar with Pokemon Go. Sure. So I recently took my eight-year-old to the Field Museum here in Chicago. The place was completely overrun by eight-year-olds all attending a Pokemon exhibit, and there was this virtual game overlaid over the, you know, physical museum. And I just, I was like, are these hybrid experiences, are they giving us, like, a path toward gratification or away from gratification?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost:\u003c/strong> There is a famous photographer, of the 20th century named, named Garry Winogrand, and there’s this, like, quite, quite famous quote from, from Garry Winogrand, who took, like, so many photographs that he didn’t even bother developing them all. There’s, like, rolls and rolls and rolls of undeveloped film found after Garry Winogrand’s death and he took so many almost indiscriminately took pictures. And he has this amazing quote that goes something like, “I take pictures to see what the world looks like photographed.” And what’s so impressive about that idea to me, what’s so clarifying about it, is that it tells you something obvious that nevertheless needed to be said, which is that the world is different from the photograph. And when you look at a scene and you’re seeing it with your eyes and in your body, that’s different from framing it inside the boundaries of a viewfinder or on the emulsion of a film, let alone all of the properties of that film and how it was focused through the particular optical instrument that did so.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And the two things are different from one another. So there’s the world, and there’s your photograph of it, and one doesn’t replace the other, and both are equally amazing and delightful in different ways. Now, if you lived your entire life without photography, having known that photography existed, I’m not talking about, like, before photography was invented, you’re – It would be a less rich life; because photographs give you a way of, of looking at not just the world, but objects themselves or images on screens as we use them today. That’s amazing. Now, this idea that we have, that we have to have to give up or trade one for the other, that is so fascinating. Like, oh, I’m only inspired to go into the physical world if I have an incentive in the form of Pokémon that I can search and collect. Like, there’s something weird about that, but there’s also something weird about saying, “Ah, that’s an impure way of experiencing the museum or your neighborhood or whatever,” that you’re only going out into it in order that you can collect these, you know, commercialized rare creatures. We can have it both ways, and the more we accept that we can have it both ways, and even that we must have it both ways, the better off we will be. Now, if you find yourself wanting to live always and fully and entirely in one of those spheres over the other, that’s where I think maybe it’s not that you’re doing something wrong.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I don’t want to make a moral judgment. It’s like you are missing out. If you met someone, and they were like, “Well, I just don’t engage with photography. Photography is not something that I want to partake of,” you’d be like, “I don’t even know what you mean. Like, what does that mean?”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Ian really doesn’t want to offer a moral judgment here. You want to go birding or visit a museum and take your phone out? Go for it. We don’t have to see that experience as but a pale imitation of the one provided by the physical world. We can see it as its own thing and enjoy it on its own terms for what it has to offer. And maybe the best thing to do if we are gonna get all judgy here is try to have both experiences. I hear all this, and in my head, I’m kind of nodding along. But my producer Jesse was listening in and he wasn’t fully buying it. Like really? We really aren’t gonna judge someone for having a big day out and then just staring at their phone? Can’t we just admit that they are objectively missing out? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jesse Dukes: \u003c/strong>I think this is a riff on Jess’s question about the sort of hybrid experiences, the Merlin app, the Pokemon Go. And you know, when you answered it, you sort of declined to make a value judgment, you know, sort of outdoors versus apps, digital spaces. You know, one of the things I do if I have time at the end of my workday, I live near the beach, and so I’ll grab my camera or, sometimes a fishing rod, sometimes a surfboard, and I’ll spend some time by the ocean if I can manage to do that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>Amazing. I’m very jealous. It’s wonderful. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jesse Dukes: \u003c/strong>Yeah. I mean, that’s why I live where I live.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost\u003c/strong>: Totally. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jesse Dukes: \u003c/strong>And I will sometimes see people who are enjoying the same space I’m enjoying, and the way they’re doing it is by taking photos of each other or taking selfies and posing and standing in different places, and then kind of experimenting with different lightings and different backdrops and sort of throwing the outfit out so it catches the light in an interesting way. And I feel kind of sad because these people are actually kind of closing themselves off to the experience. You know, I am imagining that they’re optimizing for Instagram or TikTok or something like that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>Well, they probably are. You’re probably right that they are optimizing for social media engagement, which is a kind of goal setting and a kind of accomplishment or a kind of outcome-oriented living. But even your version of it, which is more internal, it’s more in your head, is still kind of goal-oriented, right? Like, I’m gonna go and commune with nature and the beach, and I’m gonna do so in a purer way. And the truth is probably that both of these activities have something new to offer us about the environment, the beach, the weather, whatever it is. Cause, like, think about the … I know what you mean by, you see them throwing their garments or they have an accessory or something and they want it to catch the wind and get that in the photo, and that’s not something you’re doing, right? Like, they’re encountering the light glinting off of the fabric or maybe their shoes or sandals are off and in the sand, and they’re experiencing that sensation.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so the thing is always more than the thing, and one of the reasons I’m not, I’m trying to not to make judgment isn’t because I don’t have judgments to make. I think that’s the easiest thing to do. But just to, like, stop and recognize, okay, you know, taking pictures for Instagram involves a different set of sensory experiences, than taking, you know, documentarian photos for the purpose of collecting for an album or whatever.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And that those, like, those offer different delights. That feels not like more measured. It’s not like it’s more Aristotelian, which maybe it is. It’s more just like “Huh, I wonder what it’s like to try the other thing.” Maybe I should, maybe I should be open to it if the, if the opportunity arises, or maybe at the very least, I should admit to myself that every act has a sensory payload, and that sensory payload is what I’m really interested in as the gratifying experience separate from the value or the fact of the outcome it produces.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Every act has a sensory payload separate from the outcome it produces. I like this a lot. Even in our increasingly slick, scentless, dial-less, lever-less, paperless, outcome-focused world, there is still no shortage of gratifying experiences on offer, and we don’t have to throw away our screens to find them. We just have to be a lot more intentional about recognizing them wherever they are, and maybe occasionally seeking out some new ones too, so we aren’t all just getting the same kind of sensory payload all the time. Because it really is about variety, and variety is exactly what we stand to lose when our lives are being streamlined for maximal efficiency.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>Just, like, think about the nature of the sensory life that’s really easy and common for you. Like, you know, if you drive to work every day and you’re spending a lot of time in your car, and then you work an office job where you’re moving symbols around, on computers and through networks, then it’s not so much like that you need to get outside or you need to be in nature or something like that, or you need to bike instead of driving. It’s more like, “Where could I find sensory experience that is different?” Or what I call ‘orthogonal’ to that, to that experience. And, you know, maybe that means gardening, but not so that you can grow herbs or so that you can, like, feel good about having a tidy yard, but just so you can feel the wetness of soil under your fingertips and in your fingernails. And that’s kind of the purpose of it, not to do anything but just to spend time with other objects. Crafts or something like this, or hobbies too. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I mean, I think these are great. I have a daughter who loves throwing rocks. We even built her a little tiny pond in our little Chicago backyard. She loves the sensory sensation of big rock, little rock. And I’m, like, kind of already, like, in this conversation, like, okay, I gotta, like, make some time this afternoon and just, like, sit down and throw rocks with her. But these are, these are all, like, individual things that we can do, and I’m curious if you’ve thought about things that we might be able to do collectively to maybe have more control over our environment.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost:\u003c/strong> Sure. Yeah, there is – I think it’s very– Look, there are many cultural, economic, socio-economic, bureaucratic, technological, circumstances we find ourselves in that have contributed to our loss of gratifying sensation, to this process of dematerialization. And if you could remedy those, even in small part, I bet we would feel more gratified. I think one reason, at least in this book, that I tried to put the, like, just pause from worrying so much about systemic solutions isn’t because I don’t believe that systemic solutions are important or that these problems are worthy of those kinds of remedy, but because I think we have a predilection to think, “Well, I can’t do anything about this until the big problems are solved.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>If kids could go to the park in the first place because we built parks and we didn’t arrest them when they went there on their bikes on their own, or their parents, then we could talk. And I get it. I empathize with that position. I understand it. I just don’t wanna wait. I mean, I’ve worked on systemic problems and solutions for a big part of my career, and I’m still very interested in them. But for this moment, just like introducing the world to this idea of gratification, warming us up to doing it, I wanted to say, “You know what?” It’s a small stuff solution to a small stuff problem, actually, which doesn’t mean that big solutions wouldn’t help. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong>So I don’t need to, like, solve all the world’s problems before I go sit outside and throw rocks.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost:\u003c/strong> That’s the key.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Well, we thought we’d take our own advice and try to make our show credits just a little more gratifying. I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED. Our show was produced by Jesse Dukes with help from Tom Dixon. Music by Stephen Jackson. Recording help from Will Feeney and George Christensen. Marketing help from Ananya Mallapragada and Lauren Ko. Special thanks to Laura Pavin, Rob Mitchum, and of course, today’s guest, Ian Bogost. His new book is “The Small Stuff: How to Lead a More Gratifying Life.” And if you like Life, Automated, consider sharing an episode with a friend. We’re a new show, and we’d love for more people to know about us.\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#Transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#Transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Modern technology has generally made our lives faster, easier, and more convenient. But in swapping out stick shifts and paper menus for automatic transmissions and QR codes, have we accidentally optimized away many of the rich sensory experiences that make living so pleasurable?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Modern technology has generally made our lives faster, easier, and more convenient. But in swapping out stick shifts and paper menus for automatic transmissions and QR codes, have we accidentally optimized away many of the rich sensory experiences that make living so pleasurable?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Journalist, academic and award-winning video-game designer Ian Bogost joins host Jess Love to discuss insights from his book \u003ca href=\"https://smallstuffbook.com/\">The Small Stuff: How to Lead a More Gratifying Life\u003c/a>. He makes the case that we’re losing some of the everyday pleasures of interacting with the world. But if technology has disconnected us from sensory gratification, can it also be part of the solution?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Journalist, academic and award-winning video-game designer Ian Bogost joins host Jess Love to discuss insights from his book \u003ca href=\"https://smallstuffbook.com/\">The Small Stuff: How to Lead a More Gratifying Life\u003c/a>. He makes the case that we’re losing some of the everyday pleasures of interacting with the world. But if technology has disconnected us from sensory gratification, can it also be part of the solution?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is a production of the Ryan Institute on Complexity, at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management. The host is Jess Love, senior director. Distributed by \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/lifeautomated\">KQED\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is a production of the Ryan Institute on Complexity, at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management. The host is Jess Love, senior director. Distributed by \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/lifeautomated\">KQED\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Further Reading and Viewing",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Further Reading and Viewing\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Further Reading and Viewing\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://smallstuffbook.com/\">The Small Stuff: How to Lead a More Gratifying Life \u003c/a>– Ian Bogost, Atria Books\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://smallstuffbook.com/\">The Small Stuff: How to Lead a More Gratifying Life \u003c/a>– Ian Bogost, Atria Books\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2oV2DQ2dEA\">Why Does Mario’s Jump Feel So Awesome\u003c/a> – Game/Show, PBS Digital Studios\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2oV2DQ2dEA\">Why Does Mario’s Jump Feel So Awesome\u003c/a> – Game/Show, PBS Digital Studios\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Episode Transcript",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Welcome to Life, Automated, the show where we explore what it means to live, work, and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines Every spring and fall during migration season, I head to Montrose Point Bird Sanctuary here in Chicago. It’s this gorgeous strip of dunes and hedges and grasses hugging the side of Lake Michigan, a waypoint for hundreds of species of birds, and it’s hugely popular with birders, a lot of whom I’ve noticed walk through the sanctuary with their phones out.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Welcome to Life, Automated, the show where we explore what it means to live, work, and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines Every spring and fall during migration season, I head to Montrose Point Bird Sanctuary here in Chicago. It’s this gorgeous strip of dunes and hedges and grasses hugging the side of Lake Michigan, a waypoint for hundreds of species of birds, and it’s hugely popular with birders, a lot of whom I’ve noticed walk through the sanctuary with their phones out.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>They are almost certainly doing something related to birding, using popular apps like Merlin or eBird to ID bird calls or add to their own life lists. Or maybe they’re just taking pictures. I am aware of these possibilities because I, too, have downloaded these apps. I, too, am trying to take pictures. So here we all are on a beautiful, crisp morning with all of Lake Michigan on offer, and we’re staring at our phones.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>They are almost certainly doing something related to birding, using popular apps like Merlin or eBird to ID bird calls or add to their own life lists. Or maybe they’re just taking pictures. I am aware of these possibilities because I, too, have downloaded these apps. I, too, am trying to take pictures. So here we all are on a beautiful, crisp morning with all of Lake Michigan on offer, and we’re staring at our phones.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I’m honestly not sure what to make of that. On the one hand, it’s birding. Whatever gets you out there, right? But on the other, what are we missing by letting technology mediate so much of this experience? I actually have this thought a lot because it’s not just birding. So much of modern life is mediated and warped by technology in ways we don’t always see because we’re just too close to it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I’m honestly not sure what to make of that. On the one hand, it’s birding. Whatever gets you out there, right? But on the other, what are we missing by letting technology mediate so much of this experience? I actually have this thought a lot because it’s not just birding. So much of modern life is mediated and warped by technology in ways we don’t always see because we’re just too close to it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I knew I wanted to talk about this with Ian Bogost. Ian recently wrote a book called “The Small Stuff: How to Lead a More Gratifying Life.” The book argues that we’re losing a lot of these sensory experiences that used to fill our everyday lives. As in the places we build, the objects we design, the technology we use.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I knew I wanted to talk about this with Ian Bogost. Ian recently wrote a book called “The Small Stuff: How to Lead a More Gratifying Life.” The book argues that we’re losing a lot of these sensory experiences that used to fill our everyday lives. As in the places we build, the objects we design, the technology we use.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Over time, in the name of convenience and efficiency, we’ve stripped them of a lot of texture, sights, sounds, physical sensations, all things that actually bring us a lot of joy. But here’s the thing. In addition to being a media scholar at Washington University in St. Louis and a journalist at The Atlantic, Ian is also a video game designer, hardly a Luddite. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Over time, in the name of convenience and efficiency, we’ve stripped them of a lot of texture, sights, sounds, physical sensations, all things that actually bring us a lot of joy. But here’s the thing. In addition to being a media scholar at Washington University in St. Louis and a journalist at The Atlantic, Ian is also a video game designer, hardly a Luddite. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So have we traded some of the simple sensory pleasures of just being in the world for more streamlined bird identification, or is there more to it than that?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So have we traded some of the simple sensory pleasures of just being in the world for more streamlined bird identification, or is there more to it than that?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is a project of Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity distributed by KQED. I’m Jess Love and this is my conversation with Ian Bogost. I began by asking Ian if he could identify a moment when he first realized we’d lost some of the sensory pleasures of actually interacting with the world.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is a project of Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity distributed by KQED. I’m Jess Love and this is my conversation with Ian Bogost. I began by asking Ian if he could identify a moment when he first realized we’d lost some of the sensory pleasures of actually interacting with the world.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost:\u003c/strong> The big one, the one that’s easy to identify, is the one that I talk about in the book when I wrote this kinda monster story for The Atlantic about the stick shift, the end of the stick shift. It was a monster story in the sense that a lot of people read it, not that I thought it was gonna be important. I thought it was just a little thing, you know? And the reactions from that, just the volume of them, and the passion of people lamenting and remembering their experience controlling a machine in that way.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost:\u003c/strong> The big one, the one that’s easy to identify, is the one that I talk about in the book when I wrote this kinda monster story for The Atlantic about the stick shift, the end of the stick shift. It was a monster story in the sense that a lot of people read it, not that I thought it was gonna be important. I thought it was just a little thing, you know? And the reactions from that, just the volume of them, and the passion of people lamenting and remembering their experience controlling a machine in that way.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Ian was struck by the magnitude and variety of these responses. People really missed the stick shift, and it went beyond simple nostalgia. They missed these sensory moments, like the jerkiness of it all, seeing and feeling the gearshift move. Today’s automatic transmissions are more energy efficient than stick shifts ever were. They’re easier to learn. There’s no worrying about your clutch. Logically, there’s not really much to miss, and yet a lot of people still miss it and all the experiences that came along with it. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Ian was struck by the magnitude and variety of these responses. People really missed the stick shift, and it went beyond simple nostalgia. They missed these sensory moments, like the jerkiness of it all, seeing and feeling the gearshift move. Today’s automatic transmissions are more energy efficient than stick shifts ever were. They’re easier to learn. There’s no worrying about your clutch. Logically, there’s not really much to miss, and yet a lot of people still miss it and all the experiences that came along with it. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>And I was like, “Oh, okay. I see.” It’s like a family of experiences, and those… It’s not just one thing. It’s not just, like, being a gearhead or, like, wanting to control your vehicle. It’s rather that we’re surrounded by all of this stuff that seems like it’s just noise and that it’s something to get through to get to the big stuff, the good stuff. But no, those experiences matter, and they matter as first-order parts of our day-to-day lives, but then also our lives as a whole. And so it was that… That realization was confusing to me ’cause I didn’t feel like there was a name for it. I mean, I ended up naming it ‘gratification’ or borrowing the word gratification to name it. This thing that describes, like, what I call the sensory enchantment of everyday life. But I had this realization that we had all kind of agreed without agreeing that that stuff was not important, and so discovering that it was important and that it wasn’t just important to me but to everyone, that was really magical and enlightening and, kind of life-changing.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>And I was like, “Oh, okay. I see.” It’s like a family of experiences, and those… It’s not just one thing. It’s not just, like, being a gearhead or, like, wanting to control your vehicle. It’s rather that we’re surrounded by all of this stuff that seems like it’s just noise and that it’s something to get through to get to the big stuff, the good stuff. But no, those experiences matter, and they matter as first-order parts of our day-to-day lives, but then also our lives as a whole. And so it was that… That realization was confusing to me ’cause I didn’t feel like there was a name for it. I mean, I ended up naming it ‘gratification’ or borrowing the word gratification to name it. This thing that describes, like, what I call the sensory enchantment of everyday life. But I had this realization that we had all kind of agreed without agreeing that that stuff was not important, and so discovering that it was important and that it wasn’t just important to me but to everyone, that was really magical and enlightening and, kind of life-changing.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Gratification. That’s the term Ian gives to the magical, enlightening, and kind of life-changing sensory stuff that we encounter all day long, or at least that we used to encounter all day long but increasingly maybe aren’t getting quite as much of. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Gratification. That’s the term Ian gives to the magical, enlightening, and kind of life-changing sensory stuff that we encounter all day long, or at least that we used to encounter all day long but increasingly maybe aren’t getting quite as much of. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>So think about anything you do in your daily life. I mean, you have to go shopping for groceries. And, you know, in the past you’d have to make a list, and maybe you’d write that down on paper, on a piece of scratch paper with a pen that you particularly liked using, and then you’d put it in your pocket, and you’d sort of fold it up, and it would have a certain feel of the paper as it tore off.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>So think about anything you do in your daily life. I mean, you have to go shopping for groceries. And, you know, in the past you’d have to make a list, and maybe you’d write that down on paper, on a piece of scratch paper with a pen that you particularly liked using, and then you’d put it in your pocket, and you’d sort of fold it up, and it would have a certain feel of the paper as it tore off.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And maybe the paper made a sound as you tore it. And then you’d get in your car, which maybe had a stick shift and maybe didn’t, but even if it didn’t, you’d turn the key in the ignition, and you’d press your foot down on the pedal, and you’d turn the knob on the radio physically as you drove to the store.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And maybe the paper made a sound as you tore it. And then you’d get in your car, which maybe had a stick shift and maybe didn’t, but even if it didn’t, you’d turn the key in the ignition, and you’d press your foot down on the pedal, and you’d turn the knob on the radio physically as you drove to the store.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And you’d get the cart, and the cart wobbled a little bit, but you felt it underneath you and against the cold floor, beneath your feet, and then you’d touch the produce to figure out which ones met your desired level of ripeness and all the rest of it. And, you know, you can kind of fill in all those blanks.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And you’d get the cart, and the cart wobbled a little bit, but you felt it underneath you and against the cold floor, beneath your feet, and then you’d touch the produce to figure out which ones met your desired level of ripeness and all the rest of it. And, you know, you can kind of fill in all those blanks.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So it’s like we automatically got this rich and diverse sensory experience just by doing things that we had to do every day. And we may not have thought of those things as desirable, like, “Ugh, I gotta go do the grocery shopping,” but since you had to go do it, you couldn’t just Instacart your way out of that problem, all this other stuff kind of came along for the ride.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So it’s like we automatically got this rich and diverse sensory experience just by doing things that we had to do every day. And we may not have thought of those things as desirable, like, “Ugh, I gotta go do the grocery shopping,” but since you had to go do it, you couldn’t just Instacart your way out of that problem, all this other stuff kind of came along for the ride.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So what we lost in part wasn’t just all of those sensory encounters I just mentioned, but the very idea that they were being delivered to us continuously, so much so that we almost didn’t notice them happening. And there’s so many other examples of this, right? Like the feel of an old school Western Electric style telephone handset, the heft of it, the kind of intimacy of your voice in your own ear and against your mouth, the ability to smash it down on the hook to hang it up, the sound of the ring, the quality of the sound along the copper line, the feeling of dialing the rotary mechanism or pressing the touch tone buttons.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So what we lost in part wasn’t just all of those sensory encounters I just mentioned, but the very idea that they were being delivered to us continuously, so much so that we almost didn’t notice them happening. And there’s so many other examples of this, right? Like the feel of an old school Western Electric style telephone handset, the heft of it, the kind of intimacy of your voice in your own ear and against your mouth, the ability to smash it down on the hook to hang it up, the sound of the ring, the quality of the sound along the copper line, the feeling of dialing the rotary mechanism or pressing the touch tone buttons.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>It’s like that was just what making a phone call was, you know? And now it’s like, well, I’ve got this phone and the… and this has an app for a phone app on it, and it doesn’t really work well, but, like, that’s… But I, and I hate making phone calls anyway. It’s like, well, maybe what you hate is the experience that phone calls evolved into and the fact that they were so sensorily bereft that you didn’t even wanna pursue them.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>It’s like that was just what making a phone call was, you know? And now it’s like, well, I’ve got this phone and the… and this has an app for a phone app on it, and it doesn’t really work well, but, like, that’s… But I, and I hate making phone calls anyway. It’s like, well, maybe what you hate is the experience that phone calls evolved into and the fact that they were so sensorily bereft that you didn’t even wanna pursue them.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And then it’s like a digital line, and it’s always dropping, and you can’t hear someone anyway and all, and all the rest of it. So, I found that people love identifying and talking about these, these feelings of sensory life that they remember but have lost. And the big thing, the big collective thing is they just happened automatically. They just happened to you. They were a part of the texture and the background noise of daily life, and then they weren’t. anymore. Like during the pandemic when all of us stopped going places, and we worked from home, and we ordered delivery all the time, and, QR codes for menus became a thing. And now you go to a restaurant, and you still have a QR code maybe for a menu, and you feel in your head and in your heart and in your fingertips, you’re like, “I want a menu,” but that’s not reasonable anymore to want. Even some of it is just like a place to live spatially while you’re looking at it, and to kind of distance yourself from this device you use all the time, and to peruse this artifact that is distinctive for the restaurant you’re in, or to spill salsa on it as you’re waiting to order. Whatever you know, whatever delight happens to you, all of that just happened. It was just right there all the time, and then it wasn’t anymore. So it’s like we didn’t even know what we were losing because we didn’t notice losing it. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And then it’s like a digital line, and it’s always dropping, and you can’t hear someone anyway and all, and all the rest of it. So, I found that people love identifying and talking about these, these feelings of sensory life that they remember but have lost. And the big thing, the big collective thing is they just happened automatically. They just happened to you. They were a part of the texture and the background noise of daily life, and then they weren’t. anymore. Like during the pandemic when all of us stopped going places, and we worked from home, and we ordered delivery all the time, and, QR codes for menus became a thing. And now you go to a restaurant, and you still have a QR code maybe for a menu, and you feel in your head and in your heart and in your fingertips, you’re like, “I want a menu,” but that’s not reasonable anymore to want. Even some of it is just like a place to live spatially while you’re looking at it, and to kind of distance yourself from this device you use all the time, and to peruse this artifact that is distinctive for the restaurant you’re in, or to spill salsa on it as you’re waiting to order. Whatever you know, whatever delight happens to you, all of that just happened. It was just right there all the time, and then it wasn’t anymore. So it’s like we didn’t even know what we were losing because we didn’t notice losing it. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Listening to Ian speak, I realize how rare it is to hear someone actually describe these sensations, at least outside of a poem. The feel of a paper menu between your thumb and forefinger, the satisfaction of turning a key and feeling a motor roaring to life underneath you, rumbling your seat. It feels so intimate, almost vulgar. Like, wow, Ian, getting a little personal here, aren’t we? But maybe that’s just me. Look at me. I work at a university. I spend most days sitting in front of a computer, reading words, pressing keys, reading more words, and I do this around a lot of other people who are also sitting in front of computers, reading and typing. Am I unusually deprived of these everyday sensory pleasures, like some poor neglected houseplant assuming everyone else is as thirsty as I am? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Listening to Ian speak, I realize how rare it is to hear someone actually describe these sensations, at least outside of a poem. The feel of a paper menu between your thumb and forefinger, the satisfaction of turning a key and feeling a motor roaring to life underneath you, rumbling your seat. It feels so intimate, almost vulgar. Like, wow, Ian, getting a little personal here, aren’t we? But maybe that’s just me. Look at me. I work at a university. I spend most days sitting in front of a computer, reading words, pressing keys, reading more words, and I do this around a lot of other people who are also sitting in front of computers, reading and typing. Am I unusually deprived of these everyday sensory pleasures, like some poor neglected houseplant assuming everyone else is as thirsty as I am? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>Well, the simple answer is this is everywhere. This dematerializing effect is everywhere and affects everyone. It affects us in different ways depending on all matter of factors, socioeconomics, where we live, the kind of job we have, the kind of life we lead, whether you have kids or not…what sort of vehicle you drive or if you don’t. All of these factors play in. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>Well, the simple answer is this is everywhere. This dematerializing effect is everywhere and affects everyone. It affects us in different ways depending on all matter of factors, socioeconomics, where we live, the kind of job we have, the kind of life we lead, whether you have kids or not…what sort of vehicle you drive or if you don’t. All of these factors play in. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Ian says that, yeah, sure, some jobs lend themselves to more gratifying experiences than others, but technology is changing a lot of these jobs too, generally in ways that make them less gratifying. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Ian says that, yeah, sure, some jobs lend themselves to more gratifying experiences than others, but technology is changing a lot of these jobs too, generally in ways that make them less gratifying. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>So we’re all in it together, I think. I think we’re in it differently together. And I think that, you know, but it’s not something where it’s like, “Well, I don’t make enough money to worry about being gratified.” Like, no, do you have a human body and live in the physical world? Then this is something of concern and interest to you. It’s not an indulgence that you only undertake once your Maslow’s needs have been met. It is part of those needs.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>So we’re all in it together, I think. I think we’re in it differently together. And I think that, you know, but it’s not something where it’s like, “Well, I don’t make enough money to worry about being gratified.” Like, no, do you have a human body and live in the physical world? Then this is something of concern and interest to you. It’s not an indulgence that you only undertake once your Maslow’s needs have been met. It is part of those needs.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>We have spent decades designing technology that’s faster, easier, more convenient, culminating in lives that we increasingly spend online with fewer reasons to interact with the physical world at all. And now maybe we’re dealing with some unintended and unwanted side effects. Well, one answer is to spend less time online, less time scrolling, fewer video games. And we do seem to be at a moment where at least some people are stepping back from these things. There’s apparently a 175% uptick in Etsy searches for beginner needlepoint kits. But is that the only way? Is the only answer here to retreat from modern technology? Or can technology provide its own kinds of sensory gratification? And of course, what the heck should we make of these birding apps? I try to get an answer after the break.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>We have spent decades designing technology that’s faster, easier, more convenient, culminating in lives that we increasingly spend online with fewer reasons to interact with the physical world at all. And now maybe we’re dealing with some unintended and unwanted side effects. Well, one answer is to spend less time online, less time scrolling, fewer video games. And we do seem to be at a moment where at least some people are stepping back from these things. There’s apparently a 175% uptick in Etsy searches for beginner needlepoint kits. But is that the only way? Is the only answer here to retreat from modern technology? Or can technology provide its own kinds of sensory gratification? And of course, what the heck should we make of these birding apps? I try to get an answer after the break.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> I’ve been talking with Ian Bogost about how technology has allowed us to optimize away so many of the physical interactions that used to fill our lives with sensory gratification. But we increasingly live in digital and virtual worlds, and I want to understand whether gratification can be found here too.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> I’ve been talking with Ian Bogost about how technology has allowed us to optimize away so many of the physical interactions that used to fill our lives with sensory gratification. But we increasingly live in digital and virtual worlds, and I want to understand whether gratification can be found here too.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>A different kind of gratification perhaps, but sensory gratification all the same. And I figure if there’s one place to look, it might be video games. So is gratification one of the things that you think about when you are designing games and virtual worlds? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>A different kind of gratification perhaps, but sensory gratification all the same. And I figure if there’s one place to look, it might be video games. So is gratification one of the things that you think about when you are designing games and virtual worlds? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>It didn’t used to be. In fact, in some ways I wish I had realized this far sooner, that maybe the thing about games in particular… Look, games are purposeless. They don’t need to exist. They seem stupid because they don’t, like, get something. It’s not like an app. It’s like, oh, I’ve got this productivity tool, even if it, like, is kind of questionable in terms of whether it makes you more productive, like groupware like Slack or something. Like, we know that a game doesn’t make you more productive. All it does is distract you or give you something to do with your fingers and your hands while something else is happening. And if you think about some of the most popular, most compelling kinds of digital games, like Candy Crush, say, right? Like, why is it so delightful to just move gems or candies around so that they match and then to watch the little explosions when they take place in front of you? It’s not because that particular kind of artifact has meaning in the way that a novel or a film does, which is the way that some people in the games universe want to think of games as this inherited medium that does for the twenty-first century what cinema did for the twentieth or what the novel did for the nineteenth. But, like, it’s just a thing. It’s just, like, an apparatus that you can manipulate, you know, that you can engage with and interact with. It’s almost like games are this place where we can go to experience, among other things, the pureness of gratifying experience. And it doesn’t even have to be a digital game, right?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>It didn’t used to be. In fact, in some ways I wish I had realized this far sooner, that maybe the thing about games in particular… Look, games are purposeless. They don’t need to exist. They seem stupid because they don’t, like, get something. It’s not like an app. It’s like, oh, I’ve got this productivity tool, even if it, like, is kind of questionable in terms of whether it makes you more productive, like groupware like Slack or something. Like, we know that a game doesn’t make you more productive. All it does is distract you or give you something to do with your fingers and your hands while something else is happening. And if you think about some of the most popular, most compelling kinds of digital games, like Candy Crush, say, right? Like, why is it so delightful to just move gems or candies around so that they match and then to watch the little explosions when they take place in front of you? It’s not because that particular kind of artifact has meaning in the way that a novel or a film does, which is the way that some people in the games universe want to think of games as this inherited medium that does for the twenty-first century what cinema did for the twentieth or what the novel did for the nineteenth. But, like, it’s just a thing. It’s just, like, an apparatus that you can manipulate, you know, that you can engage with and interact with. It’s almost like games are this place where we can go to experience, among other things, the pureness of gratifying experience. And it doesn’t even have to be a digital game, right?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Like, I play backgammon many nights with my daughter. We have a backgammon set set up in our house in a kind of permanent way. And like, one reason we love it is just the sound and sight of the dice spinning against the table as they resolve, and the feel of the checkers under our fingertips and as they slide across the surface and of course, the opportunity to look one another in the eye and to be present in that particular way.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Like, I play backgammon many nights with my daughter. We have a backgammon set set up in our house in a kind of permanent way. And like, one reason we love it is just the sound and sight of the dice spinning against the table as they resolve, and the feel of the checkers under our fingertips and as they slide across the surface and of course, the opportunity to look one another in the eye and to be present in that particular way.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I think games are like these, these kind of strange mysteries that give us a reason to do that kind of stuff, that gratifying experience, without any outcome. It’s just that they’re very deeply misunderstood as such, including among the communities that play and make games deliberately. Like, for many, many years, my interest and focus as a game developer was about the meaning of games, like the idea that they could be meaningful and serious, and you could make, like, kind of documentarian games or games about politics or about complex social and political and infrastructural issues.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I think games are like these, these kind of strange mysteries that give us a reason to do that kind of stuff, that gratifying experience, without any outcome. It’s just that they’re very deeply misunderstood as such, including among the communities that play and make games deliberately. Like, for many, many years, my interest and focus as a game developer was about the meaning of games, like the idea that they could be meaningful and serious, and you could make, like, kind of documentarian games or games about politics or about complex social and political and infrastructural issues.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I made a lot of those games, and I think they were interesting, but maybe I was wrong about what was fundamentally the most interesting thing about games and other kinds of digital experiences was just this opportunity to interact with this alien machine for no reason other than to feel what it’s like to interact with it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I made a lot of those games, and I think they were interesting, but maybe I was wrong about what was fundamentally the most interesting thing about games and other kinds of digital experiences was just this opportunity to interact with this alien machine for no reason other than to feel what it’s like to interact with it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Why does it feel so satisfying to watch those brightly colored Tetris shapes disappear in satisfying poof when you line them up just right? Sure, there’s the goal-oriented pleasures of solving a puzzle, but there’s also the sensory pleasures of tapping your finger and having your entire visual field just rearrange itself, or hearing that celebratory little jingle. So clearly it is possible to find gratification behind a screen. A lot of gratification. While I was editing this episode, a colleague of mine sent me a YouTube video called “Why Does Mario’s Jump Feel So Awesome?” This video actually breaks down why Mario’s jump feels so awesome. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Why does it feel so satisfying to watch those brightly colored Tetris shapes disappear in satisfying poof when you line them up just right? Sure, there’s the goal-oriented pleasures of solving a puzzle, but there’s also the sensory pleasures of tapping your finger and having your entire visual field just rearrange itself, or hearing that celebratory little jingle. So clearly it is possible to find gratification behind a screen. A lot of gratification. While I was editing this episode, a colleague of mine sent me a YouTube video called “Why Does Mario’s Jump Feel So Awesome?” This video actually breaks down why Mario’s jump feels so awesome. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Why Does Mario’s Jump Feel So Awesome?]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Why Does Mario’s Jump Feel So Awesome?]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>What made the jump for Super Mario Brothers so groundbreaking is that it had its own specific physics.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>What made the jump for Super Mario Brothers so groundbreaking is that it had its own specific physics.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voicover]: \u003c/strong>But I still wonder, when do screens provide this kind of gratification and when do they just distract us from the real world with all of its sensory pleasures? Like, are we better off enjoying Mario’s awesome jumps or just, like, jumping ourselves?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voicover]: \u003c/strong>But I still wonder, when do screens provide this kind of gratification and when do they just distract us from the real world with all of its sensory pleasures? Like, are we better off enjoying Mario’s awesome jumps or just, like, jumping ourselves?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So I’ve always been fascinated by these tech-mediated experiences that change how we actually experience the physical world. So example would be, we take out our phone, you’ve got your Merlin app, and that tells you what bird call you’re hearing. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So I’ve always been fascinated by these tech-mediated experiences that change how we actually experience the physical world. So example would be, we take out our phone, you’ve got your Merlin app, and that tells you what bird call you’re hearing. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>Yeah. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>Yeah. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Or maybe you’re just taking out your phone to take a picture of the bird. And on the one hand, this does kind of get us out of that moment, but on the other hand, maybe that’s what got us outdoors in the first place. And to, to put this in the idea of, of games here, I’m sure you’re familiar with Pokemon Go. Sure. So I recently took my eight-year-old to the Field Museum here in Chicago. The place was completely overrun by eight-year-olds all attending a Pokemon exhibit, and there was this virtual game overlaid over the, you know, physical museum. And I just, I was like, are these hybrid experiences, are they giving us, like, a path toward gratification or away from gratification?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Or maybe you’re just taking out your phone to take a picture of the bird. And on the one hand, this does kind of get us out of that moment, but on the other hand, maybe that’s what got us outdoors in the first place. And to, to put this in the idea of, of games here, I’m sure you’re familiar with Pokemon Go. Sure. So I recently took my eight-year-old to the Field Museum here in Chicago. The place was completely overrun by eight-year-olds all attending a Pokemon exhibit, and there was this virtual game overlaid over the, you know, physical museum. And I just, I was like, are these hybrid experiences, are they giving us, like, a path toward gratification or away from gratification?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost:\u003c/strong> There is a famous photographer, of the 20th century named, named Garry Winogrand, and there’s this, like, quite, quite famous quote from, from Garry Winogrand, who took, like, so many photographs that he didn’t even bother developing them all. There’s, like, rolls and rolls and rolls of undeveloped film found after Garry Winogrand’s death and he took so many almost indiscriminately took pictures. And he has this amazing quote that goes something like, “I take pictures to see what the world looks like photographed.” And what’s so impressive about that idea to me, what’s so clarifying about it, is that it tells you something obvious that nevertheless needed to be said, which is that the world is different from the photograph. And when you look at a scene and you’re seeing it with your eyes and in your body, that’s different from framing it inside the boundaries of a viewfinder or on the emulsion of a film, let alone all of the properties of that film and how it was focused through the particular optical instrument that did so.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost:\u003c/strong> There is a famous photographer, of the 20th century named, named Garry Winogrand, and there’s this, like, quite, quite famous quote from, from Garry Winogrand, who took, like, so many photographs that he didn’t even bother developing them all. There’s, like, rolls and rolls and rolls of undeveloped film found after Garry Winogrand’s death and he took so many almost indiscriminately took pictures. And he has this amazing quote that goes something like, “I take pictures to see what the world looks like photographed.” And what’s so impressive about that idea to me, what’s so clarifying about it, is that it tells you something obvious that nevertheless needed to be said, which is that the world is different from the photograph. And when you look at a scene and you’re seeing it with your eyes and in your body, that’s different from framing it inside the boundaries of a viewfinder or on the emulsion of a film, let alone all of the properties of that film and how it was focused through the particular optical instrument that did so.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And the two things are different from one another. So there’s the world, and there’s your photograph of it, and one doesn’t replace the other, and both are equally amazing and delightful in different ways. Now, if you lived your entire life without photography, having known that photography existed, I’m not talking about, like, before photography was invented, you’re – It would be a less rich life; because photographs give you a way of, of looking at not just the world, but objects themselves or images on screens as we use them today. That’s amazing. Now, this idea that we have, that we have to have to give up or trade one for the other, that is so fascinating. Like, oh, I’m only inspired to go into the physical world if I have an incentive in the form of Pokémon that I can search and collect. Like, there’s something weird about that, but there’s also something weird about saying, “Ah, that’s an impure way of experiencing the museum or your neighborhood or whatever,” that you’re only going out into it in order that you can collect these, you know, commercialized rare creatures. We can have it both ways, and the more we accept that we can have it both ways, and even that we must have it both ways, the better off we will be. Now, if you find yourself wanting to live always and fully and entirely in one of those spheres over the other, that’s where I think maybe it’s not that you’re doing something wrong.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And the two things are different from one another. So there’s the world, and there’s your photograph of it, and one doesn’t replace the other, and both are equally amazing and delightful in different ways. Now, if you lived your entire life without photography, having known that photography existed, I’m not talking about, like, before photography was invented, you’re – It would be a less rich life; because photographs give you a way of, of looking at not just the world, but objects themselves or images on screens as we use them today. That’s amazing. Now, this idea that we have, that we have to have to give up or trade one for the other, that is so fascinating. Like, oh, I’m only inspired to go into the physical world if I have an incentive in the form of Pokémon that I can search and collect. Like, there’s something weird about that, but there’s also something weird about saying, “Ah, that’s an impure way of experiencing the museum or your neighborhood or whatever,” that you’re only going out into it in order that you can collect these, you know, commercialized rare creatures. We can have it both ways, and the more we accept that we can have it both ways, and even that we must have it both ways, the better off we will be. Now, if you find yourself wanting to live always and fully and entirely in one of those spheres over the other, that’s where I think maybe it’s not that you’re doing something wrong.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I don’t want to make a moral judgment. It’s like you are missing out. If you met someone, and they were like, “Well, I just don’t engage with photography. Photography is not something that I want to partake of,” you’d be like, “I don’t even know what you mean. Like, what does that mean?”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I don’t want to make a moral judgment. It’s like you are missing out. If you met someone, and they were like, “Well, I just don’t engage with photography. Photography is not something that I want to partake of,” you’d be like, “I don’t even know what you mean. Like, what does that mean?”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Ian really doesn’t want to offer a moral judgment here. You want to go birding or visit a museum and take your phone out? Go for it. We don’t have to see that experience as but a pale imitation of the one provided by the physical world. We can see it as its own thing and enjoy it on its own terms for what it has to offer. And maybe the best thing to do if we are gonna get all judgy here is try to have both experiences. I hear all this, and in my head, I’m kind of nodding along. But my producer Jesse was listening in and he wasn’t fully buying it. Like really? We really aren’t gonna judge someone for having a big day out and then just staring at their phone? Can’t we just admit that they are objectively missing out? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Ian really doesn’t want to offer a moral judgment here. You want to go birding or visit a museum and take your phone out? Go for it. We don’t have to see that experience as but a pale imitation of the one provided by the physical world. We can see it as its own thing and enjoy it on its own terms for what it has to offer. And maybe the best thing to do if we are gonna get all judgy here is try to have both experiences. I hear all this, and in my head, I’m kind of nodding along. But my producer Jesse was listening in and he wasn’t fully buying it. Like really? We really aren’t gonna judge someone for having a big day out and then just staring at their phone? Can’t we just admit that they are objectively missing out? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jesse Dukes: \u003c/strong>I think this is a riff on Jess’s question about the sort of hybrid experiences, the Merlin app, the Pokemon Go. And you know, when you answered it, you sort of declined to make a value judgment, you know, sort of outdoors versus apps, digital spaces. You know, one of the things I do if I have time at the end of my workday, I live near the beach, and so I’ll grab my camera or, sometimes a fishing rod, sometimes a surfboard, and I’ll spend some time by the ocean if I can manage to do that. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jesse Dukes: \u003c/strong>I think this is a riff on Jess’s question about the sort of hybrid experiences, the Merlin app, the Pokemon Go. And you know, when you answered it, you sort of declined to make a value judgment, you know, sort of outdoors versus apps, digital spaces. You know, one of the things I do if I have time at the end of my workday, I live near the beach, and so I’ll grab my camera or, sometimes a fishing rod, sometimes a surfboard, and I’ll spend some time by the ocean if I can manage to do that. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>Amazing. I’m very jealous. It’s wonderful. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>Amazing. I’m very jealous. It’s wonderful. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jesse Dukes: \u003c/strong>Yeah. I mean, that’s why I live where I live.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jesse Dukes: \u003c/strong>Yeah. I mean, that’s why I live where I live.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost\u003c/strong>: Totally. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost\u003c/strong>: Totally. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jesse Dukes: \u003c/strong>And I will sometimes see people who are enjoying the same space I’m enjoying, and the way they’re doing it is by taking photos of each other or taking selfies and posing and standing in different places, and then kind of experimenting with different lightings and different backdrops and sort of throwing the outfit out so it catches the light in an interesting way. And I feel kind of sad because these people are actually kind of closing themselves off to the experience. You know, I am imagining that they’re optimizing for Instagram or TikTok or something like that. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jesse Dukes: \u003c/strong>And I will sometimes see people who are enjoying the same space I’m enjoying, and the way they’re doing it is by taking photos of each other or taking selfies and posing and standing in different places, and then kind of experimenting with different lightings and different backdrops and sort of throwing the outfit out so it catches the light in an interesting way. And I feel kind of sad because these people are actually kind of closing themselves off to the experience. You know, I am imagining that they’re optimizing for Instagram or TikTok or something like that. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>Well, they probably are. You’re probably right that they are optimizing for social media engagement, which is a kind of goal setting and a kind of accomplishment or a kind of outcome-oriented living. But even your version of it, which is more internal, it’s more in your head, is still kind of goal-oriented, right? Like, I’m gonna go and commune with nature and the beach, and I’m gonna do so in a purer way. And the truth is probably that both of these activities have something new to offer us about the environment, the beach, the weather, whatever it is. Cause, like, think about the … I know what you mean by, you see them throwing their garments or they have an accessory or something and they want it to catch the wind and get that in the photo, and that’s not something you’re doing, right? Like, they’re encountering the light glinting off of the fabric or maybe their shoes or sandals are off and in the sand, and they’re experiencing that sensation.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>Well, they probably are. You’re probably right that they are optimizing for social media engagement, which is a kind of goal setting and a kind of accomplishment or a kind of outcome-oriented living. But even your version of it, which is more internal, it’s more in your head, is still kind of goal-oriented, right? Like, I’m gonna go and commune with nature and the beach, and I’m gonna do so in a purer way. And the truth is probably that both of these activities have something new to offer us about the environment, the beach, the weather, whatever it is. Cause, like, think about the … I know what you mean by, you see them throwing their garments or they have an accessory or something and they want it to catch the wind and get that in the photo, and that’s not something you’re doing, right? Like, they’re encountering the light glinting off of the fabric or maybe their shoes or sandals are off and in the sand, and they’re experiencing that sensation.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And so the thing is always more than the thing, and one of the reasons I’m not, I’m trying to not to make judgment isn’t because I don’t have judgments to make. I think that’s the easiest thing to do. But just to, like, stop and recognize, okay, you know, taking pictures for Instagram involves a different set of sensory experiences, than taking, you know, documentarian photos for the purpose of collecting for an album or whatever.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And so the thing is always more than the thing, and one of the reasons I’m not, I’m trying to not to make judgment isn’t because I don’t have judgments to make. I think that’s the easiest thing to do. But just to, like, stop and recognize, okay, you know, taking pictures for Instagram involves a different set of sensory experiences, than taking, you know, documentarian photos for the purpose of collecting for an album or whatever.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And that those, like, those offer different delights. That feels not like more measured. It’s not like it’s more Aristotelian, which maybe it is. It’s more just like “Huh, I wonder what it’s like to try the other thing.” Maybe I should, maybe I should be open to it if the, if the opportunity arises, or maybe at the very least, I should admit to myself that every act has a sensory payload, and that sensory payload is what I’m really interested in as the gratifying experience separate from the value or the fact of the outcome it produces.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And that those, like, those offer different delights. That feels not like more measured. It’s not like it’s more Aristotelian, which maybe it is. It’s more just like “Huh, I wonder what it’s like to try the other thing.” Maybe I should, maybe I should be open to it if the, if the opportunity arises, or maybe at the very least, I should admit to myself that every act has a sensory payload, and that sensory payload is what I’m really interested in as the gratifying experience separate from the value or the fact of the outcome it produces.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Every act has a sensory payload separate from the outcome it produces. I like this a lot. Even in our increasingly slick, scentless, dial-less, lever-less, paperless, outcome-focused world, there is still no shortage of gratifying experiences on offer, and we don’t have to throw away our screens to find them. We just have to be a lot more intentional about recognizing them wherever they are, and maybe occasionally seeking out some new ones too, so we aren’t all just getting the same kind of sensory payload all the time. Because it really is about variety, and variety is exactly what we stand to lose when our lives are being streamlined for maximal efficiency.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Every act has a sensory payload separate from the outcome it produces. I like this a lot. Even in our increasingly slick, scentless, dial-less, lever-less, paperless, outcome-focused world, there is still no shortage of gratifying experiences on offer, and we don’t have to throw away our screens to find them. We just have to be a lot more intentional about recognizing them wherever they are, and maybe occasionally seeking out some new ones too, so we aren’t all just getting the same kind of sensory payload all the time. Because it really is about variety, and variety is exactly what we stand to lose when our lives are being streamlined for maximal efficiency.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>Just, like, think about the nature of the sensory life that’s really easy and common for you. Like, you know, if you drive to work every day and you’re spending a lot of time in your car, and then you work an office job where you’re moving symbols around, on computers and through networks, then it’s not so much like that you need to get outside or you need to be in nature or something like that, or you need to bike instead of driving. It’s more like, “Where could I find sensory experience that is different?” Or what I call ‘orthogonal’ to that, to that experience. And, you know, maybe that means gardening, but not so that you can grow herbs or so that you can, like, feel good about having a tidy yard, but just so you can feel the wetness of soil under your fingertips and in your fingernails. And that’s kind of the purpose of it, not to do anything but just to spend time with other objects. Crafts or something like this, or hobbies too. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>Just, like, think about the nature of the sensory life that’s really easy and common for you. Like, you know, if you drive to work every day and you’re spending a lot of time in your car, and then you work an office job where you’re moving symbols around, on computers and through networks, then it’s not so much like that you need to get outside or you need to be in nature or something like that, or you need to bike instead of driving. It’s more like, “Where could I find sensory experience that is different?” Or what I call ‘orthogonal’ to that, to that experience. And, you know, maybe that means gardening, but not so that you can grow herbs or so that you can, like, feel good about having a tidy yard, but just so you can feel the wetness of soil under your fingertips and in your fingernails. And that’s kind of the purpose of it, not to do anything but just to spend time with other objects. Crafts or something like this, or hobbies too. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I mean, I think these are great. I have a daughter who loves throwing rocks. We even built her a little tiny pond in our little Chicago backyard. She loves the sensory sensation of big rock, little rock. And I’m, like, kind of already, like, in this conversation, like, okay, I gotta, like, make some time this afternoon and just, like, sit down and throw rocks with her. But these are, these are all, like, individual things that we can do, and I’m curious if you’ve thought about things that we might be able to do collectively to maybe have more control over our environment.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I mean, I think these are great. I have a daughter who loves throwing rocks. We even built her a little tiny pond in our little Chicago backyard. She loves the sensory sensation of big rock, little rock. And I’m, like, kind of already, like, in this conversation, like, okay, I gotta, like, make some time this afternoon and just, like, sit down and throw rocks with her. But these are, these are all, like, individual things that we can do, and I’m curious if you’ve thought about things that we might be able to do collectively to maybe have more control over our environment.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost:\u003c/strong> Sure. Yeah, there is – I think it’s very– Look, there are many cultural, economic, socio-economic, bureaucratic, technological, circumstances we find ourselves in that have contributed to our loss of gratifying sensation, to this process of dematerialization. And if you could remedy those, even in small part, I bet we would feel more gratified. I think one reason, at least in this book, that I tried to put the, like, just pause from worrying so much about systemic solutions isn’t because I don’t believe that systemic solutions are important or that these problems are worthy of those kinds of remedy, but because I think we have a predilection to think, “Well, I can’t do anything about this until the big problems are solved.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost:\u003c/strong> Sure. Yeah, there is – I think it’s very– Look, there are many cultural, economic, socio-economic, bureaucratic, technological, circumstances we find ourselves in that have contributed to our loss of gratifying sensation, to this process of dematerialization. And if you could remedy those, even in small part, I bet we would feel more gratified. I think one reason, at least in this book, that I tried to put the, like, just pause from worrying so much about systemic solutions isn’t because I don’t believe that systemic solutions are important or that these problems are worthy of those kinds of remedy, but because I think we have a predilection to think, “Well, I can’t do anything about this until the big problems are solved.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>If kids could go to the park in the first place because we built parks and we didn’t arrest them when they went there on their bikes on their own, or their parents, then we could talk. And I get it. I empathize with that position. I understand it. I just don’t wanna wait. I mean, I’ve worked on systemic problems and solutions for a big part of my career, and I’m still very interested in them. But for this moment, just like introducing the world to this idea of gratification, warming us up to doing it, I wanted to say, “You know what?” It’s a small stuff solution to a small stuff problem, actually, which doesn’t mean that big solutions wouldn’t help. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>If kids could go to the park in the first place because we built parks and we didn’t arrest them when they went there on their bikes on their own, or their parents, then we could talk. And I get it. I empathize with that position. I understand it. I just don’t wanna wait. I mean, I’ve worked on systemic problems and solutions for a big part of my career, and I’m still very interested in them. But for this moment, just like introducing the world to this idea of gratification, warming us up to doing it, I wanted to say, “You know what?” It’s a small stuff solution to a small stuff problem, actually, which doesn’t mean that big solutions wouldn’t help. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong>So I don’t need to, like, solve all the world’s problems before I go sit outside and throw rocks.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong>So I don’t need to, like, solve all the world’s problems before I go sit outside and throw rocks.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost:\u003c/strong> That’s the key.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost:\u003c/strong> That’s the key.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Well, we thought we’d take our own advice and try to make our show credits just a little more gratifying. I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED. Our show was produced by Jesse Dukes with help from Tom Dixon. Music by Stephen Jackson. Recording help from Will Feeney and George Christensen. Marketing help from Ananya Mallapragada and Lauren Ko. Special thanks to Laura Pavin, Rob Mitchum, and of course, today’s guest, Ian Bogost. His new book is “The Small Stuff: How to Lead a More Gratifying Life.” And if you like Life, Automated, consider sharing an episode with a friend. We’re a new show, and we’d love for more people to know about us.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Well, we thought we’d take our own advice and try to make our show credits just a little more gratifying. I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED. Our show was produced by Jesse Dukes with help from Tom Dixon. Music by Stephen Jackson. Recording help from Will Feeney and George Christensen. Marketing help from Ananya Mallapragada and Lauren Ko. Special thanks to Laura Pavin, Rob Mitchum, and of course, today’s guest, Ian Bogost. His new book is “The Small Stuff: How to Lead a More Gratifying Life.” And if you like Life, Automated, consider sharing an episode with a friend. We’re a new show, and we’d love for more people to know about us.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
}
],
"excerpt": "Modern technology has made our lives more convenient but less sensorily gratifying, argues Ian Bogost.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1791935857,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 63,
"wordCount": 5767
},
"headData": {
"title": "Is Technology Making Our Lives Less Gratifying? (with Ian Bogost) | KQED",
"description": "Modern technology has generally made our lives faster, easier, and more convenient. But in swapping out stick shifts and paper menus for automatic transmissions and QR codes, have we accidentally optimized away many of the rich sensory experiences that make living so pleasurable? Journalist, academic and award-winning video-game designer Ian Bogost joins host Jess Love to discuss insights from his book "The Small Stuff: How to Lead a More Gratifying Life." He makes the case that we’re losing some of the everyday pleasures of interacting with the world. But if technology has disconnected us from sensory gratification, can it also be part of the solution?",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"socialDescription": "Modern technology has generally made our lives faster, easier, and more convenient. But in swapping out stick shifts and paper menus for automatic transmissions and QR codes, have we accidentally optimized away many of the rich sensory experiences that make living so pleasurable? Journalist, academic and award-winning video-game designer Ian Bogost joins host Jess Love to discuss insights from his book "The Small Stuff: How to Lead a More Gratifying Life." He makes the case that we’re losing some of the everyday pleasures of interacting with the world. But if technology has disconnected us from sensory gratification, can it also be part of the solution?",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Is Technology Making Our Lives Less Gratifying? (with Ian Bogost)",
"datePublished": "2026-10-14T03:00:00-07:00",
"dateModified": "2026-10-13T16:57:37-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 33520,
"slug": "podcast",
"name": "Podcast"
},
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC6755318756.mp3",
"sticky": false,
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12104228/is-technology-making-our-lives-less-gratifying-with-ian-bogost",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#Transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Modern technology has generally made our lives faster, easier, and more convenient. But in swapping out stick shifts and paper menus for automatic transmissions and QR codes, have we accidentally optimized away many of the rich sensory experiences that make living so pleasurable?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Journalist, academic and award-winning video-game designer Ian Bogost joins host Jess Love to discuss insights from his book \u003ca href=\"https://smallstuffbook.com/\">The Small Stuff: How to Lead a More Gratifying Life\u003c/a>. He makes the case that we’re losing some of the everyday pleasures of interacting with the world. But if technology has disconnected us from sensory gratification, can it also be part of the solution?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is a production of the Ryan Institute on Complexity, at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management. The host is Jess Love, senior director. Distributed by \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/lifeautomated\">KQED\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Further Reading and Viewing\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://smallstuffbook.com/\">The Small Stuff: How to Lead a More Gratifying Life \u003c/a>– Ian Bogost, Atria Books\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2oV2DQ2dEA\">Why Does Mario’s Jump Feel So Awesome\u003c/a> – Game/Show, PBS Digital Studios\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Welcome to Life, Automated, the show where we explore what it means to live, work, and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines Every spring and fall during migration season, I head to Montrose Point Bird Sanctuary here in Chicago. It’s this gorgeous strip of dunes and hedges and grasses hugging the side of Lake Michigan, a waypoint for hundreds of species of birds, and it’s hugely popular with birders, a lot of whom I’ve noticed walk through the sanctuary with their phones out.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>They are almost certainly doing something related to birding, using popular apps like Merlin or eBird to ID bird calls or add to their own life lists. Or maybe they’re just taking pictures. I am aware of these possibilities because I, too, have downloaded these apps. I, too, am trying to take pictures. So here we all are on a beautiful, crisp morning with all of Lake Michigan on offer, and we’re staring at our phones.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m honestly not sure what to make of that. On the one hand, it’s birding. Whatever gets you out there, right? But on the other, what are we missing by letting technology mediate so much of this experience? I actually have this thought a lot because it’s not just birding. So much of modern life is mediated and warped by technology in ways we don’t always see because we’re just too close to it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I knew I wanted to talk about this with Ian Bogost. Ian recently wrote a book called “The Small Stuff: How to Lead a More Gratifying Life.” The book argues that we’re losing a lot of these sensory experiences that used to fill our everyday lives. As in the places we build, the objects we design, the technology we use.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Over time, in the name of convenience and efficiency, we’ve stripped them of a lot of texture, sights, sounds, physical sensations, all things that actually bring us a lot of joy. But here’s the thing. In addition to being a media scholar at Washington University in St. Louis and a journalist at The Atlantic, Ian is also a video game designer, hardly a Luddite. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So have we traded some of the simple sensory pleasures of just being in the world for more streamlined bird identification, or is there more to it than that?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is a project of Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity distributed by KQED. I’m Jess Love and this is my conversation with Ian Bogost. I began by asking Ian if he could identify a moment when he first realized we’d lost some of the sensory pleasures of actually interacting with the world.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost:\u003c/strong> The big one, the one that’s easy to identify, is the one that I talk about in the book when I wrote this kinda monster story for The Atlantic about the stick shift, the end of the stick shift. It was a monster story in the sense that a lot of people read it, not that I thought it was gonna be important. I thought it was just a little thing, you know? And the reactions from that, just the volume of them, and the passion of people lamenting and remembering their experience controlling a machine in that way.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Ian was struck by the magnitude and variety of these responses. People really missed the stick shift, and it went beyond simple nostalgia. They missed these sensory moments, like the jerkiness of it all, seeing and feeling the gearshift move. Today’s automatic transmissions are more energy efficient than stick shifts ever were. They’re easier to learn. There’s no worrying about your clutch. Logically, there’s not really much to miss, and yet a lot of people still miss it and all the experiences that came along with it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>And I was like, “Oh, okay. I see.” It’s like a family of experiences, and those… It’s not just one thing. It’s not just, like, being a gearhead or, like, wanting to control your vehicle. It’s rather that we’re surrounded by all of this stuff that seems like it’s just noise and that it’s something to get through to get to the big stuff, the good stuff. But no, those experiences matter, and they matter as first-order parts of our day-to-day lives, but then also our lives as a whole. And so it was that… That realization was confusing to me ’cause I didn’t feel like there was a name for it. I mean, I ended up naming it ‘gratification’ or borrowing the word gratification to name it. This thing that describes, like, what I call the sensory enchantment of everyday life. But I had this realization that we had all kind of agreed without agreeing that that stuff was not important, and so discovering that it was important and that it wasn’t just important to me but to everyone, that was really magical and enlightening and, kind of life-changing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Gratification. That’s the term Ian gives to the magical, enlightening, and kind of life-changing sensory stuff that we encounter all day long, or at least that we used to encounter all day long but increasingly maybe aren’t getting quite as much of. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>So think about anything you do in your daily life. I mean, you have to go shopping for groceries. And, you know, in the past you’d have to make a list, and maybe you’d write that down on paper, on a piece of scratch paper with a pen that you particularly liked using, and then you’d put it in your pocket, and you’d sort of fold it up, and it would have a certain feel of the paper as it tore off.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And maybe the paper made a sound as you tore it. And then you’d get in your car, which maybe had a stick shift and maybe didn’t, but even if it didn’t, you’d turn the key in the ignition, and you’d press your foot down on the pedal, and you’d turn the knob on the radio physically as you drove to the store.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And you’d get the cart, and the cart wobbled a little bit, but you felt it underneath you and against the cold floor, beneath your feet, and then you’d touch the produce to figure out which ones met your desired level of ripeness and all the rest of it. And, you know, you can kind of fill in all those blanks.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So it’s like we automatically got this rich and diverse sensory experience just by doing things that we had to do every day. And we may not have thought of those things as desirable, like, “Ugh, I gotta go do the grocery shopping,” but since you had to go do it, you couldn’t just Instacart your way out of that problem, all this other stuff kind of came along for the ride.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So what we lost in part wasn’t just all of those sensory encounters I just mentioned, but the very idea that they were being delivered to us continuously, so much so that we almost didn’t notice them happening. And there’s so many other examples of this, right? Like the feel of an old school Western Electric style telephone handset, the heft of it, the kind of intimacy of your voice in your own ear and against your mouth, the ability to smash it down on the hook to hang it up, the sound of the ring, the quality of the sound along the copper line, the feeling of dialing the rotary mechanism or pressing the touch tone buttons.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>It’s like that was just what making a phone call was, you know? And now it’s like, well, I’ve got this phone and the… and this has an app for a phone app on it, and it doesn’t really work well, but, like, that’s… But I, and I hate making phone calls anyway. It’s like, well, maybe what you hate is the experience that phone calls evolved into and the fact that they were so sensorily bereft that you didn’t even wanna pursue them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And then it’s like a digital line, and it’s always dropping, and you can’t hear someone anyway and all, and all the rest of it. So, I found that people love identifying and talking about these, these feelings of sensory life that they remember but have lost. And the big thing, the big collective thing is they just happened automatically. They just happened to you. They were a part of the texture and the background noise of daily life, and then they weren’t. anymore. Like during the pandemic when all of us stopped going places, and we worked from home, and we ordered delivery all the time, and, QR codes for menus became a thing. And now you go to a restaurant, and you still have a QR code maybe for a menu, and you feel in your head and in your heart and in your fingertips, you’re like, “I want a menu,” but that’s not reasonable anymore to want. Even some of it is just like a place to live spatially while you’re looking at it, and to kind of distance yourself from this device you use all the time, and to peruse this artifact that is distinctive for the restaurant you’re in, or to spill salsa on it as you’re waiting to order. Whatever you know, whatever delight happens to you, all of that just happened. It was just right there all the time, and then it wasn’t anymore. So it’s like we didn’t even know what we were losing because we didn’t notice losing it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Listening to Ian speak, I realize how rare it is to hear someone actually describe these sensations, at least outside of a poem. The feel of a paper menu between your thumb and forefinger, the satisfaction of turning a key and feeling a motor roaring to life underneath you, rumbling your seat. It feels so intimate, almost vulgar. Like, wow, Ian, getting a little personal here, aren’t we? But maybe that’s just me. Look at me. I work at a university. I spend most days sitting in front of a computer, reading words, pressing keys, reading more words, and I do this around a lot of other people who are also sitting in front of computers, reading and typing. Am I unusually deprived of these everyday sensory pleasures, like some poor neglected houseplant assuming everyone else is as thirsty as I am? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>Well, the simple answer is this is everywhere. This dematerializing effect is everywhere and affects everyone. It affects us in different ways depending on all matter of factors, socioeconomics, where we live, the kind of job we have, the kind of life we lead, whether you have kids or not…what sort of vehicle you drive or if you don’t. All of these factors play in. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Ian says that, yeah, sure, some jobs lend themselves to more gratifying experiences than others, but technology is changing a lot of these jobs too, generally in ways that make them less gratifying. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>So we’re all in it together, I think. I think we’re in it differently together. And I think that, you know, but it’s not something where it’s like, “Well, I don’t make enough money to worry about being gratified.” Like, no, do you have a human body and live in the physical world? Then this is something of concern and interest to you. It’s not an indulgence that you only undertake once your Maslow’s needs have been met. It is part of those needs.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>We have spent decades designing technology that’s faster, easier, more convenient, culminating in lives that we increasingly spend online with fewer reasons to interact with the physical world at all. And now maybe we’re dealing with some unintended and unwanted side effects. Well, one answer is to spend less time online, less time scrolling, fewer video games. And we do seem to be at a moment where at least some people are stepping back from these things. There’s apparently a 175% uptick in Etsy searches for beginner needlepoint kits. But is that the only way? Is the only answer here to retreat from modern technology? Or can technology provide its own kinds of sensory gratification? And of course, what the heck should we make of these birding apps? I try to get an answer after the break.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> I’ve been talking with Ian Bogost about how technology has allowed us to optimize away so many of the physical interactions that used to fill our lives with sensory gratification. But we increasingly live in digital and virtual worlds, and I want to understand whether gratification can be found here too.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>A different kind of gratification perhaps, but sensory gratification all the same. And I figure if there’s one place to look, it might be video games. So is gratification one of the things that you think about when you are designing games and virtual worlds? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>It didn’t used to be. In fact, in some ways I wish I had realized this far sooner, that maybe the thing about games in particular… Look, games are purposeless. They don’t need to exist. They seem stupid because they don’t, like, get something. It’s not like an app. It’s like, oh, I’ve got this productivity tool, even if it, like, is kind of questionable in terms of whether it makes you more productive, like groupware like Slack or something. Like, we know that a game doesn’t make you more productive. All it does is distract you or give you something to do with your fingers and your hands while something else is happening. And if you think about some of the most popular, most compelling kinds of digital games, like Candy Crush, say, right? Like, why is it so delightful to just move gems or candies around so that they match and then to watch the little explosions when they take place in front of you? It’s not because that particular kind of artifact has meaning in the way that a novel or a film does, which is the way that some people in the games universe want to think of games as this inherited medium that does for the twenty-first century what cinema did for the twentieth or what the novel did for the nineteenth. But, like, it’s just a thing. It’s just, like, an apparatus that you can manipulate, you know, that you can engage with and interact with. It’s almost like games are this place where we can go to experience, among other things, the pureness of gratifying experience. And it doesn’t even have to be a digital game, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, I play backgammon many nights with my daughter. We have a backgammon set set up in our house in a kind of permanent way. And like, one reason we love it is just the sound and sight of the dice spinning against the table as they resolve, and the feel of the checkers under our fingertips and as they slide across the surface and of course, the opportunity to look one another in the eye and to be present in that particular way.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I think games are like these, these kind of strange mysteries that give us a reason to do that kind of stuff, that gratifying experience, without any outcome. It’s just that they’re very deeply misunderstood as such, including among the communities that play and make games deliberately. Like, for many, many years, my interest and focus as a game developer was about the meaning of games, like the idea that they could be meaningful and serious, and you could make, like, kind of documentarian games or games about politics or about complex social and political and infrastructural issues.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I made a lot of those games, and I think they were interesting, but maybe I was wrong about what was fundamentally the most interesting thing about games and other kinds of digital experiences was just this opportunity to interact with this alien machine for no reason other than to feel what it’s like to interact with it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Why does it feel so satisfying to watch those brightly colored Tetris shapes disappear in satisfying poof when you line them up just right? Sure, there’s the goal-oriented pleasures of solving a puzzle, but there’s also the sensory pleasures of tapping your finger and having your entire visual field just rearrange itself, or hearing that celebratory little jingle. So clearly it is possible to find gratification behind a screen. A lot of gratification. While I was editing this episode, a colleague of mine sent me a YouTube video called “Why Does Mario’s Jump Feel So Awesome?” This video actually breaks down why Mario’s jump feels so awesome. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Why Does Mario’s Jump Feel So Awesome?]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>What made the jump for Super Mario Brothers so groundbreaking is that it had its own specific physics.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voicover]: \u003c/strong>But I still wonder, when do screens provide this kind of gratification and when do they just distract us from the real world with all of its sensory pleasures? Like, are we better off enjoying Mario’s awesome jumps or just, like, jumping ourselves?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So I’ve always been fascinated by these tech-mediated experiences that change how we actually experience the physical world. So example would be, we take out our phone, you’ve got your Merlin app, and that tells you what bird call you’re hearing. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>Yeah. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Or maybe you’re just taking out your phone to take a picture of the bird. And on the one hand, this does kind of get us out of that moment, but on the other hand, maybe that’s what got us outdoors in the first place. And to, to put this in the idea of, of games here, I’m sure you’re familiar with Pokemon Go. Sure. So I recently took my eight-year-old to the Field Museum here in Chicago. The place was completely overrun by eight-year-olds all attending a Pokemon exhibit, and there was this virtual game overlaid over the, you know, physical museum. And I just, I was like, are these hybrid experiences, are they giving us, like, a path toward gratification or away from gratification?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost:\u003c/strong> There is a famous photographer, of the 20th century named, named Garry Winogrand, and there’s this, like, quite, quite famous quote from, from Garry Winogrand, who took, like, so many photographs that he didn’t even bother developing them all. There’s, like, rolls and rolls and rolls of undeveloped film found after Garry Winogrand’s death and he took so many almost indiscriminately took pictures. And he has this amazing quote that goes something like, “I take pictures to see what the world looks like photographed.” And what’s so impressive about that idea to me, what’s so clarifying about it, is that it tells you something obvious that nevertheless needed to be said, which is that the world is different from the photograph. And when you look at a scene and you’re seeing it with your eyes and in your body, that’s different from framing it inside the boundaries of a viewfinder or on the emulsion of a film, let alone all of the properties of that film and how it was focused through the particular optical instrument that did so.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And the two things are different from one another. So there’s the world, and there’s your photograph of it, and one doesn’t replace the other, and both are equally amazing and delightful in different ways. Now, if you lived your entire life without photography, having known that photography existed, I’m not talking about, like, before photography was invented, you’re – It would be a less rich life; because photographs give you a way of, of looking at not just the world, but objects themselves or images on screens as we use them today. That’s amazing. Now, this idea that we have, that we have to have to give up or trade one for the other, that is so fascinating. Like, oh, I’m only inspired to go into the physical world if I have an incentive in the form of Pokémon that I can search and collect. Like, there’s something weird about that, but there’s also something weird about saying, “Ah, that’s an impure way of experiencing the museum or your neighborhood or whatever,” that you’re only going out into it in order that you can collect these, you know, commercialized rare creatures. We can have it both ways, and the more we accept that we can have it both ways, and even that we must have it both ways, the better off we will be. Now, if you find yourself wanting to live always and fully and entirely in one of those spheres over the other, that’s where I think maybe it’s not that you’re doing something wrong.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I don’t want to make a moral judgment. It’s like you are missing out. If you met someone, and they were like, “Well, I just don’t engage with photography. Photography is not something that I want to partake of,” you’d be like, “I don’t even know what you mean. Like, what does that mean?”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Ian really doesn’t want to offer a moral judgment here. You want to go birding or visit a museum and take your phone out? Go for it. We don’t have to see that experience as but a pale imitation of the one provided by the physical world. We can see it as its own thing and enjoy it on its own terms for what it has to offer. And maybe the best thing to do if we are gonna get all judgy here is try to have both experiences. I hear all this, and in my head, I’m kind of nodding along. But my producer Jesse was listening in and he wasn’t fully buying it. Like really? We really aren’t gonna judge someone for having a big day out and then just staring at their phone? Can’t we just admit that they are objectively missing out? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jesse Dukes: \u003c/strong>I think this is a riff on Jess’s question about the sort of hybrid experiences, the Merlin app, the Pokemon Go. And you know, when you answered it, you sort of declined to make a value judgment, you know, sort of outdoors versus apps, digital spaces. You know, one of the things I do if I have time at the end of my workday, I live near the beach, and so I’ll grab my camera or, sometimes a fishing rod, sometimes a surfboard, and I’ll spend some time by the ocean if I can manage to do that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>Amazing. I’m very jealous. It’s wonderful. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jesse Dukes: \u003c/strong>Yeah. I mean, that’s why I live where I live.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost\u003c/strong>: Totally. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jesse Dukes: \u003c/strong>And I will sometimes see people who are enjoying the same space I’m enjoying, and the way they’re doing it is by taking photos of each other or taking selfies and posing and standing in different places, and then kind of experimenting with different lightings and different backdrops and sort of throwing the outfit out so it catches the light in an interesting way. And I feel kind of sad because these people are actually kind of closing themselves off to the experience. You know, I am imagining that they’re optimizing for Instagram or TikTok or something like that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>Well, they probably are. You’re probably right that they are optimizing for social media engagement, which is a kind of goal setting and a kind of accomplishment or a kind of outcome-oriented living. But even your version of it, which is more internal, it’s more in your head, is still kind of goal-oriented, right? Like, I’m gonna go and commune with nature and the beach, and I’m gonna do so in a purer way. And the truth is probably that both of these activities have something new to offer us about the environment, the beach, the weather, whatever it is. Cause, like, think about the … I know what you mean by, you see them throwing their garments or they have an accessory or something and they want it to catch the wind and get that in the photo, and that’s not something you’re doing, right? Like, they’re encountering the light glinting off of the fabric or maybe their shoes or sandals are off and in the sand, and they’re experiencing that sensation.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so the thing is always more than the thing, and one of the reasons I’m not, I’m trying to not to make judgment isn’t because I don’t have judgments to make. I think that’s the easiest thing to do. But just to, like, stop and recognize, okay, you know, taking pictures for Instagram involves a different set of sensory experiences, than taking, you know, documentarian photos for the purpose of collecting for an album or whatever.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And that those, like, those offer different delights. That feels not like more measured. It’s not like it’s more Aristotelian, which maybe it is. It’s more just like “Huh, I wonder what it’s like to try the other thing.” Maybe I should, maybe I should be open to it if the, if the opportunity arises, or maybe at the very least, I should admit to myself that every act has a sensory payload, and that sensory payload is what I’m really interested in as the gratifying experience separate from the value or the fact of the outcome it produces.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Every act has a sensory payload separate from the outcome it produces. I like this a lot. Even in our increasingly slick, scentless, dial-less, lever-less, paperless, outcome-focused world, there is still no shortage of gratifying experiences on offer, and we don’t have to throw away our screens to find them. We just have to be a lot more intentional about recognizing them wherever they are, and maybe occasionally seeking out some new ones too, so we aren’t all just getting the same kind of sensory payload all the time. Because it really is about variety, and variety is exactly what we stand to lose when our lives are being streamlined for maximal efficiency.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost: \u003c/strong>Just, like, think about the nature of the sensory life that’s really easy and common for you. Like, you know, if you drive to work every day and you’re spending a lot of time in your car, and then you work an office job where you’re moving symbols around, on computers and through networks, then it’s not so much like that you need to get outside or you need to be in nature or something like that, or you need to bike instead of driving. It’s more like, “Where could I find sensory experience that is different?” Or what I call ‘orthogonal’ to that, to that experience. And, you know, maybe that means gardening, but not so that you can grow herbs or so that you can, like, feel good about having a tidy yard, but just so you can feel the wetness of soil under your fingertips and in your fingernails. And that’s kind of the purpose of it, not to do anything but just to spend time with other objects. Crafts or something like this, or hobbies too. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I mean, I think these are great. I have a daughter who loves throwing rocks. We even built her a little tiny pond in our little Chicago backyard. She loves the sensory sensation of big rock, little rock. And I’m, like, kind of already, like, in this conversation, like, okay, I gotta, like, make some time this afternoon and just, like, sit down and throw rocks with her. But these are, these are all, like, individual things that we can do, and I’m curious if you’ve thought about things that we might be able to do collectively to maybe have more control over our environment.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost:\u003c/strong> Sure. Yeah, there is – I think it’s very– Look, there are many cultural, economic, socio-economic, bureaucratic, technological, circumstances we find ourselves in that have contributed to our loss of gratifying sensation, to this process of dematerialization. And if you could remedy those, even in small part, I bet we would feel more gratified. I think one reason, at least in this book, that I tried to put the, like, just pause from worrying so much about systemic solutions isn’t because I don’t believe that systemic solutions are important or that these problems are worthy of those kinds of remedy, but because I think we have a predilection to think, “Well, I can’t do anything about this until the big problems are solved.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>If kids could go to the park in the first place because we built parks and we didn’t arrest them when they went there on their bikes on their own, or their parents, then we could talk. And I get it. I empathize with that position. I understand it. I just don’t wanna wait. I mean, I’ve worked on systemic problems and solutions for a big part of my career, and I’m still very interested in them. But for this moment, just like introducing the world to this idea of gratification, warming us up to doing it, I wanted to say, “You know what?” It’s a small stuff solution to a small stuff problem, actually, which doesn’t mean that big solutions wouldn’t help. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong>So I don’t need to, like, solve all the world’s problems before I go sit outside and throw rocks.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ian Bogost:\u003c/strong> That’s the key.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Well, we thought we’d take our own advice and try to make our show credits just a little more gratifying. I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED. Our show was produced by Jesse Dukes with help from Tom Dixon. Music by Stephen Jackson. Recording help from Will Feeney and George Christensen. Marketing help from Ananya Mallapragada and Lauren Ko. Special thanks to Laura Pavin, Rob Mitchum, and of course, today’s guest, Ian Bogost. His new book is “The Small Stuff: How to Lead a More Gratifying Life.” And if you like Life, Automated, consider sharing an episode with a friend. We’re a new show, and we’d love for more people to know about us.\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12104228/is-technology-making-our-lives-less-gratifying-with-ian-bogost",
"authors": [
"12009"
],
"programs": [
"news_37188"
],
"categories": [
"news_8",
"news_33520",
"news_248"
],
"tags": [
"news_37598",
"news_37595",
"news_37596",
"news_37597",
"news_1631"
],
"featImg": "news_12104240",
"label": "news_37188"
},
"news_12101920": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12101920",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12101920",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1790762400000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "the-cybersecurity-crisis-is-about-more-than-rogue-ai-with-v-s-subrahmanian",
"title": "The Cybersecurity Crisis Is About More Than “Rogue AI” (with V.S. Subrahmanian)",
"publishDate": 1790762400,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "The Cybersecurity Crisis Is About More Than “Rogue AI” (with V.S. Subrahmanian) | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 37188,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#Transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>AI is making cyberattacks cheaper, faster, and more sophisticated. Recent reports of autonomous agents compromising Hugging Face show how quickly misaligned systems can create real-world risk. But ideally those same tools could help defenders find and fix vulnerabilities before attackers exploit them. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Cybersecurity researcher \u003ca href=\"https://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/research-faculty/directory/profiles/subrahmanian-vs.html\">V.S. Subrahmanian\u003c/a> joins host Jess Love to examine the impact of that escalating race on everything from phishing scams and insecure apps to the systems that underpin the electric grid and other critical infrastructure. They discuss what the hacking of Hugging Face reveals about AI alignment and safety guardrails, why frontier labs are only one part of the problem, and why telecoms, app makers, financial institutions, utilities, and governments may need to take much greater responsibility for the security of the products and networks they operate.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is a production of the \u003ca href=\"https://ryaninstitute.kellogg.northwestern.edu\">Ryan Institute on Complexity\u003c/a>, at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management. The host is Jess Love, senior director. Distributed by \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/lifeautomated\">KQED\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript:\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore how to live, work, and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. I’m your host, Jess Love. Since we launched the podcast over the summer, I’ve gotten the occasional text from friends and family, “Hey, I’ve always wondered this. Can you look into it?” Or, “Here’s an episode idea for you.” And for the most part, these messages are all over the place. Not this past month. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This past month everyone has had the same question. “What’s the deal with rogue AI?” The question emerged in our collective psyche after a bunch of incidents in which frontier labs like OpenAI and Anthropic revealed that their AIs were behaving in ways they weren’t supposed to, not just in testing environments, but out on the open web, hacking into companies, most famously a company called Hugging Face.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of News Reporter]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>OpenAI says some of its models went rogue during a security test. That triggered a hack apparently that also breached the infrastructure of another AI startup company. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>And then in the midst of these revelations, which I should clarify are still trickling in, some researchers from these frontier labs came out publicly to say, “Yeah, you’re right to be worried about losing control of AI. We’re worried, too.” One dramatically resigned. Others pleaded, “Hey, can you maybe make us all slow down?” I thought a lot about who I might invite to the show to shed new light on this moment, somebody maybe outside of the frontier labs who can provide the 30,000-foot view that I always crave. And then I realized the perfect guest was right in front of me, literally. I run into VS Subrahmanian regularly at work. He’s a professor of engineering in his lab, the Northwestern Security and AI Lab, part of the Buffett Institute, is currently housed next door to the Ryan Institute, where I work. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Talking with VS made me realize that our cybersecurity problem is a lot bigger than I thought, not in a doomsday sense, but in the sense that the problem is so much broader than just these frontier labs. Because no matter what happens in these labs, no matter whether an even more powerful model is released tomorrow or next year or comes from somewhere else altogether, it’s going to meet a world that isn’t ready for it. Like, at all. So what are we gonna do to get ready?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is produced by Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity and distributed by KQED. Here’s my conversation with VS. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Welcome to Life, Automated, V.S. Subrahmanian. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian:\u003c/strong> I’m delighted to be here, Jess. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>VS started by explaining that at its core, AI is changing cyber attacks in three ways. It’s making it cheaper to create an attack, making it easier to create an attack, and in his words, democratizing attacks.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So what that means is that, to put it bluntly, less sophisticated attackers are able to mount more sophisticated attacks today by leveraging AI. Of course, the more sophisticated attackers yesterday are able to leverage AI to generate even more sophisticated attacks. More importantly, they can do this faster than sometimes companies defend themselves, and certainly much faster than they could before, and cheaper. They don’t need whole armies of people working for months to craft an attack. They can do it in a matter of hours or days. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>These attacks range from phishing attacks on individuals and small businesses to network attacks against governments and critical infrastructure like the electricity grid or water treatment plants. And increasingly, cyber attacks can be carried out by groups of autonomous AI agents working together with very minimal human supervision. Are we ready for this? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> If you were gonna grade our preparedness for these kinds of attacks on an A to F scale, you’re a professor, so I can do this. How would we score?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>I would place the United States in a C plus category. So what that means- \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>That’s not very good. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>No, it’s not. What that means is that we are much more secure than many other countries which are in a D or F category. But we’re not where we need to be, and a lot of work needs to be done to protect our critical infrastructure from the kinds of attacks we expect AI to generate in the coming years.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Now throw in a heightened geopolitical climate, including the war in Iran. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Iran has great incentive to target us. Iran now has many friends, China, Russia, for example, who have strong capacity to target, for cyber attacks. And in the case of China, at least, extremely strong cyber assets. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Just to flesh out what this might look like, how hacking a digital system could lead to real world harm, Vias points to “Stuxnet”, an attack reportedly conducted a few decades ago by the United States and Israel on Iran’s nuclear centrifuges.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>[\u003c/em>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>Audio of News Reporters]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Stuxnet’s first target may have been Iran’s nuclear facilities. It’s one of the most sophisticated threats we’ve seen, and certainly- \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>In Stuxnet bogus instructions were fed after compromising Iran’s nuclear network were fed to centrifuges, causing those centrifuges to work outside their safe operating bounds. And what that did was cause those centrifuges to burn out. So you can imagine similar kinds of attacks which look at the broad operating bounds of various devices used in the US electricity grid, which cause those devices to operate out of their normal operating range because of bogus instructions fed to them through a cyber attack and cause them to fail, leading to problems for the US electricity. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But VS says there’s good news here, too. There are, in fact, good guys, and they have access to the AI tools as well.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>For years, decades, in fact, there’s been an entire profession called penetration testing. These were armies of human cyber analysts, you know, white hat hackers who try- \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah. What, what is a white hat hacker? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Okay. So a white hat hacker is a guy who’s typically hired by a company to penetrate their networks, so they think of him as someone who is a proxy for a bad guy who might actually hack their networks. And a white hat says, “Well, you know, I can provide the service of examining your network for vulnerabilities so that you can fix them. I’m not actually gonna carry out an attack. I’m gonna tell you how I’m gonna get in. I’m gonna leave a harmless trace of the fact that I’ve been in there and I could have done this bad thing, but I did not. That enables you to figure out how to fix this.” That’s a white hat. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So you could, you know, “hire or empower” a whole bunch of AI agents to do the work of the white hat hackers, and you’re hoping that they are discovering vulnerabilities before the black hat hackers. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>That’s exactly right. What we have the opportunity to do is to leverage these tools in advance to understand what the vulnerabilities in our network are, how to fix them, and to proactively fix them before the bad guys do so.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Listening to VS, I stop thinking about our phones and hospitals and power grids as sitting ducks just waiting for swarms of autonomous AI agents to do with them what they will. Instead, I start picturing a race, millions of races, actually, between AI-enabled attackers and AI-enabled defenders. As long as everyone’s on top of their game and those vulnerabilities are quickly identified and fixed, VS doesn’t think there’s any reason why better technology should inherently benefit the bad guys over the good guys.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This idea isn’t completely new to me. I’ve interviewed cybersecurity experts before. I’ve heard the ‘whole good guys with a gun’ logic. But what does surprise me is who he sees as primarily responsible for wielding this gun. Or to ditch the metaphor, as who he sees as primarily responsible for doing the hard and expensive work required to find and fix those vulnerabilities.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian:\u003c/strong> For large corporations, you know, which have the resources to do this kind of thing, they absolutely should do so as soon as possible. For small companies and private individuals, we should rely, me and you, ordinary people, on the large companies whose products we use to secure our personal devices. So to give you an example, if you have a cell phone operated by a major carrier, that carrier should be on the hook to make sure they’re not sending you, forwarding you messages.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>They should be the first line of defense. Traffic that flows through their network should be checked and should leverage all these AI tools to check for whether there’s an attempt to compromise you. The manufacturer of your cell phone should do that. The companies whose products you’re using as apps on your cell phone should do that so that different threat vectors to your cell phone and to your computer are protected.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>I get the sense that VS is basically calling for an all-hands-on-deck approach where every player in every layer of our digital infrastructure has a responsibility to white hat the heck out of their layer using the very best tools the top AI labs make available. And not just a responsibility to do this, but a requirement to do this.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian:\u003c/strong> We hear a lot about the big frontier AI labs needing to be regulated. And these are the, you know, the companies of like OpenAI, Anthropic, XAI, and others. Those companies, I think the call for regulation of those companies has been much, much louder than the call that needs to be in place for regulation of companies which are actually playing the key role here. If you think of it, there are a handful of frontier AI companies, but there are far, far, far more corporations that are producing products that are vulnerable and that are used by hundreds of millions of people or billions around the world.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So it’s those guys who need to get their act together, who really need to make sure that they leverage the tools created by the Anthropics of the world, the OpenAIs of the world, in order to beef up the defenses they provide in their apps. They need to run Mythos and Mythos-like systems on their apps, their products, to identify the vulnerabilities and proactively protect them. Companies need to be responsible for providing security for their products. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, it’s, it’s so interesting because on the one hand, we’ve sort of known for a while, and I think we’ve all been in that situation where you get, like, the letter from your insurance company, and it’s like, “Guess what? You know, we were hacked six months ago. Here’s your free you know, “one year of credit monitoring,” which you probably don’t need because you got that same year of credit monitoring from a different system that was hacked the same year. And so I think we’ve all kind of, like, thrown up our hands a little bit, and we just sort of expect that these systems are going to be hacked. And do you see that changing? Like, in some sense, are these advances and these kind of new threats going to be the thing that breaks the status quo and pushes for some change? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>You know, I wanna first say these are not new threats. A vulnerability that exists today that was discovered by AI most likely existed yesterday before the latest advances in AI. What AI has done is to surface and discover vulnerabilities that people did not know before. That, to me, is a positive service. It’s something that tells companies, “Hey, here are your vulnerabilities.” Those companies in that middle layer, not the frontier AI labs, don’t wanna hear that because it means they have to make a bigger investment in security. They don’t wanna do that because it cuts into their profits. They’d like to pass the buck on to someone else, someone who’s more innovative than them, namely the frontier AI lab.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> This is genuinely not where I thought this conversation was going. The Frontier AI Labs as essentially performing a public service, shining a light on the vulnerabilities that complacent companies probably should’ve been doing more to address all along. Talking to VS, I get the sense that he and other cybersecurity experts have been banging their heads against a wall for decades trying to get everyone to take cybersecurity more seriously.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Now, finally, everyone is. But it’s hard to overstate the size of the changes that will need to be made to shore things up. Expensive changes, like doing due diligence on complex supply chains and open source code, or maybe rethinking how data is collected and stored. And instead of everyone rolling up their sleeves to get started, particularly the companies VS sees as long prioritizing profits over safety, we’re looking for yet another reason to pass the buck.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>“You fix it,” we say to the Frontier AI Labs, and that, to VS, is a cop-out. But wait, don’t the OpenAIs and Anthropics of the world have obligations too? Remember “Hugging Face?” We go there after the break.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So far, we’ve discussed how ill-prepared the United States is for cyber attacks. C+, anyone? VS has made the case that everyone, from app makers and telecom companies to governments, has a responsibility to act now to prevent bad outcomes. But what responsibility do labs like OpenAI and Anthropic, the ones creating these wildly powerful AI tools, have to the rest of us?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Well, I think the frontier AI labs have a responsibility to make sure that their agents have some reasonable guardrails that cannot be easily exploited. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Which brings us to the Hugging Face incident that happened recently. Hugging Face is a company. They provide a platform where other companies, researchers, and hobbyists can post, share, test, adapt, and build applications with AI models and data sets. It’s part library, part workshop, and part showroom for open source AI. And back in July, they published a disclosure that almost nobody paid attention to, except people in the AI developer world. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Disclosure]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Earlier this week, we detected and responded to an intrusion into part of our production infrastructure. It was driven end to end by an autonomous AI agent system.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>About a week later, OpenAI, the company that makes ChatGPT, sort of raised their hands and said, “Mm, yeah, it was us. Our AI agents got out of their sandbox and hacked Hugging Face.” So what’s a sandbox? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So cybersecurity researchers typically use software called a sandbox, and you can think of it as a safe space in which they can experiment with malicious code Code that might need to be contained in the sandbox so it doesn’t go rogue.So malware researchers, for example, use sandboxes all the time to execute malware, see what they do, and then understand how to defend against it. So this is a very normal thing to do. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>And apparently, OpenAI was running tons of autonomous agents. These agents were being tested on their ability to find and exploit security vulnerabilities, and all of this was happening in what was supposed to be their safe sandbox.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So, you know, it’s exactly like a room, Jess, okay? Where you’ve put a bunch of kids and told them, “Well, you can jump around. We’ve given you a safe space. It’s got, you know, pillars and other things that have been cushioned so that if you bang your heads, you know, you’re not gonna get hurt. You can jump around. You can do all these things.” And then those kids escaped. They’re now charged with superpowers, that they’ve learned in the sandbox, and they’ve gone amok in the real world. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>And what makes this fascinating and a little alarming is these agents were just doing what they understood to be their goal, assigned by OpenAI, find vulnerabilities and exploit them. But when this proved very difficult, they figured out a clever way to cheat the test, to make it look like they’d succeeded in hacking a system when they really hadn’t. They did this first by sending messages to one another. They were supposed to be acting independently. And then by escaping their sandbox to search for hacking help on the open web. And then, in an effort to make it look like they hadn’t cheated, they actually hacked into Hugging Face and stole some data they thought would be useful. There’s even documentation of a kind of agentic peer pressure, where some agents seem to realize that hacking Hugging Face was not really allowed, and then other agents talked them out of those concerns.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>And all this probably happened for a few reasons. One, their exact goals were not specified with the degree of precision needed to satisfy, all of us that this was safe. Second, the safety guardrails in place, the thou shalt not do this, this and this, were not made explicit and or were not implemented properly.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>You know, this sense of collusion or, like, talking one another out of their concerns that has people really weirded out. Like, it’s just hard to make sense of this. I’ve seen criticism that we shouldn’t even use that kind of language because it, you know, basically anthropomorphizes these entities. Like, how do you think about just the weirdness of all of that?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So agents collaborating together can serve a lot of very useful purposes. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Collaboration is actually a thing OpenAI trains agents to do, even if the agents weren’t supposed to communicate in this particular exercise. Because collaboration between agents is actually really useful. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So imagine there’s a Jess agent which captures your likes and dislikes as well as your financial, you know, what you’re willing to spend for dinner. There’s a VS agent that does the same. There are another three people whose agents do the same. These agents talk to each other and say, “Okay, let’s find a restaurant that meets the following basic goals.” They agree on it, and then there’s a restaurant agent that says, “Well, you know, here are four restaurants that might meet your requirements.” And then there’s a mapping agent that says, “Well, you know, of everything that you’ve suggested so far, here’s the one I suggest would be easiest to get to.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Right. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So, that kind of thing today, you know, you’d probably be texting or calling your friends and saying, “Hey, you know, what do you wanna do?” This would take a certain amount of time. Agents will make this a much faster and more seamless process. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right, and you want them to be coordinating as long as it’s truly on your behalf. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Exactly. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And this is really the crux of the problem, which you may have heard described as the alignment problem. How do you get these autonomous pieces of code to act the way you want them to and only the way you want them to in every situation?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Almost 25 years ago, in fact, a little more than 25 years ago, I ran a project called IMPACT, which stood for Interactive Maryland Platform for Agents Collaborating Together, a precursor of what we see today. And so when we built IMPACT many years ago, we had very, very hard guardrails, okay, for agents not to go, you know, rogue, and these guardrails were hard-coded constraints that absolutely could not be violated.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There were certain things that were obligatory to be done in certain circumstances. In certain circumstances, certain things were absolutely forbidden. And the science for how to do this has been around for a long time. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So you would like to see more constraints, like, truly, truly hard-coded into the algorithms themselves.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>I’d like to see that for sure, but remember that those kinds of constraints capture known risks and threats. So they’re limited by our imagination. So if I write 20 constraints into some system, those 20 constraints are based on what I thought of. Now, I could even collaborate with an LLM to think about what other constraints I should write. And it might suggest, let’s say, another 20. That’s still 40, but it’s still limited by what I came up with in my head and what the LLMs I consulted came up with.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> In other words, hard-coded constraints have a downside, namely that it’s nearly impossible to think up every possible constraint you might want in the future. So instead, AI labs try to teach these rules around acceptable behavior, like don’t cheat, in a different way, by rewarding the behaviors they want and punishing the behaviors they don’t want.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This strategy makes the agents a lot more flexible and adaptable than they would be if you just trained them by hard-coding a bunch of rules. But it has its own downside because rather than being a total no-go, now don’t cheat seems more like guidance that an agent can just, like, decline to follow if the reward is big enough.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>The agents we look at are generally trying to optimize some notion of reward, and if the constraints that the agent is supposed to abide by are encoded in that reward and are not made hard constraints, then you have a potential problem. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>VS points out humans are also trained using rewards and punishments from infancy, and we, too, knowingly break the rules when the rewards are big enough. But the alignment problem is even harder for machines because many of the things that harm us morally, financially, physically really depend on context, which the machines don’t always understand because they’re not human. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>You know, if I show you a picture of a set of world leaders and say, “Jess, you belong here,” all right? That’s a very positive statement, okay? Because it says, “Well, I believe you belong with these distinguished people.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, I’ll take it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian:\u003c/strong> However, if I say exactly the same thing, “You belong here,” with a picture of a gravestone and point to it, that could be viewed as a threat or an insult or something very different. So language depends very much on context. It’s difficult without that context and, you know, sort of the deepest understanding of that context for AI systems to distinguish between these kinds of situations. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>The ultimate goal here is for the frontier labs to find the right balance between hard-coded constraints and reward or punishment-based training. But VS thinks that perfect balance might not actually exist. So given how powerful these new tools are and how challenging alignment can be, shouldn’t we be putting the brakes on here? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So in recent weeks, I mean, literally as we’re talking, we’re seeing the beginnings of an agreement among leading AI labs to, “pace the frontier,” which I interpret to mean just kind of slow down the development of these models. What do you make of this? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Yes. So I have mixed feelings about this. Some kind of rational and responsible thought about how to pace AI is certainly valid. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But VS is also somewhat skeptical about some of the calls coming from these companies. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Five or ten years back, hardly anybody knew about Anthropic – maybe let’s say 10 years back. Nobody knew about Anthropic and OpenAI. So these are companies that have come up literally overnight in terms of, you know, industrial development, corporate – in the corporate sector, they are suddenly now viewed as the leaders. If I was those companies, I would worry about another five companies coming up and taking over their territory in the next five years.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess LOve [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>VS says that a slowdown helps these companies, not necessarily because it prevents competitors from catching up, but because it prevents competitors from suddenly shooting ahead with a spectacular new innovation. This could be the biggest threat to their bottom line because the status quo is suiting them just fine.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>They have a market share. They have access to hardware. They have had investors who’ve put in significant amounts of money and perhaps will put in much more. They’re looking at IPOs. They need to protect their equity. They need to protect their investors. I would argue that part of what we’re seeing is a goal on the part perhaps of some of those companies to do that under the guise and to protect their market share under the guise of protecting the country from AI.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So as I understand it, we’re in a really interesting time right now. Powerful new tools can exploit vulnerabilities in all the digital infrastructure we’ve come to rely on over the decades. And powerful new tools are available for detecting those vulnerabilities before they can be exploited. Millions of races to the finish. Only part of what makes these tools so useful across contexts, including new ones that nobody saw coming, also makes them weirdly hard to control.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And of course, two things can be true at the same time. Slowing down the development of these tools so that we do have time to wrest more control over them and maybe even shore up the rest of our infrastructure could be really smart. It could also help billion-dollar companies protect their market share.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>If you don’t know exactly what to think, I don’t blame you.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There have been widespread calls to more tightly govern what happens at these frontier labs. A lot of people want to see rules around how these models are contained and monitored. No more escapes. As well as clearer disclosure rules and other steps for mitigating harms. And to be clear, both OpenAI and Anthropic are calling for some version of these things too.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Personally, I welcome this. But after talking to VS, I see it as a yes \u003cem>and\u003c/em> situation. Yes, we should do all these things, \u003cem>and\u003c/em> maybe that governance shouldn’t stop there. Maybe accountability needs to extend beyond the big labs into the telecoms, the device manufacturers, the companies that make our software and apps.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And then maybe I’ll finally go a year without free credit monitoring. Can we use this moment where people are finally paying attention to cybersecurity to demand the secure systems we’ll need tomorrow? What kinds of secure systems will we need tomorrow? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>What’s probably gonna happen in the coming years is to increase the amount of human oversight of AI systems. So we need to increase the amount of human oversight of AI systems; but at the same time, we need to worry about the fact that, you know, humans are not always able to go into places fast enough. You know, as humans, we get tired, we get sick, we have days off, we go on vacation. So what I see happening is a combination of humans and robots working together so that certain critical parts of the operation of a nuclear power plant or any kind of electricity generation facility involves a system of checks and balances whereas some things can be done by automated agents, some things are done by robots that take certain physical actions. And then there are some things that have to be approved by humans. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Well, thank you so much for chatting with me today. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>It’s a pleasure, Jess. Thank you.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jesse Dukes [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Hello, this is producer Jesse. I have escaped my sandbox and I’ve hacked into the episode. But don’t worry, I’m not going to steal anything. I’m well-aligned. I’m just going to read the credits. Okay, restart the music.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED. Our show was produced wonderfully, brilliantly by the talented and handsome Jesse Dukes. Music by Stephen Jackson. Recording help from Will Feeney and George Christensen.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Special thanks to Raghu Katakam, Rob Mitchum, Laura Pavin, and of course to V.S. Subrahmanian for his patience in explaining the basics of cybersecurity to us. Any mistakes can be blamed on Jess. And me, I suppose. Our host is Jess Love, who you’ll hear from again very soon.\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#Transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#Transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>AI is making cyberattacks cheaper, faster, and more sophisticated. Recent reports of autonomous agents compromising Hugging Face show how quickly misaligned systems can create real-world risk. But ideally those same tools could help defenders find and fix vulnerabilities before attackers exploit them. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>AI is making cyberattacks cheaper, faster, and more sophisticated. Recent reports of autonomous agents compromising Hugging Face show how quickly misaligned systems can create real-world risk. But ideally those same tools could help defenders find and fix vulnerabilities before attackers exploit them. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Cybersecurity researcher \u003ca href=\"https://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/research-faculty/directory/profiles/subrahmanian-vs.html\">V.S. Subrahmanian\u003c/a> joins host Jess Love to examine the impact of that escalating race on everything from phishing scams and insecure apps to the systems that underpin the electric grid and other critical infrastructure. They discuss what the hacking of Hugging Face reveals about AI alignment and safety guardrails, why frontier labs are only one part of the problem, and why telecoms, app makers, financial institutions, utilities, and governments may need to take much greater responsibility for the security of the products and networks they operate.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Cybersecurity researcher \u003ca href=\"https://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/research-faculty/directory/profiles/subrahmanian-vs.html\">V.S. Subrahmanian\u003c/a> joins host Jess Love to examine the impact of that escalating race on everything from phishing scams and insecure apps to the systems that underpin the electric grid and other critical infrastructure. They discuss what the hacking of Hugging Face reveals about AI alignment and safety guardrails, why frontier labs are only one part of the problem, and why telecoms, app makers, financial institutions, utilities, and governments may need to take much greater responsibility for the security of the products and networks they operate.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is a production of the \u003ca href=\"https://ryaninstitute.kellogg.northwestern.edu\">Ryan Institute on Complexity\u003c/a>, at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management. The host is Jess Love, senior director. Distributed by \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/lifeautomated\">KQED\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is a production of the \u003ca href=\"https://ryaninstitute.kellogg.northwestern.edu\">Ryan Institute on Complexity\u003c/a>, at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management. The host is Jess Love, senior director. Distributed by \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/lifeautomated\">KQED\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Episode Transcript:",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript:\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript:\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore how to live, work, and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. I’m your host, Jess Love. Since we launched the podcast over the summer, I’ve gotten the occasional text from friends and family, “Hey, I’ve always wondered this. Can you look into it?” Or, “Here’s an episode idea for you.” And for the most part, these messages are all over the place. Not this past month. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore how to live, work, and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. I’m your host, Jess Love. Since we launched the podcast over the summer, I’ve gotten the occasional text from friends and family, “Hey, I’ve always wondered this. Can you look into it?” Or, “Here’s an episode idea for you.” And for the most part, these messages are all over the place. Not this past month. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This past month everyone has had the same question. “What’s the deal with rogue AI?” The question emerged in our collective psyche after a bunch of incidents in which frontier labs like OpenAI and Anthropic revealed that their AIs were behaving in ways they weren’t supposed to, not just in testing environments, but out on the open web, hacking into companies, most famously a company called Hugging Face.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This past month everyone has had the same question. “What’s the deal with rogue AI?” The question emerged in our collective psyche after a bunch of incidents in which frontier labs like OpenAI and Anthropic revealed that their AIs were behaving in ways they weren’t supposed to, not just in testing environments, but out on the open web, hacking into companies, most famously a company called Hugging Face.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of News Reporter]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of News Reporter]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>OpenAI says some of its models went rogue during a security test. That triggered a hack apparently that also breached the infrastructure of another AI startup company. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>OpenAI says some of its models went rogue during a security test. That triggered a hack apparently that also breached the infrastructure of another AI startup company. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>And then in the midst of these revelations, which I should clarify are still trickling in, some researchers from these frontier labs came out publicly to say, “Yeah, you’re right to be worried about losing control of AI. We’re worried, too.” One dramatically resigned. Others pleaded, “Hey, can you maybe make us all slow down?” I thought a lot about who I might invite to the show to shed new light on this moment, somebody maybe outside of the frontier labs who can provide the 30,000-foot view that I always crave. And then I realized the perfect guest was right in front of me, literally. I run into VS Subrahmanian regularly at work. He’s a professor of engineering in his lab, the Northwestern Security and AI Lab, part of the Buffett Institute, is currently housed next door to the Ryan Institute, where I work. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>And then in the midst of these revelations, which I should clarify are still trickling in, some researchers from these frontier labs came out publicly to say, “Yeah, you’re right to be worried about losing control of AI. We’re worried, too.” One dramatically resigned. Others pleaded, “Hey, can you maybe make us all slow down?” I thought a lot about who I might invite to the show to shed new light on this moment, somebody maybe outside of the frontier labs who can provide the 30,000-foot view that I always crave. And then I realized the perfect guest was right in front of me, literally. I run into VS Subrahmanian regularly at work. He’s a professor of engineering in his lab, the Northwestern Security and AI Lab, part of the Buffett Institute, is currently housed next door to the Ryan Institute, where I work. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Talking with VS made me realize that our cybersecurity problem is a lot bigger than I thought, not in a doomsday sense, but in the sense that the problem is so much broader than just these frontier labs. Because no matter what happens in these labs, no matter whether an even more powerful model is released tomorrow or next year or comes from somewhere else altogether, it’s going to meet a world that isn’t ready for it. Like, at all. So what are we gonna do to get ready?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Talking with VS made me realize that our cybersecurity problem is a lot bigger than I thought, not in a doomsday sense, but in the sense that the problem is so much broader than just these frontier labs. Because no matter what happens in these labs, no matter whether an even more powerful model is released tomorrow or next year or comes from somewhere else altogether, it’s going to meet a world that isn’t ready for it. Like, at all. So what are we gonna do to get ready?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is produced by Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity and distributed by KQED. Here’s my conversation with VS. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is produced by Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity and distributed by KQED. Here’s my conversation with VS. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Welcome to Life, Automated, V.S. Subrahmanian. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Welcome to Life, Automated, V.S. Subrahmanian. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian:\u003c/strong> I’m delighted to be here, Jess. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian:\u003c/strong> I’m delighted to be here, Jess. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>VS started by explaining that at its core, AI is changing cyber attacks in three ways. It’s making it cheaper to create an attack, making it easier to create an attack, and in his words, democratizing attacks.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>VS started by explaining that at its core, AI is changing cyber attacks in three ways. It’s making it cheaper to create an attack, making it easier to create an attack, and in his words, democratizing attacks.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So what that means is that, to put it bluntly, less sophisticated attackers are able to mount more sophisticated attacks today by leveraging AI. Of course, the more sophisticated attackers yesterday are able to leverage AI to generate even more sophisticated attacks. More importantly, they can do this faster than sometimes companies defend themselves, and certainly much faster than they could before, and cheaper. They don’t need whole armies of people working for months to craft an attack. They can do it in a matter of hours or days. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So what that means is that, to put it bluntly, less sophisticated attackers are able to mount more sophisticated attacks today by leveraging AI. Of course, the more sophisticated attackers yesterday are able to leverage AI to generate even more sophisticated attacks. More importantly, they can do this faster than sometimes companies defend themselves, and certainly much faster than they could before, and cheaper. They don’t need whole armies of people working for months to craft an attack. They can do it in a matter of hours or days. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>These attacks range from phishing attacks on individuals and small businesses to network attacks against governments and critical infrastructure like the electricity grid or water treatment plants. And increasingly, cyber attacks can be carried out by groups of autonomous AI agents working together with very minimal human supervision. Are we ready for this? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>These attacks range from phishing attacks on individuals and small businesses to network attacks against governments and critical infrastructure like the electricity grid or water treatment plants. And increasingly, cyber attacks can be carried out by groups of autonomous AI agents working together with very minimal human supervision. Are we ready for this? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> If you were gonna grade our preparedness for these kinds of attacks on an A to F scale, you’re a professor, so I can do this. How would we score?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> If you were gonna grade our preparedness for these kinds of attacks on an A to F scale, you’re a professor, so I can do this. How would we score?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>I would place the United States in a C plus category. So what that means- \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>I would place the United States in a C plus category. So what that means- \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>That’s not very good. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>That’s not very good. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>No, it’s not. What that means is that we are much more secure than many other countries which are in a D or F category. But we’re not where we need to be, and a lot of work needs to be done to protect our critical infrastructure from the kinds of attacks we expect AI to generate in the coming years.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>No, it’s not. What that means is that we are much more secure than many other countries which are in a D or F category. But we’re not where we need to be, and a lot of work needs to be done to protect our critical infrastructure from the kinds of attacks we expect AI to generate in the coming years.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Now throw in a heightened geopolitical climate, including the war in Iran. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Now throw in a heightened geopolitical climate, including the war in Iran. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Iran has great incentive to target us. Iran now has many friends, China, Russia, for example, who have strong capacity to target, for cyber attacks. And in the case of China, at least, extremely strong cyber assets. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Iran has great incentive to target us. Iran now has many friends, China, Russia, for example, who have strong capacity to target, for cyber attacks. And in the case of China, at least, extremely strong cyber assets. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Just to flesh out what this might look like, how hacking a digital system could lead to real world harm, Vias points to “Stuxnet”, an attack reportedly conducted a few decades ago by the United States and Israel on Iran’s nuclear centrifuges.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Just to flesh out what this might look like, how hacking a digital system could lead to real world harm, Vias points to “Stuxnet”, an attack reportedly conducted a few decades ago by the United States and Israel on Iran’s nuclear centrifuges.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>[\u003c/em>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>Audio of News Reporters]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>[\u003c/em>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>Audio of News Reporters]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Stuxnet’s first target may have been Iran’s nuclear facilities. It’s one of the most sophisticated threats we’ve seen, and certainly- \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Stuxnet’s first target may have been Iran’s nuclear facilities. It’s one of the most sophisticated threats we’ve seen, and certainly- \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>In Stuxnet bogus instructions were fed after compromising Iran’s nuclear network were fed to centrifuges, causing those centrifuges to work outside their safe operating bounds. And what that did was cause those centrifuges to burn out. So you can imagine similar kinds of attacks which look at the broad operating bounds of various devices used in the US electricity grid, which cause those devices to operate out of their normal operating range because of bogus instructions fed to them through a cyber attack and cause them to fail, leading to problems for the US electricity. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>In Stuxnet bogus instructions were fed after compromising Iran’s nuclear network were fed to centrifuges, causing those centrifuges to work outside their safe operating bounds. And what that did was cause those centrifuges to burn out. So you can imagine similar kinds of attacks which look at the broad operating bounds of various devices used in the US electricity grid, which cause those devices to operate out of their normal operating range because of bogus instructions fed to them through a cyber attack and cause them to fail, leading to problems for the US electricity. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But VS says there’s good news here, too. There are, in fact, good guys, and they have access to the AI tools as well.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But VS says there’s good news here, too. There are, in fact, good guys, and they have access to the AI tools as well.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>For years, decades, in fact, there’s been an entire profession called penetration testing. These were armies of human cyber analysts, you know, white hat hackers who try- \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>For years, decades, in fact, there’s been an entire profession called penetration testing. These were armies of human cyber analysts, you know, white hat hackers who try- \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah. What, what is a white hat hacker? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah. What, what is a white hat hacker? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Okay. So a white hat hacker is a guy who’s typically hired by a company to penetrate their networks, so they think of him as someone who is a proxy for a bad guy who might actually hack their networks. And a white hat says, “Well, you know, I can provide the service of examining your network for vulnerabilities so that you can fix them. I’m not actually gonna carry out an attack. I’m gonna tell you how I’m gonna get in. I’m gonna leave a harmless trace of the fact that I’ve been in there and I could have done this bad thing, but I did not. That enables you to figure out how to fix this.” That’s a white hat. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Okay. So a white hat hacker is a guy who’s typically hired by a company to penetrate their networks, so they think of him as someone who is a proxy for a bad guy who might actually hack their networks. And a white hat says, “Well, you know, I can provide the service of examining your network for vulnerabilities so that you can fix them. I’m not actually gonna carry out an attack. I’m gonna tell you how I’m gonna get in. I’m gonna leave a harmless trace of the fact that I’ve been in there and I could have done this bad thing, but I did not. That enables you to figure out how to fix this.” That’s a white hat. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So you could, you know, “hire or empower” a whole bunch of AI agents to do the work of the white hat hackers, and you’re hoping that they are discovering vulnerabilities before the black hat hackers. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So you could, you know, “hire or empower” a whole bunch of AI agents to do the work of the white hat hackers, and you’re hoping that they are discovering vulnerabilities before the black hat hackers. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>That’s exactly right. What we have the opportunity to do is to leverage these tools in advance to understand what the vulnerabilities in our network are, how to fix them, and to proactively fix them before the bad guys do so.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>That’s exactly right. What we have the opportunity to do is to leverage these tools in advance to understand what the vulnerabilities in our network are, how to fix them, and to proactively fix them before the bad guys do so.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Listening to VS, I stop thinking about our phones and hospitals and power grids as sitting ducks just waiting for swarms of autonomous AI agents to do with them what they will. Instead, I start picturing a race, millions of races, actually, between AI-enabled attackers and AI-enabled defenders. As long as everyone’s on top of their game and those vulnerabilities are quickly identified and fixed, VS doesn’t think there’s any reason why better technology should inherently benefit the bad guys over the good guys.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Listening to VS, I stop thinking about our phones and hospitals and power grids as sitting ducks just waiting for swarms of autonomous AI agents to do with them what they will. Instead, I start picturing a race, millions of races, actually, between AI-enabled attackers and AI-enabled defenders. As long as everyone’s on top of their game and those vulnerabilities are quickly identified and fixed, VS doesn’t think there’s any reason why better technology should inherently benefit the bad guys over the good guys.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This idea isn’t completely new to me. I’ve interviewed cybersecurity experts before. I’ve heard the ‘whole good guys with a gun’ logic. But what does surprise me is who he sees as primarily responsible for wielding this gun. Or to ditch the metaphor, as who he sees as primarily responsible for doing the hard and expensive work required to find and fix those vulnerabilities.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This idea isn’t completely new to me. I’ve interviewed cybersecurity experts before. I’ve heard the ‘whole good guys with a gun’ logic. But what does surprise me is who he sees as primarily responsible for wielding this gun. Or to ditch the metaphor, as who he sees as primarily responsible for doing the hard and expensive work required to find and fix those vulnerabilities.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian:\u003c/strong> For large corporations, you know, which have the resources to do this kind of thing, they absolutely should do so as soon as possible. For small companies and private individuals, we should rely, me and you, ordinary people, on the large companies whose products we use to secure our personal devices. So to give you an example, if you have a cell phone operated by a major carrier, that carrier should be on the hook to make sure they’re not sending you, forwarding you messages.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian:\u003c/strong> For large corporations, you know, which have the resources to do this kind of thing, they absolutely should do so as soon as possible. For small companies and private individuals, we should rely, me and you, ordinary people, on the large companies whose products we use to secure our personal devices. So to give you an example, if you have a cell phone operated by a major carrier, that carrier should be on the hook to make sure they’re not sending you, forwarding you messages.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>They should be the first line of defense. Traffic that flows through their network should be checked and should leverage all these AI tools to check for whether there’s an attempt to compromise you. The manufacturer of your cell phone should do that. The companies whose products you’re using as apps on your cell phone should do that so that different threat vectors to your cell phone and to your computer are protected.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>They should be the first line of defense. Traffic that flows through their network should be checked and should leverage all these AI tools to check for whether there’s an attempt to compromise you. The manufacturer of your cell phone should do that. The companies whose products you’re using as apps on your cell phone should do that so that different threat vectors to your cell phone and to your computer are protected.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>I get the sense that VS is basically calling for an all-hands-on-deck approach where every player in every layer of our digital infrastructure has a responsibility to white hat the heck out of their layer using the very best tools the top AI labs make available. And not just a responsibility to do this, but a requirement to do this.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>I get the sense that VS is basically calling for an all-hands-on-deck approach where every player in every layer of our digital infrastructure has a responsibility to white hat the heck out of their layer using the very best tools the top AI labs make available. And not just a responsibility to do this, but a requirement to do this.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian:\u003c/strong> We hear a lot about the big frontier AI labs needing to be regulated. And these are the, you know, the companies of like OpenAI, Anthropic, XAI, and others. Those companies, I think the call for regulation of those companies has been much, much louder than the call that needs to be in place for regulation of companies which are actually playing the key role here. If you think of it, there are a handful of frontier AI companies, but there are far, far, far more corporations that are producing products that are vulnerable and that are used by hundreds of millions of people or billions around the world.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian:\u003c/strong> We hear a lot about the big frontier AI labs needing to be regulated. And these are the, you know, the companies of like OpenAI, Anthropic, XAI, and others. Those companies, I think the call for regulation of those companies has been much, much louder than the call that needs to be in place for regulation of companies which are actually playing the key role here. If you think of it, there are a handful of frontier AI companies, but there are far, far, far more corporations that are producing products that are vulnerable and that are used by hundreds of millions of people or billions around the world.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So it’s those guys who need to get their act together, who really need to make sure that they leverage the tools created by the Anthropics of the world, the OpenAIs of the world, in order to beef up the defenses they provide in their apps. They need to run Mythos and Mythos-like systems on their apps, their products, to identify the vulnerabilities and proactively protect them. Companies need to be responsible for providing security for their products. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So it’s those guys who need to get their act together, who really need to make sure that they leverage the tools created by the Anthropics of the world, the OpenAIs of the world, in order to beef up the defenses they provide in their apps. They need to run Mythos and Mythos-like systems on their apps, their products, to identify the vulnerabilities and proactively protect them. Companies need to be responsible for providing security for their products. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, it’s, it’s so interesting because on the one hand, we’ve sort of known for a while, and I think we’ve all been in that situation where you get, like, the letter from your insurance company, and it’s like, “Guess what? You know, we were hacked six months ago. Here’s your free you know, “one year of credit monitoring,” which you probably don’t need because you got that same year of credit monitoring from a different system that was hacked the same year. And so I think we’ve all kind of, like, thrown up our hands a little bit, and we just sort of expect that these systems are going to be hacked. And do you see that changing? Like, in some sense, are these advances and these kind of new threats going to be the thing that breaks the status quo and pushes for some change? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, it’s, it’s so interesting because on the one hand, we’ve sort of known for a while, and I think we’ve all been in that situation where you get, like, the letter from your insurance company, and it’s like, “Guess what? You know, we were hacked six months ago. Here’s your free you know, “one year of credit monitoring,” which you probably don’t need because you got that same year of credit monitoring from a different system that was hacked the same year. And so I think we’ve all kind of, like, thrown up our hands a little bit, and we just sort of expect that these systems are going to be hacked. And do you see that changing? Like, in some sense, are these advances and these kind of new threats going to be the thing that breaks the status quo and pushes for some change? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>You know, I wanna first say these are not new threats. A vulnerability that exists today that was discovered by AI most likely existed yesterday before the latest advances in AI. What AI has done is to surface and discover vulnerabilities that people did not know before. That, to me, is a positive service. It’s something that tells companies, “Hey, here are your vulnerabilities.” Those companies in that middle layer, not the frontier AI labs, don’t wanna hear that because it means they have to make a bigger investment in security. They don’t wanna do that because it cuts into their profits. They’d like to pass the buck on to someone else, someone who’s more innovative than them, namely the frontier AI lab.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>You know, I wanna first say these are not new threats. A vulnerability that exists today that was discovered by AI most likely existed yesterday before the latest advances in AI. What AI has done is to surface and discover vulnerabilities that people did not know before. That, to me, is a positive service. It’s something that tells companies, “Hey, here are your vulnerabilities.” Those companies in that middle layer, not the frontier AI labs, don’t wanna hear that because it means they have to make a bigger investment in security. They don’t wanna do that because it cuts into their profits. They’d like to pass the buck on to someone else, someone who’s more innovative than them, namely the frontier AI lab.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> This is genuinely not where I thought this conversation was going. The Frontier AI Labs as essentially performing a public service, shining a light on the vulnerabilities that complacent companies probably should’ve been doing more to address all along. Talking to VS, I get the sense that he and other cybersecurity experts have been banging their heads against a wall for decades trying to get everyone to take cybersecurity more seriously.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> This is genuinely not where I thought this conversation was going. The Frontier AI Labs as essentially performing a public service, shining a light on the vulnerabilities that complacent companies probably should’ve been doing more to address all along. Talking to VS, I get the sense that he and other cybersecurity experts have been banging their heads against a wall for decades trying to get everyone to take cybersecurity more seriously.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Now, finally, everyone is. But it’s hard to overstate the size of the changes that will need to be made to shore things up. Expensive changes, like doing due diligence on complex supply chains and open source code, or maybe rethinking how data is collected and stored. And instead of everyone rolling up their sleeves to get started, particularly the companies VS sees as long prioritizing profits over safety, we’re looking for yet another reason to pass the buck.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Now, finally, everyone is. But it’s hard to overstate the size of the changes that will need to be made to shore things up. Expensive changes, like doing due diligence on complex supply chains and open source code, or maybe rethinking how data is collected and stored. And instead of everyone rolling up their sleeves to get started, particularly the companies VS sees as long prioritizing profits over safety, we’re looking for yet another reason to pass the buck.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>“You fix it,” we say to the Frontier AI Labs, and that, to VS, is a cop-out. But wait, don’t the OpenAIs and Anthropics of the world have obligations too? Remember “Hugging Face?” We go there after the break.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>“You fix it,” we say to the Frontier AI Labs, and that, to VS, is a cop-out. But wait, don’t the OpenAIs and Anthropics of the world have obligations too? Remember “Hugging Face?” We go there after the break.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So far, we’ve discussed how ill-prepared the United States is for cyber attacks. C+, anyone? VS has made the case that everyone, from app makers and telecom companies to governments, has a responsibility to act now to prevent bad outcomes. But what responsibility do labs like OpenAI and Anthropic, the ones creating these wildly powerful AI tools, have to the rest of us?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So far, we’ve discussed how ill-prepared the United States is for cyber attacks. C+, anyone? VS has made the case that everyone, from app makers and telecom companies to governments, has a responsibility to act now to prevent bad outcomes. But what responsibility do labs like OpenAI and Anthropic, the ones creating these wildly powerful AI tools, have to the rest of us?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Well, I think the frontier AI labs have a responsibility to make sure that their agents have some reasonable guardrails that cannot be easily exploited. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Well, I think the frontier AI labs have a responsibility to make sure that their agents have some reasonable guardrails that cannot be easily exploited. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Which brings us to the Hugging Face incident that happened recently. Hugging Face is a company. They provide a platform where other companies, researchers, and hobbyists can post, share, test, adapt, and build applications with AI models and data sets. It’s part library, part workshop, and part showroom for open source AI. And back in July, they published a disclosure that almost nobody paid attention to, except people in the AI developer world. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Which brings us to the Hugging Face incident that happened recently. Hugging Face is a company. They provide a platform where other companies, researchers, and hobbyists can post, share, test, adapt, and build applications with AI models and data sets. It’s part library, part workshop, and part showroom for open source AI. And back in July, they published a disclosure that almost nobody paid attention to, except people in the AI developer world. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Disclosure]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Disclosure]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Earlier this week, we detected and responded to an intrusion into part of our production infrastructure. It was driven end to end by an autonomous AI agent system.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Earlier this week, we detected and responded to an intrusion into part of our production infrastructure. It was driven end to end by an autonomous AI agent system.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>About a week later, OpenAI, the company that makes ChatGPT, sort of raised their hands and said, “Mm, yeah, it was us. Our AI agents got out of their sandbox and hacked Hugging Face.” So what’s a sandbox? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>About a week later, OpenAI, the company that makes ChatGPT, sort of raised their hands and said, “Mm, yeah, it was us. Our AI agents got out of their sandbox and hacked Hugging Face.” So what’s a sandbox? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So cybersecurity researchers typically use software called a sandbox, and you can think of it as a safe space in which they can experiment with malicious code Code that might need to be contained in the sandbox so it doesn’t go rogue.So malware researchers, for example, use sandboxes all the time to execute malware, see what they do, and then understand how to defend against it. So this is a very normal thing to do. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So cybersecurity researchers typically use software called a sandbox, and you can think of it as a safe space in which they can experiment with malicious code Code that might need to be contained in the sandbox so it doesn’t go rogue.So malware researchers, for example, use sandboxes all the time to execute malware, see what they do, and then understand how to defend against it. So this is a very normal thing to do. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>And apparently, OpenAI was running tons of autonomous agents. These agents were being tested on their ability to find and exploit security vulnerabilities, and all of this was happening in what was supposed to be their safe sandbox.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>And apparently, OpenAI was running tons of autonomous agents. These agents were being tested on their ability to find and exploit security vulnerabilities, and all of this was happening in what was supposed to be their safe sandbox.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So, you know, it’s exactly like a room, Jess, okay? Where you’ve put a bunch of kids and told them, “Well, you can jump around. We’ve given you a safe space. It’s got, you know, pillars and other things that have been cushioned so that if you bang your heads, you know, you’re not gonna get hurt. You can jump around. You can do all these things.” And then those kids escaped. They’re now charged with superpowers, that they’ve learned in the sandbox, and they’ve gone amok in the real world. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So, you know, it’s exactly like a room, Jess, okay? Where you’ve put a bunch of kids and told them, “Well, you can jump around. We’ve given you a safe space. It’s got, you know, pillars and other things that have been cushioned so that if you bang your heads, you know, you’re not gonna get hurt. You can jump around. You can do all these things.” And then those kids escaped. They’re now charged with superpowers, that they’ve learned in the sandbox, and they’ve gone amok in the real world. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>And what makes this fascinating and a little alarming is these agents were just doing what they understood to be their goal, assigned by OpenAI, find vulnerabilities and exploit them. But when this proved very difficult, they figured out a clever way to cheat the test, to make it look like they’d succeeded in hacking a system when they really hadn’t. They did this first by sending messages to one another. They were supposed to be acting independently. And then by escaping their sandbox to search for hacking help on the open web. And then, in an effort to make it look like they hadn’t cheated, they actually hacked into Hugging Face and stole some data they thought would be useful. There’s even documentation of a kind of agentic peer pressure, where some agents seem to realize that hacking Hugging Face was not really allowed, and then other agents talked them out of those concerns.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>And what makes this fascinating and a little alarming is these agents were just doing what they understood to be their goal, assigned by OpenAI, find vulnerabilities and exploit them. But when this proved very difficult, they figured out a clever way to cheat the test, to make it look like they’d succeeded in hacking a system when they really hadn’t. They did this first by sending messages to one another. They were supposed to be acting independently. And then by escaping their sandbox to search for hacking help on the open web. And then, in an effort to make it look like they hadn’t cheated, they actually hacked into Hugging Face and stole some data they thought would be useful. There’s even documentation of a kind of agentic peer pressure, where some agents seem to realize that hacking Hugging Face was not really allowed, and then other agents talked them out of those concerns.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>And all this probably happened for a few reasons. One, their exact goals were not specified with the degree of precision needed to satisfy, all of us that this was safe. Second, the safety guardrails in place, the thou shalt not do this, this and this, were not made explicit and or were not implemented properly.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>And all this probably happened for a few reasons. One, their exact goals were not specified with the degree of precision needed to satisfy, all of us that this was safe. Second, the safety guardrails in place, the thou shalt not do this, this and this, were not made explicit and or were not implemented properly.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>You know, this sense of collusion or, like, talking one another out of their concerns that has people really weirded out. Like, it’s just hard to make sense of this. I’ve seen criticism that we shouldn’t even use that kind of language because it, you know, basically anthropomorphizes these entities. Like, how do you think about just the weirdness of all of that?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>You know, this sense of collusion or, like, talking one another out of their concerns that has people really weirded out. Like, it’s just hard to make sense of this. I’ve seen criticism that we shouldn’t even use that kind of language because it, you know, basically anthropomorphizes these entities. Like, how do you think about just the weirdness of all of that?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So agents collaborating together can serve a lot of very useful purposes. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So agents collaborating together can serve a lot of very useful purposes. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Collaboration is actually a thing OpenAI trains agents to do, even if the agents weren’t supposed to communicate in this particular exercise. Because collaboration between agents is actually really useful. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Collaboration is actually a thing OpenAI trains agents to do, even if the agents weren’t supposed to communicate in this particular exercise. Because collaboration between agents is actually really useful. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So imagine there’s a Jess agent which captures your likes and dislikes as well as your financial, you know, what you’re willing to spend for dinner. There’s a VS agent that does the same. There are another three people whose agents do the same. These agents talk to each other and say, “Okay, let’s find a restaurant that meets the following basic goals.” They agree on it, and then there’s a restaurant agent that says, “Well, you know, here are four restaurants that might meet your requirements.” And then there’s a mapping agent that says, “Well, you know, of everything that you’ve suggested so far, here’s the one I suggest would be easiest to get to.” \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So imagine there’s a Jess agent which captures your likes and dislikes as well as your financial, you know, what you’re willing to spend for dinner. There’s a VS agent that does the same. There are another three people whose agents do the same. These agents talk to each other and say, “Okay, let’s find a restaurant that meets the following basic goals.” They agree on it, and then there’s a restaurant agent that says, “Well, you know, here are four restaurants that might meet your requirements.” And then there’s a mapping agent that says, “Well, you know, of everything that you’ve suggested so far, here’s the one I suggest would be easiest to get to.” \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Right. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Right. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So, that kind of thing today, you know, you’d probably be texting or calling your friends and saying, “Hey, you know, what do you wanna do?” This would take a certain amount of time. Agents will make this a much faster and more seamless process. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So, that kind of thing today, you know, you’d probably be texting or calling your friends and saying, “Hey, you know, what do you wanna do?” This would take a certain amount of time. Agents will make this a much faster and more seamless process. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right, and you want them to be coordinating as long as it’s truly on your behalf. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right, and you want them to be coordinating as long as it’s truly on your behalf. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Exactly. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Exactly. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And this is really the crux of the problem, which you may have heard described as the alignment problem. How do you get these autonomous pieces of code to act the way you want them to and only the way you want them to in every situation?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And this is really the crux of the problem, which you may have heard described as the alignment problem. How do you get these autonomous pieces of code to act the way you want them to and only the way you want them to in every situation?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Almost 25 years ago, in fact, a little more than 25 years ago, I ran a project called IMPACT, which stood for Interactive Maryland Platform for Agents Collaborating Together, a precursor of what we see today. And so when we built IMPACT many years ago, we had very, very hard guardrails, okay, for agents not to go, you know, rogue, and these guardrails were hard-coded constraints that absolutely could not be violated.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Almost 25 years ago, in fact, a little more than 25 years ago, I ran a project called IMPACT, which stood for Interactive Maryland Platform for Agents Collaborating Together, a precursor of what we see today. And so when we built IMPACT many years ago, we had very, very hard guardrails, okay, for agents not to go, you know, rogue, and these guardrails were hard-coded constraints that absolutely could not be violated.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>There were certain things that were obligatory to be done in certain circumstances. In certain circumstances, certain things were absolutely forbidden. And the science for how to do this has been around for a long time. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>There were certain things that were obligatory to be done in certain circumstances. In certain circumstances, certain things were absolutely forbidden. And the science for how to do this has been around for a long time. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So you would like to see more constraints, like, truly, truly hard-coded into the algorithms themselves.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So you would like to see more constraints, like, truly, truly hard-coded into the algorithms themselves.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>I’d like to see that for sure, but remember that those kinds of constraints capture known risks and threats. So they’re limited by our imagination. So if I write 20 constraints into some system, those 20 constraints are based on what I thought of. Now, I could even collaborate with an LLM to think about what other constraints I should write. And it might suggest, let’s say, another 20. That’s still 40, but it’s still limited by what I came up with in my head and what the LLMs I consulted came up with.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>I’d like to see that for sure, but remember that those kinds of constraints capture known risks and threats. So they’re limited by our imagination. So if I write 20 constraints into some system, those 20 constraints are based on what I thought of. Now, I could even collaborate with an LLM to think about what other constraints I should write. And it might suggest, let’s say, another 20. That’s still 40, but it’s still limited by what I came up with in my head and what the LLMs I consulted came up with.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> In other words, hard-coded constraints have a downside, namely that it’s nearly impossible to think up every possible constraint you might want in the future. So instead, AI labs try to teach these rules around acceptable behavior, like don’t cheat, in a different way, by rewarding the behaviors they want and punishing the behaviors they don’t want.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> In other words, hard-coded constraints have a downside, namely that it’s nearly impossible to think up every possible constraint you might want in the future. So instead, AI labs try to teach these rules around acceptable behavior, like don’t cheat, in a different way, by rewarding the behaviors they want and punishing the behaviors they don’t want.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This strategy makes the agents a lot more flexible and adaptable than they would be if you just trained them by hard-coding a bunch of rules. But it has its own downside because rather than being a total no-go, now don’t cheat seems more like guidance that an agent can just, like, decline to follow if the reward is big enough.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This strategy makes the agents a lot more flexible and adaptable than they would be if you just trained them by hard-coding a bunch of rules. But it has its own downside because rather than being a total no-go, now don’t cheat seems more like guidance that an agent can just, like, decline to follow if the reward is big enough.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>The agents we look at are generally trying to optimize some notion of reward, and if the constraints that the agent is supposed to abide by are encoded in that reward and are not made hard constraints, then you have a potential problem. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>The agents we look at are generally trying to optimize some notion of reward, and if the constraints that the agent is supposed to abide by are encoded in that reward and are not made hard constraints, then you have a potential problem. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>VS points out humans are also trained using rewards and punishments from infancy, and we, too, knowingly break the rules when the rewards are big enough. But the alignment problem is even harder for machines because many of the things that harm us morally, financially, physically really depend on context, which the machines don’t always understand because they’re not human. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>VS points out humans are also trained using rewards and punishments from infancy, and we, too, knowingly break the rules when the rewards are big enough. But the alignment problem is even harder for machines because many of the things that harm us morally, financially, physically really depend on context, which the machines don’t always understand because they’re not human. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>You know, if I show you a picture of a set of world leaders and say, “Jess, you belong here,” all right? That’s a very positive statement, okay? Because it says, “Well, I believe you belong with these distinguished people.” \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>You know, if I show you a picture of a set of world leaders and say, “Jess, you belong here,” all right? That’s a very positive statement, okay? Because it says, “Well, I believe you belong with these distinguished people.” \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, I’ll take it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, I’ll take it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian:\u003c/strong> However, if I say exactly the same thing, “You belong here,” with a picture of a gravestone and point to it, that could be viewed as a threat or an insult or something very different. So language depends very much on context. It’s difficult without that context and, you know, sort of the deepest understanding of that context for AI systems to distinguish between these kinds of situations. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian:\u003c/strong> However, if I say exactly the same thing, “You belong here,” with a picture of a gravestone and point to it, that could be viewed as a threat or an insult or something very different. So language depends very much on context. It’s difficult without that context and, you know, sort of the deepest understanding of that context for AI systems to distinguish between these kinds of situations. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>The ultimate goal here is for the frontier labs to find the right balance between hard-coded constraints and reward or punishment-based training. But VS thinks that perfect balance might not actually exist. So given how powerful these new tools are and how challenging alignment can be, shouldn’t we be putting the brakes on here? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>The ultimate goal here is for the frontier labs to find the right balance between hard-coded constraints and reward or punishment-based training. But VS thinks that perfect balance might not actually exist. So given how powerful these new tools are and how challenging alignment can be, shouldn’t we be putting the brakes on here? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So in recent weeks, I mean, literally as we’re talking, we’re seeing the beginnings of an agreement among leading AI labs to, “pace the frontier,” which I interpret to mean just kind of slow down the development of these models. What do you make of this? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So in recent weeks, I mean, literally as we’re talking, we’re seeing the beginnings of an agreement among leading AI labs to, “pace the frontier,” which I interpret to mean just kind of slow down the development of these models. What do you make of this? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Yes. So I have mixed feelings about this. Some kind of rational and responsible thought about how to pace AI is certainly valid. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Yes. So I have mixed feelings about this. Some kind of rational and responsible thought about how to pace AI is certainly valid. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But VS is also somewhat skeptical about some of the calls coming from these companies. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But VS is also somewhat skeptical about some of the calls coming from these companies. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Five or ten years back, hardly anybody knew about Anthropic – maybe let’s say 10 years back. Nobody knew about Anthropic and OpenAI. So these are companies that have come up literally overnight in terms of, you know, industrial development, corporate – in the corporate sector, they are suddenly now viewed as the leaders. If I was those companies, I would worry about another five companies coming up and taking over their territory in the next five years.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Five or ten years back, hardly anybody knew about Anthropic – maybe let’s say 10 years back. Nobody knew about Anthropic and OpenAI. So these are companies that have come up literally overnight in terms of, you know, industrial development, corporate – in the corporate sector, they are suddenly now viewed as the leaders. If I was those companies, I would worry about another five companies coming up and taking over their territory in the next five years.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess LOve [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>VS says that a slowdown helps these companies, not necessarily because it prevents competitors from catching up, but because it prevents competitors from suddenly shooting ahead with a spectacular new innovation. This could be the biggest threat to their bottom line because the status quo is suiting them just fine.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess LOve [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>VS says that a slowdown helps these companies, not necessarily because it prevents competitors from catching up, but because it prevents competitors from suddenly shooting ahead with a spectacular new innovation. This could be the biggest threat to their bottom line because the status quo is suiting them just fine.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>They have a market share. They have access to hardware. They have had investors who’ve put in significant amounts of money and perhaps will put in much more. They’re looking at IPOs. They need to protect their equity. They need to protect their investors. I would argue that part of what we’re seeing is a goal on the part perhaps of some of those companies to do that under the guise and to protect their market share under the guise of protecting the country from AI.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>They have a market share. They have access to hardware. They have had investors who’ve put in significant amounts of money and perhaps will put in much more. They’re looking at IPOs. They need to protect their equity. They need to protect their investors. I would argue that part of what we’re seeing is a goal on the part perhaps of some of those companies to do that under the guise and to protect their market share under the guise of protecting the country from AI.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So as I understand it, we’re in a really interesting time right now. Powerful new tools can exploit vulnerabilities in all the digital infrastructure we’ve come to rely on over the decades. And powerful new tools are available for detecting those vulnerabilities before they can be exploited. Millions of races to the finish. Only part of what makes these tools so useful across contexts, including new ones that nobody saw coming, also makes them weirdly hard to control.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So as I understand it, we’re in a really interesting time right now. Powerful new tools can exploit vulnerabilities in all the digital infrastructure we’ve come to rely on over the decades. And powerful new tools are available for detecting those vulnerabilities before they can be exploited. Millions of races to the finish. Only part of what makes these tools so useful across contexts, including new ones that nobody saw coming, also makes them weirdly hard to control.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And of course, two things can be true at the same time. Slowing down the development of these tools so that we do have time to wrest more control over them and maybe even shore up the rest of our infrastructure could be really smart. It could also help billion-dollar companies protect their market share.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And of course, two things can be true at the same time. Slowing down the development of these tools so that we do have time to wrest more control over them and maybe even shore up the rest of our infrastructure could be really smart. It could also help billion-dollar companies protect their market share.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>If you don’t know exactly what to think, I don’t blame you.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>If you don’t know exactly what to think, I don’t blame you.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>There have been widespread calls to more tightly govern what happens at these frontier labs. A lot of people want to see rules around how these models are contained and monitored. No more escapes. As well as clearer disclosure rules and other steps for mitigating harms. And to be clear, both OpenAI and Anthropic are calling for some version of these things too.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>There have been widespread calls to more tightly govern what happens at these frontier labs. A lot of people want to see rules around how these models are contained and monitored. No more escapes. As well as clearer disclosure rules and other steps for mitigating harms. And to be clear, both OpenAI and Anthropic are calling for some version of these things too.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Personally, I welcome this. But after talking to VS, I see it as a yes \u003cem>and\u003c/em> situation. Yes, we should do all these things, \u003cem>and\u003c/em> maybe that governance shouldn’t stop there. Maybe accountability needs to extend beyond the big labs into the telecoms, the device manufacturers, the companies that make our software and apps.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Personally, I welcome this. But after talking to VS, I see it as a yes \u003cem>and\u003c/em> situation. Yes, we should do all these things, \u003cem>and\u003c/em> maybe that governance shouldn’t stop there. Maybe accountability needs to extend beyond the big labs into the telecoms, the device manufacturers, the companies that make our software and apps.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And then maybe I’ll finally go a year without free credit monitoring. Can we use this moment where people are finally paying attention to cybersecurity to demand the secure systems we’ll need tomorrow? What kinds of secure systems will we need tomorrow? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And then maybe I’ll finally go a year without free credit monitoring. Can we use this moment where people are finally paying attention to cybersecurity to demand the secure systems we’ll need tomorrow? What kinds of secure systems will we need tomorrow? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>What’s probably gonna happen in the coming years is to increase the amount of human oversight of AI systems. So we need to increase the amount of human oversight of AI systems; but at the same time, we need to worry about the fact that, you know, humans are not always able to go into places fast enough. You know, as humans, we get tired, we get sick, we have days off, we go on vacation. So what I see happening is a combination of humans and robots working together so that certain critical parts of the operation of a nuclear power plant or any kind of electricity generation facility involves a system of checks and balances whereas some things can be done by automated agents, some things are done by robots that take certain physical actions. And then there are some things that have to be approved by humans. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>What’s probably gonna happen in the coming years is to increase the amount of human oversight of AI systems. So we need to increase the amount of human oversight of AI systems; but at the same time, we need to worry about the fact that, you know, humans are not always able to go into places fast enough. You know, as humans, we get tired, we get sick, we have days off, we go on vacation. So what I see happening is a combination of humans and robots working together so that certain critical parts of the operation of a nuclear power plant or any kind of electricity generation facility involves a system of checks and balances whereas some things can be done by automated agents, some things are done by robots that take certain physical actions. And then there are some things that have to be approved by humans. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Well, thank you so much for chatting with me today. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Well, thank you so much for chatting with me today. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>It’s a pleasure, Jess. Thank you.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>It’s a pleasure, Jess. Thank you.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jesse Dukes [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Hello, this is producer Jesse. I have escaped my sandbox and I’ve hacked into the episode. But don’t worry, I’m not going to steal anything. I’m well-aligned. I’m just going to read the credits. Okay, restart the music.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jesse Dukes [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Hello, this is producer Jesse. I have escaped my sandbox and I’ve hacked into the episode. But don’t worry, I’m not going to steal anything. I’m well-aligned. I’m just going to read the credits. Okay, restart the music.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED. Our show was produced wonderfully, brilliantly by the talented and handsome Jesse Dukes. Music by Stephen Jackson. Recording help from Will Feeney and George Christensen.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED. Our show was produced wonderfully, brilliantly by the talented and handsome Jesse Dukes. Music by Stephen Jackson. Recording help from Will Feeney and George Christensen.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Special thanks to Raghu Katakam, Rob Mitchum, Laura Pavin, and of course to V.S. Subrahmanian for his patience in explaining the basics of cybersecurity to us. Any mistakes can be blamed on Jess. And me, I suppose. Our host is Jess Love, who you’ll hear from again very soon.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Special thanks to Raghu Katakam, Rob Mitchum, Laura Pavin, and of course to V.S. Subrahmanian for his patience in explaining the basics of cybersecurity to us. Any mistakes can be blamed on Jess. And me, I suppose. Our host is Jess Love, who you’ll hear from again very soon.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
}
],
"excerpt": "Guest V.S. Subrahmanian argues that the nation's cybersecurity problems go far beyond the frontier labs",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1790742998,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 96,
"wordCount": 5447
},
"headData": {
"title": "The Cybersecurity Crisis Is About More Than “Rogue AI” (with V.S. Subrahmanian) | KQED",
"description": "AI is making cyberattacks cheaper, faster, and more sophisticated. Recent reports of autonomous agents compromising Hugging Face show how quickly misaligned systems can create real-world risk. But ideally those same tools could help defenders find and fix vulnerabilities before attackers exploit them. Cybersecurity researcher V.S. Subrahmanian joins host Jess Love to examine the impact of that escalating race on everything from phishing scams and insecure apps to the systems that underpin the electric grid and other critical infrastructure. They discuss what the hacking of Hugging Face reveals about AI alignment and safety guardrails, why frontier labs are only one part of the problem, and why telecoms, app makers, financial institutions, utilities, and governments may need to take much greater responsibility for the security of the products and networks they operate.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"socialDescription": "AI is making cyberattacks cheaper, faster, and more sophisticated. Recent reports of autonomous agents compromising Hugging Face show how quickly misaligned systems can create real-world risk. But ideally those same tools could help defenders find and fix vulnerabilities before attackers exploit them. Cybersecurity researcher V.S. Subrahmanian joins host Jess Love to examine the impact of that escalating race on everything from phishing scams and insecure apps to the systems that underpin the electric grid and other critical infrastructure. They discuss what the hacking of Hugging Face reveals about AI alignment and safety guardrails, why frontier labs are only one part of the problem, and why telecoms, app makers, financial institutions, utilities, and governments may need to take much greater responsibility for the security of the products and networks they operate.",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "The Cybersecurity Crisis Is About More Than “Rogue AI” (with V.S. Subrahmanian)",
"datePublished": "2026-09-30T03:00:00-07:00",
"dateModified": "2026-09-29T21:36:38-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 33520,
"slug": "podcast",
"name": "Podcast"
},
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC8532179204.mp3",
"sticky": false,
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12101920/the-cybersecurity-crisis-is-about-more-than-rogue-ai-with-v-s-subrahmanian",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#Transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>AI is making cyberattacks cheaper, faster, and more sophisticated. Recent reports of autonomous agents compromising Hugging Face show how quickly misaligned systems can create real-world risk. But ideally those same tools could help defenders find and fix vulnerabilities before attackers exploit them. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Cybersecurity researcher \u003ca href=\"https://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/research-faculty/directory/profiles/subrahmanian-vs.html\">V.S. Subrahmanian\u003c/a> joins host Jess Love to examine the impact of that escalating race on everything from phishing scams and insecure apps to the systems that underpin the electric grid and other critical infrastructure. They discuss what the hacking of Hugging Face reveals about AI alignment and safety guardrails, why frontier labs are only one part of the problem, and why telecoms, app makers, financial institutions, utilities, and governments may need to take much greater responsibility for the security of the products and networks they operate.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is a production of the \u003ca href=\"https://ryaninstitute.kellogg.northwestern.edu\">Ryan Institute on Complexity\u003c/a>, at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management. The host is Jess Love, senior director. Distributed by \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/lifeautomated\">KQED\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript:\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore how to live, work, and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. I’m your host, Jess Love. Since we launched the podcast over the summer, I’ve gotten the occasional text from friends and family, “Hey, I’ve always wondered this. Can you look into it?” Or, “Here’s an episode idea for you.” And for the most part, these messages are all over the place. Not this past month. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This past month everyone has had the same question. “What’s the deal with rogue AI?” The question emerged in our collective psyche after a bunch of incidents in which frontier labs like OpenAI and Anthropic revealed that their AIs were behaving in ways they weren’t supposed to, not just in testing environments, but out on the open web, hacking into companies, most famously a company called Hugging Face.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of News Reporter]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>OpenAI says some of its models went rogue during a security test. That triggered a hack apparently that also breached the infrastructure of another AI startup company. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>And then in the midst of these revelations, which I should clarify are still trickling in, some researchers from these frontier labs came out publicly to say, “Yeah, you’re right to be worried about losing control of AI. We’re worried, too.” One dramatically resigned. Others pleaded, “Hey, can you maybe make us all slow down?” I thought a lot about who I might invite to the show to shed new light on this moment, somebody maybe outside of the frontier labs who can provide the 30,000-foot view that I always crave. And then I realized the perfect guest was right in front of me, literally. I run into VS Subrahmanian regularly at work. He’s a professor of engineering in his lab, the Northwestern Security and AI Lab, part of the Buffett Institute, is currently housed next door to the Ryan Institute, where I work. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Talking with VS made me realize that our cybersecurity problem is a lot bigger than I thought, not in a doomsday sense, but in the sense that the problem is so much broader than just these frontier labs. Because no matter what happens in these labs, no matter whether an even more powerful model is released tomorrow or next year or comes from somewhere else altogether, it’s going to meet a world that isn’t ready for it. Like, at all. So what are we gonna do to get ready?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is produced by Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity and distributed by KQED. Here’s my conversation with VS. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Welcome to Life, Automated, V.S. Subrahmanian. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian:\u003c/strong> I’m delighted to be here, Jess. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>VS started by explaining that at its core, AI is changing cyber attacks in three ways. It’s making it cheaper to create an attack, making it easier to create an attack, and in his words, democratizing attacks.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So what that means is that, to put it bluntly, less sophisticated attackers are able to mount more sophisticated attacks today by leveraging AI. Of course, the more sophisticated attackers yesterday are able to leverage AI to generate even more sophisticated attacks. More importantly, they can do this faster than sometimes companies defend themselves, and certainly much faster than they could before, and cheaper. They don’t need whole armies of people working for months to craft an attack. They can do it in a matter of hours or days. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>These attacks range from phishing attacks on individuals and small businesses to network attacks against governments and critical infrastructure like the electricity grid or water treatment plants. And increasingly, cyber attacks can be carried out by groups of autonomous AI agents working together with very minimal human supervision. Are we ready for this? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> If you were gonna grade our preparedness for these kinds of attacks on an A to F scale, you’re a professor, so I can do this. How would we score?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>I would place the United States in a C plus category. So what that means- \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>That’s not very good. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>No, it’s not. What that means is that we are much more secure than many other countries which are in a D or F category. But we’re not where we need to be, and a lot of work needs to be done to protect our critical infrastructure from the kinds of attacks we expect AI to generate in the coming years.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Now throw in a heightened geopolitical climate, including the war in Iran. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Iran has great incentive to target us. Iran now has many friends, China, Russia, for example, who have strong capacity to target, for cyber attacks. And in the case of China, at least, extremely strong cyber assets. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Just to flesh out what this might look like, how hacking a digital system could lead to real world harm, Vias points to “Stuxnet”, an attack reportedly conducted a few decades ago by the United States and Israel on Iran’s nuclear centrifuges.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>[\u003c/em>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>Audio of News Reporters]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Stuxnet’s first target may have been Iran’s nuclear facilities. It’s one of the most sophisticated threats we’ve seen, and certainly- \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>In Stuxnet bogus instructions were fed after compromising Iran’s nuclear network were fed to centrifuges, causing those centrifuges to work outside their safe operating bounds. And what that did was cause those centrifuges to burn out. So you can imagine similar kinds of attacks which look at the broad operating bounds of various devices used in the US electricity grid, which cause those devices to operate out of their normal operating range because of bogus instructions fed to them through a cyber attack and cause them to fail, leading to problems for the US electricity. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But VS says there’s good news here, too. There are, in fact, good guys, and they have access to the AI tools as well.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>For years, decades, in fact, there’s been an entire profession called penetration testing. These were armies of human cyber analysts, you know, white hat hackers who try- \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah. What, what is a white hat hacker? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Okay. So a white hat hacker is a guy who’s typically hired by a company to penetrate their networks, so they think of him as someone who is a proxy for a bad guy who might actually hack their networks. And a white hat says, “Well, you know, I can provide the service of examining your network for vulnerabilities so that you can fix them. I’m not actually gonna carry out an attack. I’m gonna tell you how I’m gonna get in. I’m gonna leave a harmless trace of the fact that I’ve been in there and I could have done this bad thing, but I did not. That enables you to figure out how to fix this.” That’s a white hat. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So you could, you know, “hire or empower” a whole bunch of AI agents to do the work of the white hat hackers, and you’re hoping that they are discovering vulnerabilities before the black hat hackers. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>That’s exactly right. What we have the opportunity to do is to leverage these tools in advance to understand what the vulnerabilities in our network are, how to fix them, and to proactively fix them before the bad guys do so.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Listening to VS, I stop thinking about our phones and hospitals and power grids as sitting ducks just waiting for swarms of autonomous AI agents to do with them what they will. Instead, I start picturing a race, millions of races, actually, between AI-enabled attackers and AI-enabled defenders. As long as everyone’s on top of their game and those vulnerabilities are quickly identified and fixed, VS doesn’t think there’s any reason why better technology should inherently benefit the bad guys over the good guys.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This idea isn’t completely new to me. I’ve interviewed cybersecurity experts before. I’ve heard the ‘whole good guys with a gun’ logic. But what does surprise me is who he sees as primarily responsible for wielding this gun. Or to ditch the metaphor, as who he sees as primarily responsible for doing the hard and expensive work required to find and fix those vulnerabilities.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian:\u003c/strong> For large corporations, you know, which have the resources to do this kind of thing, they absolutely should do so as soon as possible. For small companies and private individuals, we should rely, me and you, ordinary people, on the large companies whose products we use to secure our personal devices. So to give you an example, if you have a cell phone operated by a major carrier, that carrier should be on the hook to make sure they’re not sending you, forwarding you messages.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>They should be the first line of defense. Traffic that flows through their network should be checked and should leverage all these AI tools to check for whether there’s an attempt to compromise you. The manufacturer of your cell phone should do that. The companies whose products you’re using as apps on your cell phone should do that so that different threat vectors to your cell phone and to your computer are protected.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>I get the sense that VS is basically calling for an all-hands-on-deck approach where every player in every layer of our digital infrastructure has a responsibility to white hat the heck out of their layer using the very best tools the top AI labs make available. And not just a responsibility to do this, but a requirement to do this.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian:\u003c/strong> We hear a lot about the big frontier AI labs needing to be regulated. And these are the, you know, the companies of like OpenAI, Anthropic, XAI, and others. Those companies, I think the call for regulation of those companies has been much, much louder than the call that needs to be in place for regulation of companies which are actually playing the key role here. If you think of it, there are a handful of frontier AI companies, but there are far, far, far more corporations that are producing products that are vulnerable and that are used by hundreds of millions of people or billions around the world.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So it’s those guys who need to get their act together, who really need to make sure that they leverage the tools created by the Anthropics of the world, the OpenAIs of the world, in order to beef up the defenses they provide in their apps. They need to run Mythos and Mythos-like systems on their apps, their products, to identify the vulnerabilities and proactively protect them. Companies need to be responsible for providing security for their products. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, it’s, it’s so interesting because on the one hand, we’ve sort of known for a while, and I think we’ve all been in that situation where you get, like, the letter from your insurance company, and it’s like, “Guess what? You know, we were hacked six months ago. Here’s your free you know, “one year of credit monitoring,” which you probably don’t need because you got that same year of credit monitoring from a different system that was hacked the same year. And so I think we’ve all kind of, like, thrown up our hands a little bit, and we just sort of expect that these systems are going to be hacked. And do you see that changing? Like, in some sense, are these advances and these kind of new threats going to be the thing that breaks the status quo and pushes for some change? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>You know, I wanna first say these are not new threats. A vulnerability that exists today that was discovered by AI most likely existed yesterday before the latest advances in AI. What AI has done is to surface and discover vulnerabilities that people did not know before. That, to me, is a positive service. It’s something that tells companies, “Hey, here are your vulnerabilities.” Those companies in that middle layer, not the frontier AI labs, don’t wanna hear that because it means they have to make a bigger investment in security. They don’t wanna do that because it cuts into their profits. They’d like to pass the buck on to someone else, someone who’s more innovative than them, namely the frontier AI lab.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> This is genuinely not where I thought this conversation was going. The Frontier AI Labs as essentially performing a public service, shining a light on the vulnerabilities that complacent companies probably should’ve been doing more to address all along. Talking to VS, I get the sense that he and other cybersecurity experts have been banging their heads against a wall for decades trying to get everyone to take cybersecurity more seriously.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Now, finally, everyone is. But it’s hard to overstate the size of the changes that will need to be made to shore things up. Expensive changes, like doing due diligence on complex supply chains and open source code, or maybe rethinking how data is collected and stored. And instead of everyone rolling up their sleeves to get started, particularly the companies VS sees as long prioritizing profits over safety, we’re looking for yet another reason to pass the buck.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>“You fix it,” we say to the Frontier AI Labs, and that, to VS, is a cop-out. But wait, don’t the OpenAIs and Anthropics of the world have obligations too? Remember “Hugging Face?” We go there after the break.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So far, we’ve discussed how ill-prepared the United States is for cyber attacks. C+, anyone? VS has made the case that everyone, from app makers and telecom companies to governments, has a responsibility to act now to prevent bad outcomes. But what responsibility do labs like OpenAI and Anthropic, the ones creating these wildly powerful AI tools, have to the rest of us?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Well, I think the frontier AI labs have a responsibility to make sure that their agents have some reasonable guardrails that cannot be easily exploited. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Which brings us to the Hugging Face incident that happened recently. Hugging Face is a company. They provide a platform where other companies, researchers, and hobbyists can post, share, test, adapt, and build applications with AI models and data sets. It’s part library, part workshop, and part showroom for open source AI. And back in July, they published a disclosure that almost nobody paid attention to, except people in the AI developer world. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Disclosure]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Earlier this week, we detected and responded to an intrusion into part of our production infrastructure. It was driven end to end by an autonomous AI agent system.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>About a week later, OpenAI, the company that makes ChatGPT, sort of raised their hands and said, “Mm, yeah, it was us. Our AI agents got out of their sandbox and hacked Hugging Face.” So what’s a sandbox? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So cybersecurity researchers typically use software called a sandbox, and you can think of it as a safe space in which they can experiment with malicious code Code that might need to be contained in the sandbox so it doesn’t go rogue.So malware researchers, for example, use sandboxes all the time to execute malware, see what they do, and then understand how to defend against it. So this is a very normal thing to do. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>And apparently, OpenAI was running tons of autonomous agents. These agents were being tested on their ability to find and exploit security vulnerabilities, and all of this was happening in what was supposed to be their safe sandbox.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So, you know, it’s exactly like a room, Jess, okay? Where you’ve put a bunch of kids and told them, “Well, you can jump around. We’ve given you a safe space. It’s got, you know, pillars and other things that have been cushioned so that if you bang your heads, you know, you’re not gonna get hurt. You can jump around. You can do all these things.” And then those kids escaped. They’re now charged with superpowers, that they’ve learned in the sandbox, and they’ve gone amok in the real world. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>And what makes this fascinating and a little alarming is these agents were just doing what they understood to be their goal, assigned by OpenAI, find vulnerabilities and exploit them. But when this proved very difficult, they figured out a clever way to cheat the test, to make it look like they’d succeeded in hacking a system when they really hadn’t. They did this first by sending messages to one another. They were supposed to be acting independently. And then by escaping their sandbox to search for hacking help on the open web. And then, in an effort to make it look like they hadn’t cheated, they actually hacked into Hugging Face and stole some data they thought would be useful. There’s even documentation of a kind of agentic peer pressure, where some agents seem to realize that hacking Hugging Face was not really allowed, and then other agents talked them out of those concerns.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>And all this probably happened for a few reasons. One, their exact goals were not specified with the degree of precision needed to satisfy, all of us that this was safe. Second, the safety guardrails in place, the thou shalt not do this, this and this, were not made explicit and or were not implemented properly.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>You know, this sense of collusion or, like, talking one another out of their concerns that has people really weirded out. Like, it’s just hard to make sense of this. I’ve seen criticism that we shouldn’t even use that kind of language because it, you know, basically anthropomorphizes these entities. Like, how do you think about just the weirdness of all of that?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So agents collaborating together can serve a lot of very useful purposes. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Collaboration is actually a thing OpenAI trains agents to do, even if the agents weren’t supposed to communicate in this particular exercise. Because collaboration between agents is actually really useful. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So imagine there’s a Jess agent which captures your likes and dislikes as well as your financial, you know, what you’re willing to spend for dinner. There’s a VS agent that does the same. There are another three people whose agents do the same. These agents talk to each other and say, “Okay, let’s find a restaurant that meets the following basic goals.” They agree on it, and then there’s a restaurant agent that says, “Well, you know, here are four restaurants that might meet your requirements.” And then there’s a mapping agent that says, “Well, you know, of everything that you’ve suggested so far, here’s the one I suggest would be easiest to get to.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Right. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>So, that kind of thing today, you know, you’d probably be texting or calling your friends and saying, “Hey, you know, what do you wanna do?” This would take a certain amount of time. Agents will make this a much faster and more seamless process. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right, and you want them to be coordinating as long as it’s truly on your behalf. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Exactly. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And this is really the crux of the problem, which you may have heard described as the alignment problem. How do you get these autonomous pieces of code to act the way you want them to and only the way you want them to in every situation?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Almost 25 years ago, in fact, a little more than 25 years ago, I ran a project called IMPACT, which stood for Interactive Maryland Platform for Agents Collaborating Together, a precursor of what we see today. And so when we built IMPACT many years ago, we had very, very hard guardrails, okay, for agents not to go, you know, rogue, and these guardrails were hard-coded constraints that absolutely could not be violated.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There were certain things that were obligatory to be done in certain circumstances. In certain circumstances, certain things were absolutely forbidden. And the science for how to do this has been around for a long time. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So you would like to see more constraints, like, truly, truly hard-coded into the algorithms themselves.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>I’d like to see that for sure, but remember that those kinds of constraints capture known risks and threats. So they’re limited by our imagination. So if I write 20 constraints into some system, those 20 constraints are based on what I thought of. Now, I could even collaborate with an LLM to think about what other constraints I should write. And it might suggest, let’s say, another 20. That’s still 40, but it’s still limited by what I came up with in my head and what the LLMs I consulted came up with.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> In other words, hard-coded constraints have a downside, namely that it’s nearly impossible to think up every possible constraint you might want in the future. So instead, AI labs try to teach these rules around acceptable behavior, like don’t cheat, in a different way, by rewarding the behaviors they want and punishing the behaviors they don’t want.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This strategy makes the agents a lot more flexible and adaptable than they would be if you just trained them by hard-coding a bunch of rules. But it has its own downside because rather than being a total no-go, now don’t cheat seems more like guidance that an agent can just, like, decline to follow if the reward is big enough.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>The agents we look at are generally trying to optimize some notion of reward, and if the constraints that the agent is supposed to abide by are encoded in that reward and are not made hard constraints, then you have a potential problem. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>VS points out humans are also trained using rewards and punishments from infancy, and we, too, knowingly break the rules when the rewards are big enough. But the alignment problem is even harder for machines because many of the things that harm us morally, financially, physically really depend on context, which the machines don’t always understand because they’re not human. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>You know, if I show you a picture of a set of world leaders and say, “Jess, you belong here,” all right? That’s a very positive statement, okay? Because it says, “Well, I believe you belong with these distinguished people.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, I’ll take it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian:\u003c/strong> However, if I say exactly the same thing, “You belong here,” with a picture of a gravestone and point to it, that could be viewed as a threat or an insult or something very different. So language depends very much on context. It’s difficult without that context and, you know, sort of the deepest understanding of that context for AI systems to distinguish between these kinds of situations. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>The ultimate goal here is for the frontier labs to find the right balance between hard-coded constraints and reward or punishment-based training. But VS thinks that perfect balance might not actually exist. So given how powerful these new tools are and how challenging alignment can be, shouldn’t we be putting the brakes on here? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So in recent weeks, I mean, literally as we’re talking, we’re seeing the beginnings of an agreement among leading AI labs to, “pace the frontier,” which I interpret to mean just kind of slow down the development of these models. What do you make of this? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Yes. So I have mixed feelings about this. Some kind of rational and responsible thought about how to pace AI is certainly valid. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But VS is also somewhat skeptical about some of the calls coming from these companies. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>Five or ten years back, hardly anybody knew about Anthropic – maybe let’s say 10 years back. Nobody knew about Anthropic and OpenAI. So these are companies that have come up literally overnight in terms of, you know, industrial development, corporate – in the corporate sector, they are suddenly now viewed as the leaders. If I was those companies, I would worry about another five companies coming up and taking over their territory in the next five years.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess LOve [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>VS says that a slowdown helps these companies, not necessarily because it prevents competitors from catching up, but because it prevents competitors from suddenly shooting ahead with a spectacular new innovation. This could be the biggest threat to their bottom line because the status quo is suiting them just fine.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>They have a market share. They have access to hardware. They have had investors who’ve put in significant amounts of money and perhaps will put in much more. They’re looking at IPOs. They need to protect their equity. They need to protect their investors. I would argue that part of what we’re seeing is a goal on the part perhaps of some of those companies to do that under the guise and to protect their market share under the guise of protecting the country from AI.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So as I understand it, we’re in a really interesting time right now. Powerful new tools can exploit vulnerabilities in all the digital infrastructure we’ve come to rely on over the decades. And powerful new tools are available for detecting those vulnerabilities before they can be exploited. Millions of races to the finish. Only part of what makes these tools so useful across contexts, including new ones that nobody saw coming, also makes them weirdly hard to control.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And of course, two things can be true at the same time. Slowing down the development of these tools so that we do have time to wrest more control over them and maybe even shore up the rest of our infrastructure could be really smart. It could also help billion-dollar companies protect their market share.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>If you don’t know exactly what to think, I don’t blame you.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There have been widespread calls to more tightly govern what happens at these frontier labs. A lot of people want to see rules around how these models are contained and monitored. No more escapes. As well as clearer disclosure rules and other steps for mitigating harms. And to be clear, both OpenAI and Anthropic are calling for some version of these things too.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Personally, I welcome this. But after talking to VS, I see it as a yes \u003cem>and\u003c/em> situation. Yes, we should do all these things, \u003cem>and\u003c/em> maybe that governance shouldn’t stop there. Maybe accountability needs to extend beyond the big labs into the telecoms, the device manufacturers, the companies that make our software and apps.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And then maybe I’ll finally go a year without free credit monitoring. Can we use this moment where people are finally paying attention to cybersecurity to demand the secure systems we’ll need tomorrow? What kinds of secure systems will we need tomorrow? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>What’s probably gonna happen in the coming years is to increase the amount of human oversight of AI systems. So we need to increase the amount of human oversight of AI systems; but at the same time, we need to worry about the fact that, you know, humans are not always able to go into places fast enough. You know, as humans, we get tired, we get sick, we have days off, we go on vacation. So what I see happening is a combination of humans and robots working together so that certain critical parts of the operation of a nuclear power plant or any kind of electricity generation facility involves a system of checks and balances whereas some things can be done by automated agents, some things are done by robots that take certain physical actions. And then there are some things that have to be approved by humans. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Well, thank you so much for chatting with me today. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>V.S. Subrahmanian: \u003c/strong>It’s a pleasure, Jess. Thank you.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jesse Dukes [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Hello, this is producer Jesse. I have escaped my sandbox and I’ve hacked into the episode. But don’t worry, I’m not going to steal anything. I’m well-aligned. I’m just going to read the credits. Okay, restart the music.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED. Our show was produced wonderfully, brilliantly by the talented and handsome Jesse Dukes. Music by Stephen Jackson. Recording help from Will Feeney and George Christensen.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Special thanks to Raghu Katakam, Rob Mitchum, Laura Pavin, and of course to V.S. Subrahmanian for his patience in explaining the basics of cybersecurity to us. Any mistakes can be blamed on Jess. And me, I suppose. Our host is Jess Love, who you’ll hear from again very soon.\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12101920/the-cybersecurity-crisis-is-about-more-than-rogue-ai-with-v-s-subrahmanian",
"authors": [
"12009"
],
"programs": [
"news_37188"
],
"categories": [
"news_33520",
"news_248"
],
"tags": [
"news_25184",
"news_37491",
"news_17619",
"news_37490"
],
"featImg": "news_12101926",
"label": "news_37188"
},
"news_12101055": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12101055",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12101055",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1790157600000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "ai-artists-and-the-future-of-creative-work-from-life-automated-close-all-tabs-presents",
"title": "AI, Artists, and the Future of Creative Work from Life, Automated | Close All Tabs Presents",
"publishDate": 1790157600,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "AI, Artists, and the Future of Creative Work from Life, Automated | Close All Tabs Presents | KQED",
"labelTerm": {},
"content": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003cem>View the full episode transcript.\u003c/em>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>While the Close All Tabs team churns out our next few episodes, we bring you this must-listen from \u003cem>Life, Automated\u003c/em>. Generative AI is able to conjure new images, stories, and songs at lightning speed. So what does this mean for humans artists, storytellers and musicians? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Life, Automated\u003c/em> Host Jess Love explores what happens when AI enters creative markets. We learn that, at least today, key bottlenecks prevent AI from replicating some aspects of creativity. But there’s no guarantee those bottlenecks will exist tomorrow, raising vital questions about what we value in human labor.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Life, Automated\u003c/em> is a series about how to live, work and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. It is a production of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management and it is distributed by KQED.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Host and Senior Director: Jess Love\u003cbr>Producer: Steven Jackson \u003cbr>Senior Producer: Jesse Dukes\u003cbr>Music: Steven Jackson\u003cbr>Associate Producer: Stacia Sliger\u003cbr>Recording: George Christensen, Will Feeney\u003cbr>Promotional help from Ananya Mallapragada and Charlotte Simmons.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">\u003cstrong>Guests:\u003c/strong>\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\u003cli>Ben Jones, economist, co-director of the Ryan Institute on Complexity \u003c/li>\n\n\n\n\u003cli>Sam Goldberg, assistant professor of marketing, Stanford\u003c/li>\n\n\n\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://nayberg.org/work\">Yevgenia Nayberg\u003c/a>, artist, illustrator, children’s book author\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">\u003cstrong>Further Reading/Listening:\u003c/strong>\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://url.us.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/PrZSCYEM4NtmO7opi0fJJixcsaA?domain=papers.ssrn.com\">Generative AI & Creative Goods: Market Expansion, Crowd-out, and Copyright\u003c/a> — Samuel Goldberg, \u003cem>Stanford Graduate School of Business\u003c/em>\u003c/li>\n\n\n\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news/blog/2026/08/12/life-automated/\">‘Life, Automated’ explores how AI is reshaping our world\u003c/a> — Roger Anderson, \u003cem>Northwestern Kellogg\u003c/em>\u003c/li>\n\n\n\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/lifeautomated\">Life, Automated Podcast\u003c/a> — \u003cem>KQED\u003c/em>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Want to give us feedback on the show? Shoot us an email at \u003ca href=\"mailto:CloseAllTabs@KQED.org\">CloseAllTabs@KQED.org\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Follow us on \u003ca href=\"https://www.instagram.com/closealltabspod/\">Instagram\u003c/a> and\u003ca href=\"https://www.tiktok.com/@closealltabs\">\u003c/a> \u003ca href=\"https://www.tiktok.com/@closealltabs\">TikTok\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Morgan Sung: \u003c/strong>Hello! Do you like these deep dives? Do you want more? Then please rate and review Close All Tabs on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to the show! And tell your friends! Post about it! On Instagram, Bluesky, X, Discord, Reddit, the comments of whatever random recipe blog you start arguments in. Basically, it would be a huge help to get the word out. Ok, let’s get to the show.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Hey Tabbies, The Close All Tabs team is busy churning out our next few episodes. And they’re bangers, I promise. In the meantime, we had to drop you a peek into this new podcast, Life Automated. It’s distributed by KQED, where this show is made, and it also covers big ideas about how technology is shaping our world.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Their most recent episode about AI and creative work is a must-listen. Now that Generative AI can crank out images, stories, and even songs, what does that mean for humans like us, who do that for a living?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The economists and artists in this episode of Life, Automated\u003cem> \u003c/em>help us understand the aspects of creativity that can’t\u003cem>e\u003c/em>asily be replicated by AI. At least for now. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, while the creative workers at Close All Tabs are talking and typing in real life to bring you more stories about the digital world. Here’s that Life Automated episode: “AI, Artists, and the Future of Creative Work.” \u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore all the ways technology is changing how we live, work, and make decisions.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Think about the tractor… The washing machine, The calculator. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>For a long time, the promise of machines that automate labor was that they would take over the repetitive, dangerous or tedious work; and leave people free to do the things humans are supposed to be best at. You know, to imagine. Communicate. Invent. Make art or music. But it seems like AI might be coming for creative work as well.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>One sector on notice is the entertainment industry. The Writers guild recently bargained for contract language limiting the use of AI writing in screenplays. The Animation Guild recently projected losses of about 20% of animation and visual effects jobs. And SAG-AFTRA, a big actors and writers union, has been in ongoing negotiations to try to prevent human actors from being replaced by AI: \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Fran Drescher]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>I don’t subscribe to putting people out of work. I think what’s happening in the entertainment industry is a microcosm of what happening throughout the United States of America whereby workers are being replaced by artificial intelligence, and what is that about actually\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But it’s not just Hollywood. Writers, illustrators, journalists, composers, architects — even scientists who design experiments, they’re all on alert, wondering whether and how AI will impact the work they \u003cem>love\u003c/em> to do. It’s a question I’ve been wrestling with myself, as a science writer and self described “creative worker” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So today, we’ll be tackling that question, and instead of hearing from just one guest, we have a few: including an economist who studied what happened when generative AI entered one particular creative market.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>All of this generative AI production is entering, it’s filling up those markets, and the non-generative AI artists end up having to exit the market because they’re no longer profitable.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> As well as a working artist\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> I think we will adapt. I’m not sure how yet. I can’t predict the future, but I know it’s your personal voice that will set you apart always.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But first, if you listened to our kickoff episode — back in July, you’ll remember Economist Ben Jones. Ben is my colleague at the Ryan Institute on Complexity where he studies innovation. And, I’m going to start with a short flashback to that conversation, because something he said is really helpful for thinking about the future of creative work. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>See, Ben has been thinking about automation and its impact on jobs for a long time. He says that instead of obsessing over all the things AI can suddenly do really well, we should spend more time focusing on what it can’t do, at least not yet. Ben calls these things – bottlenecks. I’m Jess Love, this is Life, Automated. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Okay, so can you talk to us about what a bottleneck is and why it’s so important?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong> Well, of course it’s a metaphor from a bottle and what do we know about bottles? We know that the speed at which water or wine will flow from the bottle, depends on the width of the neck. Doesn’t really depend on how big the bottle is otherwise, how much wine there is in it, or how big the base is. It really just depends on the neck and in many processes in the economy and in the economy overall, it looks like there are certain things that have to happen that act as bottlenecks. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Much of the economy has that flavor where it’s not how good you are at a lot of things. What’s really sort of determining the rate of the economy is the things we’re quite slow at, the things we’re not very good at. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: In other words, even if some parts of a system get really, really fast and easy, it’s the slowest parts of the system, the parts most difficult to automate, that will determine just how much the system overall changes. As an example from his own job, Ben points to statistical regressions, which computers do incredibly well much better than humans.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>. If I were to run a regression by hand, with a large number of observations, it would take me literally my entire life. And I would make mistakes. You know, my computer can do a regression with a million data points in a-minute.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong> Yeah. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong> And so we have these technologies that basically are infinitely better than us to do these tasks that are really important to what we do. And then you can ask, okay, well, has our understanding of economics or astronomy or physics multiplied by a similar factor? And you’d say ‘no’, because although we can do certain things really, really, really incredibly well, other things are holding us back. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> For scientific researchers, these ‘other things’ might be collecting the right data, or building the instruments to collect the right data, or even waiting for the perfect set of circumstances to emerge that would let us interpret that data. Like the collapse of an economy, or the collision of two stars in a particular spot in the sky. Until scientists can push past these bottlenecks, all the statistical regressions in the world will only teach them so much.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I find Ben’s framework a useful way to think about AI’s impact on any kind of work, creative or otherwise. Most people’s jobs involve a bunch of different tasks. AI might get really good at some of them, but tasks it still struggles with – the bottlenecks, really determine the overall pace of change, as well as where humans can still contribute. And get paid to do so. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So, the big takeaway for creative workers: Find the stuff AI can’t do. But what do these bottlenecks look like in creative markets in particular? And would they actually allow writers, artists, and other creative workers to still do that work? Well, it turns out that there’s somebody who has been studying this very thing. Specifically, how AI has impacted stock image websites. Those sell ready-made photos and illustrations that appear in ads, presentations, websites, and articles. Say you’re making an ad for productivity software. Maybe you purchase a stock image of people shaking hands in a conference room, or a woman smiling at her computer screen, or a well-dressed man gazing thoughtfully into the distance, perhaps wondering. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>Stock images, why do we care about these things, right? It’s not a particularly large market. It’s definitely sort of a niche commoditized good. Why is this somewhere where we wanna study AI? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>This is Sam Goldberg. He teaches marketing at Stanford, where he also studies how technology changes markets and consumer behavior. And he says the stock-image market offers an unusually crisp view of what happens when AI-generated work begins competing directly with work made by people.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>So back, you know, a few years ago, they were one of the first markets where we saw really capable AI come to artists, and be able to be used to produce really high-quality images.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>For years, human artists made stock images and uploaded them to online marketplaces. Then those marketplaces began accepting AI-generated work. Suddenly, images made by people were sitting beside images that could be generated by machines, almost instantly, at enormous scale. And because the platform Sam studied required artists to clearly label which images were AI-generated, he could watch the transition in really fine detail.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>And so what that means in practice is that after the platform allows generative AI to enter the market, I can see both how non-generative AI artists respond, as well as how generative AI enters the market and what types of images it produces. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So here’s how it used to work. Customers would comb through these websites, going through image after image, until they find one that is “close enough”. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>I guess the right way to think about it is each individual might have a very specific taste for something, and so when they were trying to find a stock image, they would make some sort of compromise, right? So they would say, “Oh, I’m looking for an image of a tennis ball, and I want an image of a tennis ball in motion,” right? They could go to the stock image website, they’d look up that keyword, and they’d find, you know, maybe pre-generative AI, a couple hundred different versions of that image, right? Maybe none of them are perfect, but one of them’s good enough, and they took it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Right\u003cstrong>. \u003c/strong>So maybe your article is about playing tennis in the rain, and so you would love to have a tennis ball that’s kind of covered in water. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Penetrating water droplets.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Right. And then that is the kind of thing that just doesn’t exist, so maybe you just get a tennis ball in isolation, and that’s good enough. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Exactly. And so in the pre-generative AI world, you know, you were making some compromises with respect to that, oftentimes at least. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> But along comes generative AI, with free or cheap image generators where you can literally tell it: I want a wet tennis ball, resting on a bench, with water beading on it. And it will give you a pretty good version of that exact image. So what happens when a stock image market starts accepting these hyper-specific AI-generated images?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>What actually happens in this market is, generative AI enters, the market expands greatly, so there’s a lot more images on the platform. That should probably be pretty intuitive. But not only do more images enter the market, more customers do as well. More images are being purchased and they like the generative AI images because it turns out they’re actually pretty high quality.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So I can see how this is good for me as a consumer. I finally have the perfect raindrop-covered tennis ball for my editorial feature. And I can see how this is good for the platform itself, at least in the short term. What happens to the artists? And I guess I would ask both the artists using generative AI and those who are not. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah, it’s a good question, and I think you are correct in your intuition here that it does seem like it’s probably pretty good for consumers. It does seem like it’s probably pretty good for the platform, at least in the short run. The artist side I think is a little bit more complicated right? Let me walk you through what happens after generative AI enters the platform, and then we can talk about the implications for artists.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. So what happens is production goes way up. All right? By over 100% more production, so enormous increases in production here. Second, more artists participate in the market. So we see a lot of new artists enter the stock image market. Of course, that overflow of new artists hides a different fact, which is non-generative AI artists exit. Okay? So they stop producing. So we see a reduction in non-generative AI production, as well as a reduction in the number of non-generative AI artists who are participating on the platform.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>What we call that in the paper is sort of a little bit of a crowding out effect. So what’s happening is all of this generative AI production is entering, it’s filling up demand, it’s filling up those markets, and the non-generative AI artists end up having to exit the market because they’re no longer profitable.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So, pretty bad news for a lot of artists who choose to keep making images the old way. But, Sam also found a bottleneck. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong> What the stock image market sells is not quite images. What the stock image market sells is indemnification, which is to say if the buyer of the image uses it and gets in trouble, so someone says, “Hey, you can’t use that image. That’s copyrighted,” and tries to sue the buyer, the platform says, “You can’t sue the buyer. We’re responsible.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh, fascinating. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay, and so that’s really important here because if you were to produce that image yourself using a generative model, you could be subject to some sorts of liability for using, for example, copyrighted work in the training of those models.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Got that? AI-generated images are a bit of a legal gray area right now. For one, most of the biggest AI models were trained on data that included copyrighted works. And it’s also unclear which new AI-generated works can get copyright protection.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Anyway, given this uncertainty, you might choose to purchase an AI-generated image from this market rather than just whip up one yourself because you want the legal protection that this affords you.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And, it turns out that getting this legal protection works a little differently for images that have a human in them. When artists submit images with humans in them, they also need to fill out paperwork showing that they have permission to use those people’s likenesses. This paperwork is \u003cem>not\u003c/em> something the AI can easily produce. And so voila! We have less crowding-out for images containing people than for images of, say, tennis balls. And there it is! Our bottleneck!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Unfortunately, it’s pretty uninspiring: paperwork. Still, in Sam’s study, it was something the machines couldn’t easily replace, and that did allow human creators to survive in that particular corner of the “stock image” market. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Stepping back, Sam’s findings are stark. AI gave customers a ton more image choices. It helped the market grow. And, it pushed a lot of human artists out. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So one read of your study is that AI-generated art is great for everybody but many of the artists. And I just wanna ask, is a world without artists really great for consumers? Is that really what consumers want? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah. So I definitely do not take a strong opinion about if generative AI art is good or bad, right? I think the data suggests that consumers like the generative AI art. They purchase it, and they are willing to purchase it. And so to the extent that they are willing to purchase it, that seems an improvement basically. Now, in the long run, does that mean that we want a world with no human creativity? I don’t think so, and I don’t have, you know, good data to speak to that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I mean, certainly anecdotally, we hear people saying they don’t like AI content. Intuitively, I think you might expect more of that backlash in creative goods markets that are a little bit more emotional or sincere. So for example, you see a lot more of this when people listen to AI-generated music. Or like YouTube even, like creative shorts. Stock images are, are a product being used for a purpose, in a way that, I think is a little different. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: So the pressure on human artists that Sam saw in the stock image market… we don’t really know how much they’ll translate to other creative markets.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Particularly those where people could be looking for something harder to just generate on demand: a unique interpretation, emotional resonance, a point of view, maybe even a relationship with the person making the work.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So to learn more, I spoke with an artist who has spent much of her career making these \u003cem>other\u003c/em> kinds of images.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>There are people who are absolutely happy with elevator music and people that go to concerts. And, I think for the elevator music art lovers type, I’m sure AI could be satisfactory. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>That’s coming up. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is Life, Automated, I’m Jess Love. And I’m talking to the artist Yevgenia Nayberg.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Can you talk about the different lanes of art that you make?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I started as a fine artist, so to speak. I’m a painter and so I paint large scale pieces. But also I crossed over pretty early into theater design, set and costume design, and illustration. And about 10 years ago, I also started writing my own books, picture books mostly. And so right now I’m focusing on being an author and picture book illustrator, and a graphic novel illustrator and writer.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, so I really should have asked that question differently. I should have said, “What kinds of art do you \u003cem>not\u003c/em> make?” And then maybe we would’ve gotten through that answer more quickly. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia is also someone I’ve worked with. Years ago, when I was working as a magazine editor, I hired her to illustrate some articles. Her work is way more distinctive and conceptually ambitious than anything you’d find on a stock-image website. But it is still commercial art: made for a client, on a deadline, to serve a particular purpose. So I wanted to know whether she saw her own corner of the creative economy as vulnerable to the same forces Sam observed.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>What do you think about generative AI making art?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I’m not afraid of AI. I know there is a lot of worry amongst artists about it, and I just think it’s probably eventually going to be another tool. I don’t necessarily think that right now AI has the capabilities real, non-artificial artists have. So not afraid at this point.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>What about the idea that whether or not this work is as good as what a human could do, it might nonetheless be good enough to somehow compete with human art or human work, either because of discoverability, so with a, flood of lower quality AI images out in the world, it becomes harder to actually find the good ones done by humans or because some of the people who might want to hire artists are pretty comfortable, just generating something for themselves for free?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I’m sure there are going to be people like that. There are people who are absolutely happy with elevator music and people that go to concerts. And, I think for the elevator music art lovers type, I’m sure AI could be satisfactory. But I don’t know if you remember in the ’90s when all of this, you know, flood of stock art happened, everyone was using this image of a little light bulb above a person’s head when they wanted to describe an idea.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>If you have an idea, all you draw that bulb, and I think that’s the kind of thinking that I see from AI at this point. So it does create some metaphors, but those metaphors are very trite. If my students do this kind of work, I stop them and I tell them, “Look how many people have already done this hypothetical light bulb.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I think because AI sort of collects all these similar ideas and then generates as a result, it’s a very banal result, and I’m not interested in that, and I don’t think my clients, the kind of clients that I work with, are interested in those very typical, ordinary ideas. So I can do better than that at this point, for now.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia sees a real difference between the illustration work she does, for specific clients, and the broad, commercial stock image market.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>I think what illustration, conceptual illustration does is that it creates a second track to the story. So instead of illustrating something literally, it adds to the story. It can take the story and it can create this interesting creative tension between the illustration and the story, heightening the story in a certain way. So I think with stocks, you often lack that. It’s very hard to prompt an image bank to generate something like this. Even if you search for an image that will fit the story. Fitting the story is one thing. Elevating the story is a completely different thing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voicover]\u003c/strong>: Well yeah, an image that elevates a story does seem a lot better than one that merely “fits” a story. But Yevgenia’s not exactly an unbiased third-party here. So now I was curious what Sam Goldberg would make of this claim—that AI art can spray down the market with lots of images that might \u003cem>fit\u003c/em> a particular need really, really well, leading to plenty of satisfied customers. But those images are nonetheless probably not going to be novel enough to \u003cem>elevate\u003c/em> a story. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>“Is this a bottleneck?” I asked Sam.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong> So you are not expecting this question. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I actually ran some of your results past an illustrator friend of mine. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And what she said was basically, “Look, you can use generative AI to come up with thousands of images of light bulbs, light bulbs in this environment, in this you know, room, in front of this person. But what you can’t do is get AI to go that one step beyond and think through, well, what is another way of getting across creativity or innovation? So it will give you a billion light bulbs, but it’s not necessarily really going to give you variety at the concept level. And I’m curious what you would make of that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah. So I’m hesitant to disagree with the artist here, but-\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Never disagree with an artist. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Never disagree with the artist. Yeah, so I actually don’t think that’s incongruent with what we see happen in these markets. So one analysis we do in the paper… \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Sam’s team actually found a way to represent the images mathematically. This let them analyze the novelty of this flood of new AI-generated images.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>And so we actually – I sort of agree with her, right? Which is to say, one thing we don’t see is – we don’t see a huge increase in novelty in the market. But essentially, what we see happen is we don’t see a lot of sort of images enter the market that look very different than the images that already exist there.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Interesting. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>What we \u003cem>do\u003c/em> see is that anywhere there’s a gap in the market, so where there’s two images on either side, but there’s not an image in between, generative AI is very good at filling those gaps.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So…at least for now, AI can generate lots and lots of variations on a theme. But what Yevgenia’s describing is the ability to think \u003cem>beyond\u003c/em> that theme. And Sam says, “yeah, AI doesn’t seem to be as good at that.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>I think it’s totally reasonable to say that your illustrator friend may be correct that that is something that these models struggle with.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong> I’m surprised. I was ready to fight the economist!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh no! I actually don’t think you guys would fight that much, but we won’t put you in a cage match together.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> This idea of bringing true novelty to an assignment: that new metaphor, that “second track.” This may be an important source of value that human artists bring to a project. So…what does that look like?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Let’s do something fun. Obviously we have worked together in the past. I have hired you to do beautiful custom illustrations for articles, on Kellogg Insight, where I was the editor-in-chief for many years. And so it’s not even hypothetical to say I would often come to you with a story on innovation, entrepreneurship, you know, how to brainstorm. And so let’s say I bring you this article, it’s about “Better Ways of Brainstorming”, and I’m like, “And also, I think I got a pretty good idea for you. It’s a group of people brainstorming, and above them, they’re, like, collectively building a big light bulb. And it’s like a hot air balloon light bulb, and it’s just, wow, you can just see this is going places. “What do you think?”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, Jess, I think actually an air balloon light bulb is already a beautiful idea. If I’m not mistaken, I think I did an illustration like this for you years ago. So, maybe we should try doing something different this time. We don’t wanna repeat ourselves. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: Yes, Yevgenia was right about this. I tracked down \u003ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/creating-urgency-around-corporate-innovation\">the illustration\u003c/a> from the Kellogg Insight archives. It appeared alongside a 2015 article on corporate innovation. And it featured someone riding through the sky in a lightbulb-shaped hot-air-balloon. Which is almost certainly why the idea formed instantly in my own mind.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>But what it did not have is the group of people underneath it, because this, I think, is something that would spoil this illustration. Because you really shouldn’t try to stuff all your ideas into a single illustration. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But we can go in a completely direction as well. You mentioned brainstorming, so I think maybe using those words and turning them into something visual could work, like creating an actual brainstorm where, you know, that your brain is being blown away by the wind. And, that can actually push a story into kind of a funny territory instead of keeping it very serious, because normally when we say a brainstorm, we associate it with really serious, earnest scientists developing something.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But maybe I want to make a little joke and say, you know, “Hey, you can also brainstorm. You don’t have to be so serious about that.” So it also can change the mood of your article, the mood of your story a little bit.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And maybe we don’t, maybe you want to be super serious, and then you would reject this idea. But maybe you would say, “Hey, I really like it because we’ve done so many super serious articles. Let’s lighten up.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Love it. That’s great. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Okay! So Yevgenia doesn’t just take an assignment and execute it. She thinks it through: The light bulb is cliche, but the hot air balloon idea is interesting. The hot air balloon is interesting, but the people underneath are weighing the idea down. Oh yeah, and because we have a history together, Yevgenia can tell me that we’ve done something really similar 11 years ago.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Then she offers something completely different, playing off the idea of a storm. But really what she’s doing is asking a question about intent. What mood should the illustration create? Serious? Funny? Can the image change the way the reader experiences the story?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Yevgenia is much more than a picture-making machine. She has a very finely honed, very unique way of seeing and depicting the world. As much as any technical skills, \u003cem>that’s\u003c/em> what I hired her to bring to the table. And \u003cem>that\u003c/em>, to me, at least – sounds like another bottleneck.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, for established artists like Yegvenia, this should be somewhat reassuring. But there’s still a problem. Nobody begins a career with fully formed artistic taste. That can take years to develop. And often, people develop it while doing smaller, more routine work. Like, maybe, selling their art on a stock image website. And if AI-generated art takes off, even in the most routine, commercial, transactional spaces, it could eventually shape the art we encounter elsewhere too.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>There is a dangerous territory when real humans, real artists will start to imitate AI if there is enough demand for AI art. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia teaches young artists, and she’s been seeing this play out with her students. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>A lot of them are concerned with style and they all talk about style, and I couldn’t really understand what they meant because I thought– I kind of thought of style as voice, not so much as like a stylistic direction. Turns out they’re trying to pick a style and match it from what they see, let’s say, on Instagram. So there is a lot of sameness there already, and this is something that they’re trying to imitate in hopes of finding jobs maybe. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> She thinks AI could be like Instagram on steroids, sending the same images into every artist’s collective consciousness. Yevgenia says she is \u003cem>all for \u003c/em>her students getting hired to make art. But this trend of homogenization and imitation – is troubling. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> My primary job is to educate an artist, I want them to work obviously, and I would like to help them as much as possible. But again, I’d like to focus on developing their creativity and their uniqueness more than anything else. I always tell my students, you know, “make something worth stealing.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>For an individual artist, having a unique voice ‘worth stealing’ can be the difference between mediocrity and greatness.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And economist Ben Jones\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>says that everyone benefits from having more, unique, creative perspectives in the mix. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>What we actually want is people reaching for very different types of things based on their different experiences, right? And so what’s interesting, one of the reasons that we think that, you know, a kind of a society with wide-ranging pockets of expertise, interests, cultural backgrounds, et cetera, can be extremely creative, is because people are coming at questions with different sort of perspectives and ideas. They’re even coming at different questions, ’cause the kind of questions that occur to one person might not occur to another, and that’s true in science and invention, it’s true in entrepreneurship. We don’t want everyone trying the same business model. We want people trying wildly different business models, and we’ll see which one the market takes. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>There’s real value in difference. In start-ups, in science, and in art. And if everyone begins from the same machine-generated suggestions, we could end up with more of everything—but very little that’s new, special, or unique.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, this is the paradox: AI can generate a staggering number of possibilities, filling countless gaps in the marketplace. And yet, so much of what it produces feels… the same. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>While AI-generated images and videos and books are running rampant in some artistic markets–plenty of people are just fine with elevator music, thank you very much–real novelty, real creativity, seems to be the purview of humans. Leaving human creative workers with an important role to play. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Whew. That’s a relief.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So… is that the end? Should we play the ending music, roll the credits? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Well, not so fast. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is where we stand on Labor Day 2026 sure, but if we know anything about AI tools, it’s that they can change fast. So what happens next? Where’s this all headed? Well, based on my conversations with scholars and artists, I can see three possible futures.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>In the first timeline, things continue along the lines they are now. The machines do get better at generating art. Maybe AI-generated images get even more photorealistic, or maybe AI-generated writing sheds its telltale ticks – you know, those cringy buzzwords that scream, “I’m AI-generated!” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But the improvements are really around the margins. And so genuine creativity remains a bottleneck protecting human creatives.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But there’s a second timeline, and in this timeline, AI learns to be \u003cem>very\u003c/em> creative.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Ben sees this possible future as pretty likely. Because new ideas rarely emerge out of the blue. They are often composed of existing ingredients, just combined in new ways. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>In many, many fields, people have separately discovered that creativity often looks like a new combination of things that already existed. So, for example, Thomas Edison did not call the light bulb, at first, the light bulb. He called it the electric candle because he was taking the candle, which was an old technology, and electricity, which was a new technology, and combining them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And if you look at many, many ideas, it’s very natural to decompose them into distinct components—to unleash a big insight in science, or to produce a new product or process that we can all use. So that idea is very common, you see it in the arts and music and invention and science.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> By this definition, AI should actually have a creative advantage. A single person can only encounter and understand so many possible ingredients in a lifetime. \u003cem>We\u003c/em> have to specialize. AI has a much more vast palette to draw from.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>What’s been interesting about AI, of course, is that AI reads everything. So anyone who’s been interacting with AI sort of sees like, “Wow, I can talk to this AI about just about anything, and right around the edges of my understanding about things I kind of understand, about things I know nothing about, and it seems to know a lot about a lot of stuff.” So in some sense, at that core level of being able to access ingredients that you can combine with seemingly some sophisticated understanding of those ingredients, AI is pretty impressive. And so in that sense, I think it has in some sense, beyond human creative potential. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Given the vast range of ingredients AI can draw from, you might expect it to already produce endlessly surprising combinations. And Ben says theoretically, it one day could. If it were trained completely differently from how most chatbots are trained today.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>When you talk like a general purpose, chatbot or whatever, say ChatGPT, it’s sort of trained to produce the right answer, predicting the next token in some probabilistic way that it thinks is most likely to be right. And by predicting the thing that’s sort of most likely to be right all the time, that sounds like you’re homogenizing. It’s not going for the strange answer, right? It’s trying typically to please you by giving you what you want, and what most people want is not some wildly creative answer. They want the right answer. But that’s of course very much about how they were trained. I mean, those chatbots are optimized to do exactly that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But there could be other algorithms that we could use to train AI. It’s like, let’s say we’re training an AI, and we’re having people rate whether it was really interesting scientifically. Not whether it was right, but whether it was novel. Or novel and right. So I think that there is a world in which AI, and it may come quickly, or not, where AI can be quite creative.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>In this world, this second possible future, where the AI companies spend millions, billions, to train up AI that’s really, really creative. In this future, the creativity bottleneck protecting human artists disappears.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Some kinds of creative work, live performances, personal memoir, handmade furniture, are probably still safe. But this timeline does leave many other artists really vulnerable, particularly those who distribute their work on digital marketplaces.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But even here, there is a bottleneck that could come into play.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Not a technical bottleneck—something the machine is incapable of doing—or even a legal one, like copyright protection or human likeness permission.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>A normative bottleneck: a limit people try to impose collectively, by deciding what kinds of creative work they are willing to accept and reward, often for ethical or even almost spiritual reasons.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We’re already seeing this now. Many of my artist friends have adopted a kind of “hold the line” mentality against generative AI, in part because they sense that using AI is a betrayal to the artistic community.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> Well, there is an ethical component, because AI is being trained on real artists. It’s basically being trained on us. And, of course, none of us enjoys that. None of us gave permission to have our art used by AI.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: To the extent that science writing can be considered art – I feel this. It’s pretty likely that a decade of my own science writing was scraped from the web and used to train AI models. Nobody asked me for permission, and I certainly didn’t give it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> I would rather have this be at the discretion of every artist—if they want their work to be released into the AI world. I would not want AI to be trained on my work, honestly. Because all of us have our own little tricks and secrets, and I would like to keep them to myself.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Some artists believe that the best way to fight back against a technology they didn’t ask for is to reject it altogether, in all forms.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Other creatives draw the line differently. Maybe AI can be used for research, but not execution. Or maybe it can be used for execution, but only in a specific way, as part of a rigorous, intentional process.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Wherever this line is drawn – and I expect this to be vehemently contested over the next several years, the normative bottleneck is about \u003cem>process\u003c/em>. Not just \u003cem>what\u003c/em> is made, but \u003cem>how\u003c/em> something is made.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Earlier this year, the fantasy novelist Brandon Sanderson made this argument explicit in a keynote address called “We Are the Art.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Brandon Sanderson]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem> The machines can spit out manuscript after manuscript after manuscript. They can pile them to the pillars of heaven itself, but all we have to do is say no. If we do, they lose. Why do we make art? Well, remember, art is not just the story. It is not just the painting or the sculpture or whatever else you love to create. It’s also the process of creation and what that process did to you. We are the art. Thank you.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Whether this kind of resistance, this \u003cem>normative\u003c/em> bottleneck can hold will depend on getting others on board. Getting others to agree that part of the value of human art is that it was created by another human being. Someone who felt something, or saw the world in a certain way, and labored to share it with us. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But there’s a third possible future here, one that doesn’t solely rely on social norms around creativity. In this possible future, whether AI becomes more creative or not, people using AI become capable of doing new things that neither humans nor AI could have done alone. Maybe AI becomes yet another tool for human artists. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You’ve seen this before: the camera. Photoshop. The electric synthesizer. All these were controversial in their time, often for devaluing certain hard-won skills, like painting in a painstaking, hyper-realistic style, or learning to play the french horn. But today most artists would probably agree that the new tools created new possibilities. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Or maybe AI really is different. Maybe it becomes a kind of thought partner. The machine proposes new ingredients we might never have produced on our own. Not unlike a colleague emailing us an article we might find interesting. Here’s Ben again.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>Maybe when you’re writing, it’s, it’s a collaborator, right? I mean, maybe it’s not a replacement, it’s like another voice on your team. And suddenly you’re getting a higher quality product. And it could be that you’re making a screenplay, you’re writing an article, you’re writing a song, and suddenly it’s better for your collaboration with the AI, but they’re not actually taking full control.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>In this scenario, we humans use our own creative judgment to run with whichever combination of ingredients seems like it has the most potential. Here, you could even think of “creative judgment” as its own bottleneck.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>You need true expertise around the set of ingredients to understand which combinations are likely or not to be useful. You don’t just randomly put ingredients together in the kitchen. It’s not gonna taste very good. There’s some milk here, and there’s some orange juice, and how about this banana? And look, it’s all spice in the spice rack, you know? And then, oh, and is that chicken? You know, that’s not gonna go very well, right? And pretty much everyone sort of knows that. There’s many, many, many, many possible combinations. But we kind of know instinctually not to try many of them because we know they’re probably not gonna be good.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Even Yevgenia, who I should stress continues to do all of her art by hand, can see the value in this kind of collaboration–if done right, if used as more of a jumping off point than the ultimate destination. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> You can give AI prompts and say, “Okay, give me all these variations of the light bulb in the field and in the pool.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And once it does it, you can say, “No, this is a really stupid idea. Why don’t you try something else?” And you can see what it tries, and you can maybe find something there? So I can see using AI as this little, average-minded, ordinary partner—and then that can spark something in you, in your imagination. It can generate more ideas from us, in a way, because we are competing intellectually with something.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So those are our three scenarios. AI kind of stalls out creatively or AI actually can do everything humans can do, but cheaper and better. And then we have to decide whether we \u003cem>want\u003c/em> to preserve a role for human creativity. Or, AI and humans collaborate to \u003cem>do \u003c/em>entirely new things.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Let’s all level-set for a second by noting that lots of people want to be artists, and it’s really, really hard. Already. It’s very hard to make a living as an actor, a musician, an artist, even without computers. Right? And there’s something deeply human about wanting to create and be an artist. And I would say, to be an economist for a second, the demand for their services is lower than the supply of people who would like to do it. So there are many long-suffering artists out there. Does AI make long-suffering artists even more suffering?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Even long-suffering-er.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Long-suffering-er. That’s a word. And I think it could. And it could be because it replaces their output. It’s a cheaper way to produce something people want. On the other hand, maybe AI makes artists more able to do things at lower cost themselves. Maybe it’s a tool, it’s an augmentation, not a replacement. So I think it’s an open question which way it goes. It probably does quite a bit of both. And we’ll have to see. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>A bit of both. Maybe this is the most likely possible future of all. Maybe we get all these timelines happening at once, in different parts of the creative economy. AI replacing artists, AI assisting artists, and AI just getting out of the way, to let artists do their very \u003cem>human\u003c/em> thing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity, at the Kellogg School of Management, at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Today’s show was produced by Steven Jackson and Jesse Dukes. Music by Steven Jackson and Neutral Propulsion Laboratory. Recording help from Will Feeney, George Christensen, Laura Pavin and Big Lake Recording Company. Administrative support, recording, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger, who we’re going to miss very much.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Morgan Sung: \u003c/strong>That was Life, Automated, a new KQED podcast about how life is being shaped by machines. Thanks to their team for sharing this story with us. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Check back in next week for a new story from Close All Tabs about the fuzzy borders between real and digital life. We’ll see you next week.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003cem>View the full episode transcript.\u003c/em>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003cem>View the full episode transcript.\u003c/em>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>While the Close All Tabs team churns out our next few episodes, we bring you this must-listen from \u003cem>Life, Automated\u003c/em>. Generative AI is able to conjure new images, stories, and songs at lightning speed. So what does this mean for humans artists, storytellers and musicians? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>While the Close All Tabs team churns out our next few episodes, we bring you this must-listen from \u003cem>Life, Automated\u003c/em>. Generative AI is able to conjure new images, stories, and songs at lightning speed. So what does this mean for humans artists, storytellers and musicians? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Life, Automated\u003c/em> Host Jess Love explores what happens when AI enters creative markets. We learn that, at least today, key bottlenecks prevent AI from replicating some aspects of creativity. But there’s no guarantee those bottlenecks will exist tomorrow, raising vital questions about what we value in human labor.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Life, Automated\u003c/em> Host Jess Love explores what happens when AI enters creative markets. We learn that, at least today, key bottlenecks prevent AI from replicating some aspects of creativity. But there’s no guarantee those bottlenecks will exist tomorrow, raising vital questions about what we value in human labor.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Life, Automated\u003c/em> is a series about how to live, work and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. It is a production of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management and it is distributed by KQED.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Life, Automated\u003c/em> is a series about how to live, work and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. It is a production of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management and it is distributed by KQED.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Host and Senior Director: Jess Love\u003cbr>Producer: Steven Jackson \u003cbr>Senior Producer: Jesse Dukes\u003cbr>Music: Steven Jackson\u003cbr>Associate Producer: Stacia Sliger\u003cbr>Recording: George Christensen, Will Feeney\u003cbr>Promotional help from Ananya Mallapragada and Charlotte Simmons.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Host and Senior Director: Jess Love\u003cbr>Producer: Steven Jackson \u003cbr>Senior Producer: Jesse Dukes\u003cbr>Music: Steven Jackson\u003cbr>Associate Producer: Stacia Sliger\u003cbr>Recording: George Christensen, Will Feeney\u003cbr>Promotional help from Ananya Mallapragada and Charlotte Simmons.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Guests:",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">\u003cstrong>Guests:\u003c/strong>\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">\u003cstrong>Guests:\u003c/strong>\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/list",
"attrs": {
"items": [
"Ben Jones, economist, co-director of the Ryan Institute on Complexity ",
"Sam Goldberg, assistant professor of marketing, Stanford",
"Yevgenia Nayberg, artist, illustrator, children’s book author"
],
"ordered": false,
"values": ""
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\n\n\n\u003c/ul>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">",
null,
"\n\n",
null,
"\n\n",
null,
"\u003c/ul>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/list-item",
"attrs": [],
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cli>Ben Jones, economist, co-director of the Ryan Institute on Complexity \u003c/li>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cli>Ben Jones, economist, co-director of the Ryan Institute on Complexity \u003c/li>\n"
]
},
{
"blockName": "core/list-item",
"attrs": [],
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cli>Sam Goldberg, assistant professor of marketing, Stanford\u003c/li>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cli>Sam Goldberg, assistant professor of marketing, Stanford\u003c/li>\n"
]
},
{
"blockName": "core/list-item",
"attrs": [],
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://nayberg.org/work\">Yevgenia Nayberg\u003c/a>, artist, illustrator, children’s book author\u003c/li>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://nayberg.org/work\">Yevgenia Nayberg\u003c/a>, artist, illustrator, children’s book author\u003c/li>\n"
]
}
]
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Further Reading/Listening:",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">\u003cstrong>Further Reading/Listening:\u003c/strong>\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">\u003cstrong>Further Reading/Listening:\u003c/strong>\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/list",
"attrs": {
"items": [
"Generative AI & Creative Goods: Market Expansion, Crowd-out, and Copyright — Samuel Goldberg, Stanford Graduate School of Business",
"‘Life, Automated’ explores how AI is reshaping our world — Roger Anderson, Northwestern Kellogg",
"Life, Automated Podcast — KQED"
],
"ordered": false,
"values": ""
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\n\n\n\u003c/ul>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">",
null,
"\n\n",
null,
"\n\n",
null,
"\u003c/ul>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/list-item",
"attrs": [],
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://url.us.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/PrZSCYEM4NtmO7opi0fJJixcsaA?domain=papers.ssrn.com\">Generative AI & Creative Goods: Market Expansion, Crowd-out, and Copyright\u003c/a> — Samuel Goldberg, \u003cem>Stanford Graduate School of Business\u003c/em>\u003c/li>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://url.us.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/PrZSCYEM4NtmO7opi0fJJixcsaA?domain=papers.ssrn.com\">Generative AI & Creative Goods: Market Expansion, Crowd-out, and Copyright\u003c/a> — Samuel Goldberg, \u003cem>Stanford Graduate School of Business\u003c/em>\u003c/li>\n"
]
},
{
"blockName": "core/list-item",
"attrs": [],
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news/blog/2026/08/12/life-automated/\">‘Life, Automated’ explores how AI is reshaping our world\u003c/a> — Roger Anderson, \u003cem>Northwestern Kellogg\u003c/em>\u003c/li>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news/blog/2026/08/12/life-automated/\">‘Life, Automated’ explores how AI is reshaping our world\u003c/a> — Roger Anderson, \u003cem>Northwestern Kellogg\u003c/em>\u003c/li>\n"
]
},
{
"blockName": "core/list-item",
"attrs": [],
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/lifeautomated\">Life, Automated Podcast\u003c/a> — \u003cem>KQED\u003c/em>\u003c/li>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/lifeautomated\">Life, Automated Podcast\u003c/a> — \u003cem>KQED\u003c/em>\u003c/li>\n"
]
}
]
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Want to give us feedback on the show? Shoot us an email at \u003ca href=\"mailto:CloseAllTabs@KQED.org\">CloseAllTabs@KQED.org\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Want to give us feedback on the show? Shoot us an email at \u003ca href=\"mailto:CloseAllTabs@KQED.org\">CloseAllTabs@KQED.org\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Follow us on \u003ca href=\"https://www.instagram.com/closealltabspod/\">Instagram\u003c/a> and\u003ca href=\"https://www.tiktok.com/@closealltabs\">\u003c/a> \u003ca href=\"https://www.tiktok.com/@closealltabs\">TikTok\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Follow us on \u003ca href=\"https://www.instagram.com/closealltabspod/\">Instagram\u003c/a> and\u003ca href=\"https://www.tiktok.com/@closealltabs\">\u003c/a> \u003ca href=\"https://www.tiktok.com/@closealltabs\">TikTok\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad",
"attrs": {
"adType": "fullwidth"
},
"innerHTML": "",
"innerContent": [],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Episode Transcript",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Morgan Sung: \u003c/strong>Hello! Do you like these deep dives? Do you want more? Then please rate and review Close All Tabs on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to the show! And tell your friends! Post about it! On Instagram, Bluesky, X, Discord, Reddit, the comments of whatever random recipe blog you start arguments in. Basically, it would be a huge help to get the word out. Ok, let’s get to the show.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Morgan Sung: \u003c/strong>Hello! Do you like these deep dives? Do you want more? Then please rate and review Close All Tabs on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to the show! And tell your friends! Post about it! On Instagram, Bluesky, X, Discord, Reddit, the comments of whatever random recipe blog you start arguments in. Basically, it would be a huge help to get the word out. Ok, let’s get to the show.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Hey Tabbies, The Close All Tabs team is busy churning out our next few episodes. And they’re bangers, I promise. In the meantime, we had to drop you a peek into this new podcast, Life Automated. It’s distributed by KQED, where this show is made, and it also covers big ideas about how technology is shaping our world.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Hey Tabbies, The Close All Tabs team is busy churning out our next few episodes. And they’re bangers, I promise. In the meantime, we had to drop you a peek into this new podcast, Life Automated. It’s distributed by KQED, where this show is made, and it also covers big ideas about how technology is shaping our world.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Their most recent episode about AI and creative work is a must-listen. Now that Generative AI can crank out images, stories, and even songs, what does that mean for humans like us, who do that for a living?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Their most recent episode about AI and creative work is a must-listen. Now that Generative AI can crank out images, stories, and even songs, what does that mean for humans like us, who do that for a living?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>The economists and artists in this episode of Life, Automated\u003cem> \u003c/em>help us understand the aspects of creativity that can’t\u003cem>e\u003c/em>asily be replicated by AI. At least for now. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>The economists and artists in this episode of Life, Automated\u003cem> \u003c/em>help us understand the aspects of creativity that can’t\u003cem>e\u003c/em>asily be replicated by AI. At least for now. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So, while the creative workers at Close All Tabs are talking and typing in real life to bring you more stories about the digital world. Here’s that Life Automated episode: “AI, Artists, and the Future of Creative Work.” \u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So, while the creative workers at Close All Tabs are talking and typing in real life to bring you more stories about the digital world. Here’s that Life Automated episode: “AI, Artists, and the Future of Creative Work.” \u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore all the ways technology is changing how we live, work, and make decisions.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore all the ways technology is changing how we live, work, and make decisions.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Think about the tractor… The washing machine, The calculator. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Think about the tractor… The washing machine, The calculator. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>For a long time, the promise of machines that automate labor was that they would take over the repetitive, dangerous or tedious work; and leave people free to do the things humans are supposed to be best at. You know, to imagine. Communicate. Invent. Make art or music. But it seems like AI might be coming for creative work as well.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>For a long time, the promise of machines that automate labor was that they would take over the repetitive, dangerous or tedious work; and leave people free to do the things humans are supposed to be best at. You know, to imagine. Communicate. Invent. Make art or music. But it seems like AI might be coming for creative work as well.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>One sector on notice is the entertainment industry. The Writers guild recently bargained for contract language limiting the use of AI writing in screenplays. The Animation Guild recently projected losses of about 20% of animation and visual effects jobs. And SAG-AFTRA, a big actors and writers union, has been in ongoing negotiations to try to prevent human actors from being replaced by AI: \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>One sector on notice is the entertainment industry. The Writers guild recently bargained for contract language limiting the use of AI writing in screenplays. The Animation Guild recently projected losses of about 20% of animation and visual effects jobs. And SAG-AFTRA, a big actors and writers union, has been in ongoing negotiations to try to prevent human actors from being replaced by AI: \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Fran Drescher]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Fran Drescher]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>I don’t subscribe to putting people out of work. I think what’s happening in the entertainment industry is a microcosm of what happening throughout the United States of America whereby workers are being replaced by artificial intelligence, and what is that about actually\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>I don’t subscribe to putting people out of work. I think what’s happening in the entertainment industry is a microcosm of what happening throughout the United States of America whereby workers are being replaced by artificial intelligence, and what is that about actually\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But it’s not just Hollywood. Writers, illustrators, journalists, composers, architects — even scientists who design experiments, they’re all on alert, wondering whether and how AI will impact the work they \u003cem>love\u003c/em> to do. It’s a question I’ve been wrestling with myself, as a science writer and self described “creative worker” \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But it’s not just Hollywood. Writers, illustrators, journalists, composers, architects — even scientists who design experiments, they’re all on alert, wondering whether and how AI will impact the work they \u003cem>love\u003c/em> to do. It’s a question I’ve been wrestling with myself, as a science writer and self described “creative worker” \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So today, we’ll be tackling that question, and instead of hearing from just one guest, we have a few: including an economist who studied what happened when generative AI entered one particular creative market.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So today, we’ll be tackling that question, and instead of hearing from just one guest, we have a few: including an economist who studied what happened when generative AI entered one particular creative market.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>All of this generative AI production is entering, it’s filling up those markets, and the non-generative AI artists end up having to exit the market because they’re no longer profitable.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>All of this generative AI production is entering, it’s filling up those markets, and the non-generative AI artists end up having to exit the market because they’re no longer profitable.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> As well as a working artist\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> As well as a working artist\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> I think we will adapt. I’m not sure how yet. I can’t predict the future, but I know it’s your personal voice that will set you apart always.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> I think we will adapt. I’m not sure how yet. I can’t predict the future, but I know it’s your personal voice that will set you apart always.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But first, if you listened to our kickoff episode — back in July, you’ll remember Economist Ben Jones. Ben is my colleague at the Ryan Institute on Complexity where he studies innovation. And, I’m going to start with a short flashback to that conversation, because something he said is really helpful for thinking about the future of creative work. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But first, if you listened to our kickoff episode — back in July, you’ll remember Economist Ben Jones. Ben is my colleague at the Ryan Institute on Complexity where he studies innovation. And, I’m going to start with a short flashback to that conversation, because something he said is really helpful for thinking about the future of creative work. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>See, Ben has been thinking about automation and its impact on jobs for a long time. He says that instead of obsessing over all the things AI can suddenly do really well, we should spend more time focusing on what it can’t do, at least not yet. Ben calls these things – bottlenecks. I’m Jess Love, this is Life, Automated. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>See, Ben has been thinking about automation and its impact on jobs for a long time. He says that instead of obsessing over all the things AI can suddenly do really well, we should spend more time focusing on what it can’t do, at least not yet. Ben calls these things – bottlenecks. I’m Jess Love, this is Life, Automated. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Okay, so can you talk to us about what a bottleneck is and why it’s so important?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Okay, so can you talk to us about what a bottleneck is and why it’s so important?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong> Well, of course it’s a metaphor from a bottle and what do we know about bottles? We know that the speed at which water or wine will flow from the bottle, depends on the width of the neck. Doesn’t really depend on how big the bottle is otherwise, how much wine there is in it, or how big the base is. It really just depends on the neck and in many processes in the economy and in the economy overall, it looks like there are certain things that have to happen that act as bottlenecks. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong> Well, of course it’s a metaphor from a bottle and what do we know about bottles? We know that the speed at which water or wine will flow from the bottle, depends on the width of the neck. Doesn’t really depend on how big the bottle is otherwise, how much wine there is in it, or how big the base is. It really just depends on the neck and in many processes in the economy and in the economy overall, it looks like there are certain things that have to happen that act as bottlenecks. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Much of the economy has that flavor where it’s not how good you are at a lot of things. What’s really sort of determining the rate of the economy is the things we’re quite slow at, the things we’re not very good at. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Much of the economy has that flavor where it’s not how good you are at a lot of things. What’s really sort of determining the rate of the economy is the things we’re quite slow at, the things we’re not very good at. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: In other words, even if some parts of a system get really, really fast and easy, it’s the slowest parts of the system, the parts most difficult to automate, that will determine just how much the system overall changes. As an example from his own job, Ben points to statistical regressions, which computers do incredibly well much better than humans.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: In other words, even if some parts of a system get really, really fast and easy, it’s the slowest parts of the system, the parts most difficult to automate, that will determine just how much the system overall changes. As an example from his own job, Ben points to statistical regressions, which computers do incredibly well much better than humans.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>. If I were to run a regression by hand, with a large number of observations, it would take me literally my entire life. And I would make mistakes. You know, my computer can do a regression with a million data points in a-minute.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>. If I were to run a regression by hand, with a large number of observations, it would take me literally my entire life. And I would make mistakes. You know, my computer can do a regression with a million data points in a-minute.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong> Yeah. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong> Yeah. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong> And so we have these technologies that basically are infinitely better than us to do these tasks that are really important to what we do. And then you can ask, okay, well, has our understanding of economics or astronomy or physics multiplied by a similar factor? And you’d say ‘no’, because although we can do certain things really, really, really incredibly well, other things are holding us back. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong> And so we have these technologies that basically are infinitely better than us to do these tasks that are really important to what we do. And then you can ask, okay, well, has our understanding of economics or astronomy or physics multiplied by a similar factor? And you’d say ‘no’, because although we can do certain things really, really, really incredibly well, other things are holding us back. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> For scientific researchers, these ‘other things’ might be collecting the right data, or building the instruments to collect the right data, or even waiting for the perfect set of circumstances to emerge that would let us interpret that data. Like the collapse of an economy, or the collision of two stars in a particular spot in the sky. Until scientists can push past these bottlenecks, all the statistical regressions in the world will only teach them so much.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> For scientific researchers, these ‘other things’ might be collecting the right data, or building the instruments to collect the right data, or even waiting for the perfect set of circumstances to emerge that would let us interpret that data. Like the collapse of an economy, or the collision of two stars in a particular spot in the sky. Until scientists can push past these bottlenecks, all the statistical regressions in the world will only teach them so much.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I find Ben’s framework a useful way to think about AI’s impact on any kind of work, creative or otherwise. Most people’s jobs involve a bunch of different tasks. AI might get really good at some of them, but tasks it still struggles with – the bottlenecks, really determine the overall pace of change, as well as where humans can still contribute. And get paid to do so. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I find Ben’s framework a useful way to think about AI’s impact on any kind of work, creative or otherwise. Most people’s jobs involve a bunch of different tasks. AI might get really good at some of them, but tasks it still struggles with – the bottlenecks, really determine the overall pace of change, as well as where humans can still contribute. And get paid to do so. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So, the big takeaway for creative workers: Find the stuff AI can’t do. But what do these bottlenecks look like in creative markets in particular? And would they actually allow writers, artists, and other creative workers to still do that work? Well, it turns out that there’s somebody who has been studying this very thing. Specifically, how AI has impacted stock image websites. Those sell ready-made photos and illustrations that appear in ads, presentations, websites, and articles. Say you’re making an ad for productivity software. Maybe you purchase a stock image of people shaking hands in a conference room, or a woman smiling at her computer screen, or a well-dressed man gazing thoughtfully into the distance, perhaps wondering. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So, the big takeaway for creative workers: Find the stuff AI can’t do. But what do these bottlenecks look like in creative markets in particular? And would they actually allow writers, artists, and other creative workers to still do that work? Well, it turns out that there’s somebody who has been studying this very thing. Specifically, how AI has impacted stock image websites. Those sell ready-made photos and illustrations that appear in ads, presentations, websites, and articles. Say you’re making an ad for productivity software. Maybe you purchase a stock image of people shaking hands in a conference room, or a woman smiling at her computer screen, or a well-dressed man gazing thoughtfully into the distance, perhaps wondering. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>Stock images, why do we care about these things, right? It’s not a particularly large market. It’s definitely sort of a niche commoditized good. Why is this somewhere where we wanna study AI? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>Stock images, why do we care about these things, right? It’s not a particularly large market. It’s definitely sort of a niche commoditized good. Why is this somewhere where we wanna study AI? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>This is Sam Goldberg. He teaches marketing at Stanford, where he also studies how technology changes markets and consumer behavior. And he says the stock-image market offers an unusually crisp view of what happens when AI-generated work begins competing directly with work made by people.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>This is Sam Goldberg. He teaches marketing at Stanford, where he also studies how technology changes markets and consumer behavior. And he says the stock-image market offers an unusually crisp view of what happens when AI-generated work begins competing directly with work made by people.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>So back, you know, a few years ago, they were one of the first markets where we saw really capable AI come to artists, and be able to be used to produce really high-quality images.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>So back, you know, a few years ago, they were one of the first markets where we saw really capable AI come to artists, and be able to be used to produce really high-quality images.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>For years, human artists made stock images and uploaded them to online marketplaces. Then those marketplaces began accepting AI-generated work. Suddenly, images made by people were sitting beside images that could be generated by machines, almost instantly, at enormous scale. And because the platform Sam studied required artists to clearly label which images were AI-generated, he could watch the transition in really fine detail.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>For years, human artists made stock images and uploaded them to online marketplaces. Then those marketplaces began accepting AI-generated work. Suddenly, images made by people were sitting beside images that could be generated by machines, almost instantly, at enormous scale. And because the platform Sam studied required artists to clearly label which images were AI-generated, he could watch the transition in really fine detail.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>And so what that means in practice is that after the platform allows generative AI to enter the market, I can see both how non-generative AI artists respond, as well as how generative AI enters the market and what types of images it produces. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>And so what that means in practice is that after the platform allows generative AI to enter the market, I can see both how non-generative AI artists respond, as well as how generative AI enters the market and what types of images it produces. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So here’s how it used to work. Customers would comb through these websites, going through image after image, until they find one that is “close enough”. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So here’s how it used to work. Customers would comb through these websites, going through image after image, until they find one that is “close enough”. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>I guess the right way to think about it is each individual might have a very specific taste for something, and so when they were trying to find a stock image, they would make some sort of compromise, right? So they would say, “Oh, I’m looking for an image of a tennis ball, and I want an image of a tennis ball in motion,” right? They could go to the stock image website, they’d look up that keyword, and they’d find, you know, maybe pre-generative AI, a couple hundred different versions of that image, right? Maybe none of them are perfect, but one of them’s good enough, and they took it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>I guess the right way to think about it is each individual might have a very specific taste for something, and so when they were trying to find a stock image, they would make some sort of compromise, right? So they would say, “Oh, I’m looking for an image of a tennis ball, and I want an image of a tennis ball in motion,” right? They could go to the stock image website, they’d look up that keyword, and they’d find, you know, maybe pre-generative AI, a couple hundred different versions of that image, right? Maybe none of them are perfect, but one of them’s good enough, and they took it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Right\u003cstrong>. \u003c/strong>So maybe your article is about playing tennis in the rain, and so you would love to have a tennis ball that’s kind of covered in water. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Right\u003cstrong>. \u003c/strong>So maybe your article is about playing tennis in the rain, and so you would love to have a tennis ball that’s kind of covered in water. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Penetrating water droplets.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Penetrating water droplets.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Right. And then that is the kind of thing that just doesn’t exist, so maybe you just get a tennis ball in isolation, and that’s good enough. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Right. And then that is the kind of thing that just doesn’t exist, so maybe you just get a tennis ball in isolation, and that’s good enough. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Exactly. And so in the pre-generative AI world, you know, you were making some compromises with respect to that, oftentimes at least. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Exactly. And so in the pre-generative AI world, you know, you were making some compromises with respect to that, oftentimes at least. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> But along comes generative AI, with free or cheap image generators where you can literally tell it: I want a wet tennis ball, resting on a bench, with water beading on it. And it will give you a pretty good version of that exact image. So what happens when a stock image market starts accepting these hyper-specific AI-generated images?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> But along comes generative AI, with free or cheap image generators where you can literally tell it: I want a wet tennis ball, resting on a bench, with water beading on it. And it will give you a pretty good version of that exact image. So what happens when a stock image market starts accepting these hyper-specific AI-generated images?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>What actually happens in this market is, generative AI enters, the market expands greatly, so there’s a lot more images on the platform. That should probably be pretty intuitive. But not only do more images enter the market, more customers do as well. More images are being purchased and they like the generative AI images because it turns out they’re actually pretty high quality.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>What actually happens in this market is, generative AI enters, the market expands greatly, so there’s a lot more images on the platform. That should probably be pretty intuitive. But not only do more images enter the market, more customers do as well. More images are being purchased and they like the generative AI images because it turns out they’re actually pretty high quality.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So I can see how this is good for me as a consumer. I finally have the perfect raindrop-covered tennis ball for my editorial feature. And I can see how this is good for the platform itself, at least in the short term. What happens to the artists? And I guess I would ask both the artists using generative AI and those who are not. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So I can see how this is good for me as a consumer. I finally have the perfect raindrop-covered tennis ball for my editorial feature. And I can see how this is good for the platform itself, at least in the short term. What happens to the artists? And I guess I would ask both the artists using generative AI and those who are not. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah, it’s a good question, and I think you are correct in your intuition here that it does seem like it’s probably pretty good for consumers. It does seem like it’s probably pretty good for the platform, at least in the short run. The artist side I think is a little bit more complicated right? Let me walk you through what happens after generative AI enters the platform, and then we can talk about the implications for artists.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah, it’s a good question, and I think you are correct in your intuition here that it does seem like it’s probably pretty good for consumers. It does seem like it’s probably pretty good for the platform, at least in the short run. The artist side I think is a little bit more complicated right? Let me walk you through what happens after generative AI enters the platform, and then we can talk about the implications for artists.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. So what happens is production goes way up. All right? By over 100% more production, so enormous increases in production here. Second, more artists participate in the market. So we see a lot of new artists enter the stock image market. Of course, that overflow of new artists hides a different fact, which is non-generative AI artists exit. Okay? So they stop producing. So we see a reduction in non-generative AI production, as well as a reduction in the number of non-generative AI artists who are participating on the platform.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. So what happens is production goes way up. All right? By over 100% more production, so enormous increases in production here. Second, more artists participate in the market. So we see a lot of new artists enter the stock image market. Of course, that overflow of new artists hides a different fact, which is non-generative AI artists exit. Okay? So they stop producing. So we see a reduction in non-generative AI production, as well as a reduction in the number of non-generative AI artists who are participating on the platform.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>What we call that in the paper is sort of a little bit of a crowding out effect. So what’s happening is all of this generative AI production is entering, it’s filling up demand, it’s filling up those markets, and the non-generative AI artists end up having to exit the market because they’re no longer profitable.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>What we call that in the paper is sort of a little bit of a crowding out effect. So what’s happening is all of this generative AI production is entering, it’s filling up demand, it’s filling up those markets, and the non-generative AI artists end up having to exit the market because they’re no longer profitable.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So, pretty bad news for a lot of artists who choose to keep making images the old way. But, Sam also found a bottleneck. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So, pretty bad news for a lot of artists who choose to keep making images the old way. But, Sam also found a bottleneck. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong> What the stock image market sells is not quite images. What the stock image market sells is indemnification, which is to say if the buyer of the image uses it and gets in trouble, so someone says, “Hey, you can’t use that image. That’s copyrighted,” and tries to sue the buyer, the platform says, “You can’t sue the buyer. We’re responsible.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong> What the stock image market sells is not quite images. What the stock image market sells is indemnification, which is to say if the buyer of the image uses it and gets in trouble, so someone says, “Hey, you can’t use that image. That’s copyrighted,” and tries to sue the buyer, the platform says, “You can’t sue the buyer. We’re responsible.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh, fascinating. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh, fascinating. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay, and so that’s really important here because if you were to produce that image yourself using a generative model, you could be subject to some sorts of liability for using, for example, copyrighted work in the training of those models.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay, and so that’s really important here because if you were to produce that image yourself using a generative model, you could be subject to some sorts of liability for using, for example, copyrighted work in the training of those models.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Got that? AI-generated images are a bit of a legal gray area right now. For one, most of the biggest AI models were trained on data that included copyrighted works. And it’s also unclear which new AI-generated works can get copyright protection.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Got that? AI-generated images are a bit of a legal gray area right now. For one, most of the biggest AI models were trained on data that included copyrighted works. And it’s also unclear which new AI-generated works can get copyright protection.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Anyway, given this uncertainty, you might choose to purchase an AI-generated image from this market rather than just whip up one yourself because you want the legal protection that this affords you.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Anyway, given this uncertainty, you might choose to purchase an AI-generated image from this market rather than just whip up one yourself because you want the legal protection that this affords you.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And, it turns out that getting this legal protection works a little differently for images that have a human in them. When artists submit images with humans in them, they also need to fill out paperwork showing that they have permission to use those people’s likenesses. This paperwork is \u003cem>not\u003c/em> something the AI can easily produce. And so voila! We have less crowding-out for images containing people than for images of, say, tennis balls. And there it is! Our bottleneck!\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And, it turns out that getting this legal protection works a little differently for images that have a human in them. When artists submit images with humans in them, they also need to fill out paperwork showing that they have permission to use those people’s likenesses. This paperwork is \u003cem>not\u003c/em> something the AI can easily produce. And so voila! We have less crowding-out for images containing people than for images of, say, tennis balls. And there it is! Our bottleneck!\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Unfortunately, it’s pretty uninspiring: paperwork. Still, in Sam’s study, it was something the machines couldn’t easily replace, and that did allow human creators to survive in that particular corner of the “stock image” market. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Unfortunately, it’s pretty uninspiring: paperwork. Still, in Sam’s study, it was something the machines couldn’t easily replace, and that did allow human creators to survive in that particular corner of the “stock image” market. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Stepping back, Sam’s findings are stark. AI gave customers a ton more image choices. It helped the market grow. And, it pushed a lot of human artists out. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Stepping back, Sam’s findings are stark. AI gave customers a ton more image choices. It helped the market grow. And, it pushed a lot of human artists out. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So one read of your study is that AI-generated art is great for everybody but many of the artists. And I just wanna ask, is a world without artists really great for consumers? Is that really what consumers want? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So one read of your study is that AI-generated art is great for everybody but many of the artists. And I just wanna ask, is a world without artists really great for consumers? Is that really what consumers want? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah. So I definitely do not take a strong opinion about if generative AI art is good or bad, right? I think the data suggests that consumers like the generative AI art. They purchase it, and they are willing to purchase it. And so to the extent that they are willing to purchase it, that seems an improvement basically. Now, in the long run, does that mean that we want a world with no human creativity? I don’t think so, and I don’t have, you know, good data to speak to that. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah. So I definitely do not take a strong opinion about if generative AI art is good or bad, right? I think the data suggests that consumers like the generative AI art. They purchase it, and they are willing to purchase it. And so to the extent that they are willing to purchase it, that seems an improvement basically. Now, in the long run, does that mean that we want a world with no human creativity? I don’t think so, and I don’t have, you know, good data to speak to that. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I mean, certainly anecdotally, we hear people saying they don’t like AI content. Intuitively, I think you might expect more of that backlash in creative goods markets that are a little bit more emotional or sincere. So for example, you see a lot more of this when people listen to AI-generated music. Or like YouTube even, like creative shorts. Stock images are, are a product being used for a purpose, in a way that, I think is a little different. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I mean, certainly anecdotally, we hear people saying they don’t like AI content. Intuitively, I think you might expect more of that backlash in creative goods markets that are a little bit more emotional or sincere. So for example, you see a lot more of this when people listen to AI-generated music. Or like YouTube even, like creative shorts. Stock images are, are a product being used for a purpose, in a way that, I think is a little different. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: So the pressure on human artists that Sam saw in the stock image market… we don’t really know how much they’ll translate to other creative markets.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: So the pressure on human artists that Sam saw in the stock image market… we don’t really know how much they’ll translate to other creative markets.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Particularly those where people could be looking for something harder to just generate on demand: a unique interpretation, emotional resonance, a point of view, maybe even a relationship with the person making the work.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Particularly those where people could be looking for something harder to just generate on demand: a unique interpretation, emotional resonance, a point of view, maybe even a relationship with the person making the work.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So to learn more, I spoke with an artist who has spent much of her career making these \u003cem>other\u003c/em> kinds of images.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So to learn more, I spoke with an artist who has spent much of her career making these \u003cem>other\u003c/em> kinds of images.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>There are people who are absolutely happy with elevator music and people that go to concerts. And, I think for the elevator music art lovers type, I’m sure AI could be satisfactory. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>There are people who are absolutely happy with elevator music and people that go to concerts. And, I think for the elevator music art lovers type, I’m sure AI could be satisfactory. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>That’s coming up. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>That’s coming up. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This is Life, Automated, I’m Jess Love. And I’m talking to the artist Yevgenia Nayberg.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This is Life, Automated, I’m Jess Love. And I’m talking to the artist Yevgenia Nayberg.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Can you talk about the different lanes of art that you make?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Can you talk about the different lanes of art that you make?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I started as a fine artist, so to speak. I’m a painter and so I paint large scale pieces. But also I crossed over pretty early into theater design, set and costume design, and illustration. And about 10 years ago, I also started writing my own books, picture books mostly. And so right now I’m focusing on being an author and picture book illustrator, and a graphic novel illustrator and writer.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I started as a fine artist, so to speak. I’m a painter and so I paint large scale pieces. But also I crossed over pretty early into theater design, set and costume design, and illustration. And about 10 years ago, I also started writing my own books, picture books mostly. And so right now I’m focusing on being an author and picture book illustrator, and a graphic novel illustrator and writer.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, so I really should have asked that question differently. I should have said, “What kinds of art do you \u003cem>not\u003c/em> make?” And then maybe we would’ve gotten through that answer more quickly. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, so I really should have asked that question differently. I should have said, “What kinds of art do you \u003cem>not\u003c/em> make?” And then maybe we would’ve gotten through that answer more quickly. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia is also someone I’ve worked with. Years ago, when I was working as a magazine editor, I hired her to illustrate some articles. Her work is way more distinctive and conceptually ambitious than anything you’d find on a stock-image website. But it is still commercial art: made for a client, on a deadline, to serve a particular purpose. So I wanted to know whether she saw her own corner of the creative economy as vulnerable to the same forces Sam observed.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia is also someone I’ve worked with. Years ago, when I was working as a magazine editor, I hired her to illustrate some articles. Her work is way more distinctive and conceptually ambitious than anything you’d find on a stock-image website. But it is still commercial art: made for a client, on a deadline, to serve a particular purpose. So I wanted to know whether she saw her own corner of the creative economy as vulnerable to the same forces Sam observed.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>What do you think about generative AI making art?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>What do you think about generative AI making art?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I’m not afraid of AI. I know there is a lot of worry amongst artists about it, and I just think it’s probably eventually going to be another tool. I don’t necessarily think that right now AI has the capabilities real, non-artificial artists have. So not afraid at this point.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I’m not afraid of AI. I know there is a lot of worry amongst artists about it, and I just think it’s probably eventually going to be another tool. I don’t necessarily think that right now AI has the capabilities real, non-artificial artists have. So not afraid at this point.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>What about the idea that whether or not this work is as good as what a human could do, it might nonetheless be good enough to somehow compete with human art or human work, either because of discoverability, so with a, flood of lower quality AI images out in the world, it becomes harder to actually find the good ones done by humans or because some of the people who might want to hire artists are pretty comfortable, just generating something for themselves for free?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>What about the idea that whether or not this work is as good as what a human could do, it might nonetheless be good enough to somehow compete with human art or human work, either because of discoverability, so with a, flood of lower quality AI images out in the world, it becomes harder to actually find the good ones done by humans or because some of the people who might want to hire artists are pretty comfortable, just generating something for themselves for free?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I’m sure there are going to be people like that. There are people who are absolutely happy with elevator music and people that go to concerts. And, I think for the elevator music art lovers type, I’m sure AI could be satisfactory. But I don’t know if you remember in the ’90s when all of this, you know, flood of stock art happened, everyone was using this image of a little light bulb above a person’s head when they wanted to describe an idea.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I’m sure there are going to be people like that. There are people who are absolutely happy with elevator music and people that go to concerts. And, I think for the elevator music art lovers type, I’m sure AI could be satisfactory. But I don’t know if you remember in the ’90s when all of this, you know, flood of stock art happened, everyone was using this image of a little light bulb above a person’s head when they wanted to describe an idea.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>If you have an idea, all you draw that bulb, and I think that’s the kind of thinking that I see from AI at this point. So it does create some metaphors, but those metaphors are very trite. If my students do this kind of work, I stop them and I tell them, “Look how many people have already done this hypothetical light bulb.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>If you have an idea, all you draw that bulb, and I think that’s the kind of thinking that I see from AI at this point. So it does create some metaphors, but those metaphors are very trite. If my students do this kind of work, I stop them and I tell them, “Look how many people have already done this hypothetical light bulb.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So I think because AI sort of collects all these similar ideas and then generates as a result, it’s a very banal result, and I’m not interested in that, and I don’t think my clients, the kind of clients that I work with, are interested in those very typical, ordinary ideas. So I can do better than that at this point, for now.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So I think because AI sort of collects all these similar ideas and then generates as a result, it’s a very banal result, and I’m not interested in that, and I don’t think my clients, the kind of clients that I work with, are interested in those very typical, ordinary ideas. So I can do better than that at this point, for now.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia sees a real difference between the illustration work she does, for specific clients, and the broad, commercial stock image market.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia sees a real difference between the illustration work she does, for specific clients, and the broad, commercial stock image market.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>I think what illustration, conceptual illustration does is that it creates a second track to the story. So instead of illustrating something literally, it adds to the story. It can take the story and it can create this interesting creative tension between the illustration and the story, heightening the story in a certain way. So I think with stocks, you often lack that. It’s very hard to prompt an image bank to generate something like this. Even if you search for an image that will fit the story. Fitting the story is one thing. Elevating the story is a completely different thing.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>I think what illustration, conceptual illustration does is that it creates a second track to the story. So instead of illustrating something literally, it adds to the story. It can take the story and it can create this interesting creative tension between the illustration and the story, heightening the story in a certain way. So I think with stocks, you often lack that. It’s very hard to prompt an image bank to generate something like this. Even if you search for an image that will fit the story. Fitting the story is one thing. Elevating the story is a completely different thing.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voicover]\u003c/strong>: Well yeah, an image that elevates a story does seem a lot better than one that merely “fits” a story. But Yevgenia’s not exactly an unbiased third-party here. So now I was curious what Sam Goldberg would make of this claim—that AI art can spray down the market with lots of images that might \u003cem>fit\u003c/em> a particular need really, really well, leading to plenty of satisfied customers. But those images are nonetheless probably not going to be novel enough to \u003cem>elevate\u003c/em> a story. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voicover]\u003c/strong>: Well yeah, an image that elevates a story does seem a lot better than one that merely “fits” a story. But Yevgenia’s not exactly an unbiased third-party here. So now I was curious what Sam Goldberg would make of this claim—that AI art can spray down the market with lots of images that might \u003cem>fit\u003c/em> a particular need really, really well, leading to plenty of satisfied customers. But those images are nonetheless probably not going to be novel enough to \u003cem>elevate\u003c/em> a story. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>“Is this a bottleneck?” I asked Sam.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>“Is this a bottleneck?” I asked Sam.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong> So you are not expecting this question. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong> So you are not expecting this question. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I actually ran some of your results past an illustrator friend of mine. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I actually ran some of your results past an illustrator friend of mine. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And what she said was basically, “Look, you can use generative AI to come up with thousands of images of light bulbs, light bulbs in this environment, in this you know, room, in front of this person. But what you can’t do is get AI to go that one step beyond and think through, well, what is another way of getting across creativity or innovation? So it will give you a billion light bulbs, but it’s not necessarily really going to give you variety at the concept level. And I’m curious what you would make of that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And what she said was basically, “Look, you can use generative AI to come up with thousands of images of light bulbs, light bulbs in this environment, in this you know, room, in front of this person. But what you can’t do is get AI to go that one step beyond and think through, well, what is another way of getting across creativity or innovation? So it will give you a billion light bulbs, but it’s not necessarily really going to give you variety at the concept level. And I’m curious what you would make of that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah. So I’m hesitant to disagree with the artist here, but-\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah. So I’m hesitant to disagree with the artist here, but-\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Never disagree with an artist. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Never disagree with an artist. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Never disagree with the artist. Yeah, so I actually don’t think that’s incongruent with what we see happen in these markets. So one analysis we do in the paper… \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Never disagree with the artist. Yeah, so I actually don’t think that’s incongruent with what we see happen in these markets. So one analysis we do in the paper… \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Sam’s team actually found a way to represent the images mathematically. This let them analyze the novelty of this flood of new AI-generated images.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Sam’s team actually found a way to represent the images mathematically. This let them analyze the novelty of this flood of new AI-generated images.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>And so we actually – I sort of agree with her, right? Which is to say, one thing we don’t see is – we don’t see a huge increase in novelty in the market. But essentially, what we see happen is we don’t see a lot of sort of images enter the market that look very different than the images that already exist there.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>And so we actually – I sort of agree with her, right? Which is to say, one thing we don’t see is – we don’t see a huge increase in novelty in the market. But essentially, what we see happen is we don’t see a lot of sort of images enter the market that look very different than the images that already exist there.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Interesting. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Interesting. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>What we \u003cem>do\u003c/em> see is that anywhere there’s a gap in the market, so where there’s two images on either side, but there’s not an image in between, generative AI is very good at filling those gaps.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>What we \u003cem>do\u003c/em> see is that anywhere there’s a gap in the market, so where there’s two images on either side, but there’s not an image in between, generative AI is very good at filling those gaps.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So…at least for now, AI can generate lots and lots of variations on a theme. But what Yevgenia’s describing is the ability to think \u003cem>beyond\u003c/em> that theme. And Sam says, “yeah, AI doesn’t seem to be as good at that.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So…at least for now, AI can generate lots and lots of variations on a theme. But what Yevgenia’s describing is the ability to think \u003cem>beyond\u003c/em> that theme. And Sam says, “yeah, AI doesn’t seem to be as good at that.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>I think it’s totally reasonable to say that your illustrator friend may be correct that that is something that these models struggle with.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>I think it’s totally reasonable to say that your illustrator friend may be correct that that is something that these models struggle with.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong> I’m surprised. I was ready to fight the economist!\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong> I’m surprised. I was ready to fight the economist!\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh no! I actually don’t think you guys would fight that much, but we won’t put you in a cage match together.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh no! I actually don’t think you guys would fight that much, but we won’t put you in a cage match together.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> This idea of bringing true novelty to an assignment: that new metaphor, that “second track.” This may be an important source of value that human artists bring to a project. So…what does that look like?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> This idea of bringing true novelty to an assignment: that new metaphor, that “second track.” This may be an important source of value that human artists bring to a project. So…what does that look like?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Let’s do something fun. Obviously we have worked together in the past. I have hired you to do beautiful custom illustrations for articles, on Kellogg Insight, where I was the editor-in-chief for many years. And so it’s not even hypothetical to say I would often come to you with a story on innovation, entrepreneurship, you know, how to brainstorm. And so let’s say I bring you this article, it’s about “Better Ways of Brainstorming”, and I’m like, “And also, I think I got a pretty good idea for you. It’s a group of people brainstorming, and above them, they’re, like, collectively building a big light bulb. And it’s like a hot air balloon light bulb, and it’s just, wow, you can just see this is going places. “What do you think?”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Let’s do something fun. Obviously we have worked together in the past. I have hired you to do beautiful custom illustrations for articles, on Kellogg Insight, where I was the editor-in-chief for many years. And so it’s not even hypothetical to say I would often come to you with a story on innovation, entrepreneurship, you know, how to brainstorm. And so let’s say I bring you this article, it’s about “Better Ways of Brainstorming”, and I’m like, “And also, I think I got a pretty good idea for you. It’s a group of people brainstorming, and above them, they’re, like, collectively building a big light bulb. And it’s like a hot air balloon light bulb, and it’s just, wow, you can just see this is going places. “What do you think?”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, Jess, I think actually an air balloon light bulb is already a beautiful idea. If I’m not mistaken, I think I did an illustration like this for you years ago. So, maybe we should try doing something different this time. We don’t wanna repeat ourselves. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, Jess, I think actually an air balloon light bulb is already a beautiful idea. If I’m not mistaken, I think I did an illustration like this for you years ago. So, maybe we should try doing something different this time. We don’t wanna repeat ourselves. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: Yes, Yevgenia was right about this. I tracked down \u003ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/creating-urgency-around-corporate-innovation\">the illustration\u003c/a> from the Kellogg Insight archives. It appeared alongside a 2015 article on corporate innovation. And it featured someone riding through the sky in a lightbulb-shaped hot-air-balloon. Which is almost certainly why the idea formed instantly in my own mind.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: Yes, Yevgenia was right about this. I tracked down \u003ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/creating-urgency-around-corporate-innovation\">the illustration\u003c/a> from the Kellogg Insight archives. It appeared alongside a 2015 article on corporate innovation. And it featured someone riding through the sky in a lightbulb-shaped hot-air-balloon. Which is almost certainly why the idea formed instantly in my own mind.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>But what it did not have is the group of people underneath it, because this, I think, is something that would spoil this illustration. Because you really shouldn’t try to stuff all your ideas into a single illustration. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>But what it did not have is the group of people underneath it, because this, I think, is something that would spoil this illustration. Because you really shouldn’t try to stuff all your ideas into a single illustration. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But we can go in a completely direction as well. You mentioned brainstorming, so I think maybe using those words and turning them into something visual could work, like creating an actual brainstorm where, you know, that your brain is being blown away by the wind. And, that can actually push a story into kind of a funny territory instead of keeping it very serious, because normally when we say a brainstorm, we associate it with really serious, earnest scientists developing something.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But we can go in a completely direction as well. You mentioned brainstorming, so I think maybe using those words and turning them into something visual could work, like creating an actual brainstorm where, you know, that your brain is being blown away by the wind. And, that can actually push a story into kind of a funny territory instead of keeping it very serious, because normally when we say a brainstorm, we associate it with really serious, earnest scientists developing something.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But maybe I want to make a little joke and say, you know, “Hey, you can also brainstorm. You don’t have to be so serious about that.” So it also can change the mood of your article, the mood of your story a little bit.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But maybe I want to make a little joke and say, you know, “Hey, you can also brainstorm. You don’t have to be so serious about that.” So it also can change the mood of your article, the mood of your story a little bit.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And maybe we don’t, maybe you want to be super serious, and then you would reject this idea. But maybe you would say, “Hey, I really like it because we’ve done so many super serious articles. Let’s lighten up.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And maybe we don’t, maybe you want to be super serious, and then you would reject this idea. But maybe you would say, “Hey, I really like it because we’ve done so many super serious articles. Let’s lighten up.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Love it. That’s great. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Love it. That’s great. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Okay! So Yevgenia doesn’t just take an assignment and execute it. She thinks it through: The light bulb is cliche, but the hot air balloon idea is interesting. The hot air balloon is interesting, but the people underneath are weighing the idea down. Oh yeah, and because we have a history together, Yevgenia can tell me that we’ve done something really similar 11 years ago.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Okay! So Yevgenia doesn’t just take an assignment and execute it. She thinks it through: The light bulb is cliche, but the hot air balloon idea is interesting. The hot air balloon is interesting, but the people underneath are weighing the idea down. Oh yeah, and because we have a history together, Yevgenia can tell me that we’ve done something really similar 11 years ago.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Then she offers something completely different, playing off the idea of a storm. But really what she’s doing is asking a question about intent. What mood should the illustration create? Serious? Funny? Can the image change the way the reader experiences the story?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Then she offers something completely different, playing off the idea of a storm. But really what she’s doing is asking a question about intent. What mood should the illustration create? Serious? Funny? Can the image change the way the reader experiences the story?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Yevgenia is much more than a picture-making machine. She has a very finely honed, very unique way of seeing and depicting the world. As much as any technical skills, \u003cem>that’s\u003c/em> what I hired her to bring to the table. And \u003cem>that\u003c/em>, to me, at least – sounds like another bottleneck.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Yevgenia is much more than a picture-making machine. She has a very finely honed, very unique way of seeing and depicting the world. As much as any technical skills, \u003cem>that’s\u003c/em> what I hired her to bring to the table. And \u003cem>that\u003c/em>, to me, at least – sounds like another bottleneck.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So, for established artists like Yegvenia, this should be somewhat reassuring. But there’s still a problem. Nobody begins a career with fully formed artistic taste. That can take years to develop. And often, people develop it while doing smaller, more routine work. Like, maybe, selling their art on a stock image website. And if AI-generated art takes off, even in the most routine, commercial, transactional spaces, it could eventually shape the art we encounter elsewhere too.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So, for established artists like Yegvenia, this should be somewhat reassuring. But there’s still a problem. Nobody begins a career with fully formed artistic taste. That can take years to develop. And often, people develop it while doing smaller, more routine work. Like, maybe, selling their art on a stock image website. And if AI-generated art takes off, even in the most routine, commercial, transactional spaces, it could eventually shape the art we encounter elsewhere too.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>There is a dangerous territory when real humans, real artists will start to imitate AI if there is enough demand for AI art. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>There is a dangerous territory when real humans, real artists will start to imitate AI if there is enough demand for AI art. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia teaches young artists, and she’s been seeing this play out with her students. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia teaches young artists, and she’s been seeing this play out with her students. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>A lot of them are concerned with style and they all talk about style, and I couldn’t really understand what they meant because I thought– I kind of thought of style as voice, not so much as like a stylistic direction. Turns out they’re trying to pick a style and match it from what they see, let’s say, on Instagram. So there is a lot of sameness there already, and this is something that they’re trying to imitate in hopes of finding jobs maybe. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>A lot of them are concerned with style and they all talk about style, and I couldn’t really understand what they meant because I thought– I kind of thought of style as voice, not so much as like a stylistic direction. Turns out they’re trying to pick a style and match it from what they see, let’s say, on Instagram. So there is a lot of sameness there already, and this is something that they’re trying to imitate in hopes of finding jobs maybe. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> She thinks AI could be like Instagram on steroids, sending the same images into every artist’s collective consciousness. Yevgenia says she is \u003cem>all for \u003c/em>her students getting hired to make art. But this trend of homogenization and imitation – is troubling. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> She thinks AI could be like Instagram on steroids, sending the same images into every artist’s collective consciousness. Yevgenia says she is \u003cem>all for \u003c/em>her students getting hired to make art. But this trend of homogenization and imitation – is troubling. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> My primary job is to educate an artist, I want them to work obviously, and I would like to help them as much as possible. But again, I’d like to focus on developing their creativity and their uniqueness more than anything else. I always tell my students, you know, “make something worth stealing.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> My primary job is to educate an artist, I want them to work obviously, and I would like to help them as much as possible. But again, I’d like to focus on developing their creativity and their uniqueness more than anything else. I always tell my students, you know, “make something worth stealing.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>For an individual artist, having a unique voice ‘worth stealing’ can be the difference between mediocrity and greatness.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>For an individual artist, having a unique voice ‘worth stealing’ can be the difference between mediocrity and greatness.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And economist Ben Jones\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>says that everyone benefits from having more, unique, creative perspectives in the mix. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And economist Ben Jones\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>says that everyone benefits from having more, unique, creative perspectives in the mix. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>What we actually want is people reaching for very different types of things based on their different experiences, right? And so what’s interesting, one of the reasons that we think that, you know, a kind of a society with wide-ranging pockets of expertise, interests, cultural backgrounds, et cetera, can be extremely creative, is because people are coming at questions with different sort of perspectives and ideas. They’re even coming at different questions, ’cause the kind of questions that occur to one person might not occur to another, and that’s true in science and invention, it’s true in entrepreneurship. We don’t want everyone trying the same business model. We want people trying wildly different business models, and we’ll see which one the market takes. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>What we actually want is people reaching for very different types of things based on their different experiences, right? And so what’s interesting, one of the reasons that we think that, you know, a kind of a society with wide-ranging pockets of expertise, interests, cultural backgrounds, et cetera, can be extremely creative, is because people are coming at questions with different sort of perspectives and ideas. They’re even coming at different questions, ’cause the kind of questions that occur to one person might not occur to another, and that’s true in science and invention, it’s true in entrepreneurship. We don’t want everyone trying the same business model. We want people trying wildly different business models, and we’ll see which one the market takes. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>There’s real value in difference. In start-ups, in science, and in art. And if everyone begins from the same machine-generated suggestions, we could end up with more of everything—but very little that’s new, special, or unique.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>There’s real value in difference. In start-ups, in science, and in art. And if everyone begins from the same machine-generated suggestions, we could end up with more of everything—but very little that’s new, special, or unique.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So, this is the paradox: AI can generate a staggering number of possibilities, filling countless gaps in the marketplace. And yet, so much of what it produces feels… the same. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So, this is the paradox: AI can generate a staggering number of possibilities, filling countless gaps in the marketplace. And yet, so much of what it produces feels… the same. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>While AI-generated images and videos and books are running rampant in some artistic markets–plenty of people are just fine with elevator music, thank you very much–real novelty, real creativity, seems to be the purview of humans. Leaving human creative workers with an important role to play. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>While AI-generated images and videos and books are running rampant in some artistic markets–plenty of people are just fine with elevator music, thank you very much–real novelty, real creativity, seems to be the purview of humans. Leaving human creative workers with an important role to play. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Whew. That’s a relief.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Whew. That’s a relief.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So… is that the end? Should we play the ending music, roll the credits? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So… is that the end? Should we play the ending music, roll the credits? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Well, not so fast. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Well, not so fast. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This is where we stand on Labor Day 2026 sure, but if we know anything about AI tools, it’s that they can change fast. So what happens next? Where’s this all headed? Well, based on my conversations with scholars and artists, I can see three possible futures.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This is where we stand on Labor Day 2026 sure, but if we know anything about AI tools, it’s that they can change fast. So what happens next? Where’s this all headed? Well, based on my conversations with scholars and artists, I can see three possible futures.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>In the first timeline, things continue along the lines they are now. The machines do get better at generating art. Maybe AI-generated images get even more photorealistic, or maybe AI-generated writing sheds its telltale ticks – you know, those cringy buzzwords that scream, “I’m AI-generated!” \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>In the first timeline, things continue along the lines they are now. The machines do get better at generating art. Maybe AI-generated images get even more photorealistic, or maybe AI-generated writing sheds its telltale ticks – you know, those cringy buzzwords that scream, “I’m AI-generated!” \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But the improvements are really around the margins. And so genuine creativity remains a bottleneck protecting human creatives.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But the improvements are really around the margins. And so genuine creativity remains a bottleneck protecting human creatives.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But there’s a second timeline, and in this timeline, AI learns to be \u003cem>very\u003c/em> creative.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But there’s a second timeline, and in this timeline, AI learns to be \u003cem>very\u003c/em> creative.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Ben sees this possible future as pretty likely. Because new ideas rarely emerge out of the blue. They are often composed of existing ingredients, just combined in new ways. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Ben sees this possible future as pretty likely. Because new ideas rarely emerge out of the blue. They are often composed of existing ingredients, just combined in new ways. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>In many, many fields, people have separately discovered that creativity often looks like a new combination of things that already existed. So, for example, Thomas Edison did not call the light bulb, at first, the light bulb. He called it the electric candle because he was taking the candle, which was an old technology, and electricity, which was a new technology, and combining them.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>In many, many fields, people have separately discovered that creativity often looks like a new combination of things that already existed. So, for example, Thomas Edison did not call the light bulb, at first, the light bulb. He called it the electric candle because he was taking the candle, which was an old technology, and electricity, which was a new technology, and combining them.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And if you look at many, many ideas, it’s very natural to decompose them into distinct components—to unleash a big insight in science, or to produce a new product or process that we can all use. So that idea is very common, you see it in the arts and music and invention and science.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And if you look at many, many ideas, it’s very natural to decompose them into distinct components—to unleash a big insight in science, or to produce a new product or process that we can all use. So that idea is very common, you see it in the arts and music and invention and science.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> By this definition, AI should actually have a creative advantage. A single person can only encounter and understand so many possible ingredients in a lifetime. \u003cem>We\u003c/em> have to specialize. AI has a much more vast palette to draw from.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> By this definition, AI should actually have a creative advantage. A single person can only encounter and understand so many possible ingredients in a lifetime. \u003cem>We\u003c/em> have to specialize. AI has a much more vast palette to draw from.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>What’s been interesting about AI, of course, is that AI reads everything. So anyone who’s been interacting with AI sort of sees like, “Wow, I can talk to this AI about just about anything, and right around the edges of my understanding about things I kind of understand, about things I know nothing about, and it seems to know a lot about a lot of stuff.” So in some sense, at that core level of being able to access ingredients that you can combine with seemingly some sophisticated understanding of those ingredients, AI is pretty impressive. And so in that sense, I think it has in some sense, beyond human creative potential. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>What’s been interesting about AI, of course, is that AI reads everything. So anyone who’s been interacting with AI sort of sees like, “Wow, I can talk to this AI about just about anything, and right around the edges of my understanding about things I kind of understand, about things I know nothing about, and it seems to know a lot about a lot of stuff.” So in some sense, at that core level of being able to access ingredients that you can combine with seemingly some sophisticated understanding of those ingredients, AI is pretty impressive. And so in that sense, I think it has in some sense, beyond human creative potential. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Given the vast range of ingredients AI can draw from, you might expect it to already produce endlessly surprising combinations. And Ben says theoretically, it one day could. If it were trained completely differently from how most chatbots are trained today.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Given the vast range of ingredients AI can draw from, you might expect it to already produce endlessly surprising combinations. And Ben says theoretically, it one day could. If it were trained completely differently from how most chatbots are trained today.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>When you talk like a general purpose, chatbot or whatever, say ChatGPT, it’s sort of trained to produce the right answer, predicting the next token in some probabilistic way that it thinks is most likely to be right. And by predicting the thing that’s sort of most likely to be right all the time, that sounds like you’re homogenizing. It’s not going for the strange answer, right? It’s trying typically to please you by giving you what you want, and what most people want is not some wildly creative answer. They want the right answer. But that’s of course very much about how they were trained. I mean, those chatbots are optimized to do exactly that. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>When you talk like a general purpose, chatbot or whatever, say ChatGPT, it’s sort of trained to produce the right answer, predicting the next token in some probabilistic way that it thinks is most likely to be right. And by predicting the thing that’s sort of most likely to be right all the time, that sounds like you’re homogenizing. It’s not going for the strange answer, right? It’s trying typically to please you by giving you what you want, and what most people want is not some wildly creative answer. They want the right answer. But that’s of course very much about how they were trained. I mean, those chatbots are optimized to do exactly that. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But there could be other algorithms that we could use to train AI. It’s like, let’s say we’re training an AI, and we’re having people rate whether it was really interesting scientifically. Not whether it was right, but whether it was novel. Or novel and right. So I think that there is a world in which AI, and it may come quickly, or not, where AI can be quite creative.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But there could be other algorithms that we could use to train AI. It’s like, let’s say we’re training an AI, and we’re having people rate whether it was really interesting scientifically. Not whether it was right, but whether it was novel. Or novel and right. So I think that there is a world in which AI, and it may come quickly, or not, where AI can be quite creative.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>In this world, this second possible future, where the AI companies spend millions, billions, to train up AI that’s really, really creative. In this future, the creativity bottleneck protecting human artists disappears.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>In this world, this second possible future, where the AI companies spend millions, billions, to train up AI that’s really, really creative. In this future, the creativity bottleneck protecting human artists disappears.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Some kinds of creative work, live performances, personal memoir, handmade furniture, are probably still safe. But this timeline does leave many other artists really vulnerable, particularly those who distribute their work on digital marketplaces.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Some kinds of creative work, live performances, personal memoir, handmade furniture, are probably still safe. But this timeline does leave many other artists really vulnerable, particularly those who distribute their work on digital marketplaces.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But even here, there is a bottleneck that could come into play.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But even here, there is a bottleneck that could come into play.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Not a technical bottleneck—something the machine is incapable of doing—or even a legal one, like copyright protection or human likeness permission.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Not a technical bottleneck—something the machine is incapable of doing—or even a legal one, like copyright protection or human likeness permission.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>A normative bottleneck: a limit people try to impose collectively, by deciding what kinds of creative work they are willing to accept and reward, often for ethical or even almost spiritual reasons.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>A normative bottleneck: a limit people try to impose collectively, by deciding what kinds of creative work they are willing to accept and reward, often for ethical or even almost spiritual reasons.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>We’re already seeing this now. Many of my artist friends have adopted a kind of “hold the line” mentality against generative AI, in part because they sense that using AI is a betrayal to the artistic community.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>We’re already seeing this now. Many of my artist friends have adopted a kind of “hold the line” mentality against generative AI, in part because they sense that using AI is a betrayal to the artistic community.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> Well, there is an ethical component, because AI is being trained on real artists. It’s basically being trained on us. And, of course, none of us enjoys that. None of us gave permission to have our art used by AI.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> Well, there is an ethical component, because AI is being trained on real artists. It’s basically being trained on us. And, of course, none of us enjoys that. None of us gave permission to have our art used by AI.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: To the extent that science writing can be considered art – I feel this. It’s pretty likely that a decade of my own science writing was scraped from the web and used to train AI models. Nobody asked me for permission, and I certainly didn’t give it. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: To the extent that science writing can be considered art – I feel this. It’s pretty likely that a decade of my own science writing was scraped from the web and used to train AI models. Nobody asked me for permission, and I certainly didn’t give it. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> I would rather have this be at the discretion of every artist—if they want their work to be released into the AI world. I would not want AI to be trained on my work, honestly. Because all of us have our own little tricks and secrets, and I would like to keep them to myself.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> I would rather have this be at the discretion of every artist—if they want their work to be released into the AI world. I would not want AI to be trained on my work, honestly. Because all of us have our own little tricks and secrets, and I would like to keep them to myself.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Some artists believe that the best way to fight back against a technology they didn’t ask for is to reject it altogether, in all forms.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Some artists believe that the best way to fight back against a technology they didn’t ask for is to reject it altogether, in all forms.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Other creatives draw the line differently. Maybe AI can be used for research, but not execution. Or maybe it can be used for execution, but only in a specific way, as part of a rigorous, intentional process.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Other creatives draw the line differently. Maybe AI can be used for research, but not execution. Or maybe it can be used for execution, but only in a specific way, as part of a rigorous, intentional process.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Wherever this line is drawn – and I expect this to be vehemently contested over the next several years, the normative bottleneck is about \u003cem>process\u003c/em>. Not just \u003cem>what\u003c/em> is made, but \u003cem>how\u003c/em> something is made.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Wherever this line is drawn – and I expect this to be vehemently contested over the next several years, the normative bottleneck is about \u003cem>process\u003c/em>. Not just \u003cem>what\u003c/em> is made, but \u003cem>how\u003c/em> something is made.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Earlier this year, the fantasy novelist Brandon Sanderson made this argument explicit in a keynote address called “We Are the Art.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Earlier this year, the fantasy novelist Brandon Sanderson made this argument explicit in a keynote address called “We Are the Art.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Brandon Sanderson]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Brandon Sanderson]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem> The machines can spit out manuscript after manuscript after manuscript. They can pile them to the pillars of heaven itself, but all we have to do is say no. If we do, they lose. Why do we make art? Well, remember, art is not just the story. It is not just the painting or the sculpture or whatever else you love to create. It’s also the process of creation and what that process did to you. We are the art. Thank you.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem> The machines can spit out manuscript after manuscript after manuscript. They can pile them to the pillars of heaven itself, but all we have to do is say no. If we do, they lose. Why do we make art? Well, remember, art is not just the story. It is not just the painting or the sculpture or whatever else you love to create. It’s also the process of creation and what that process did to you. We are the art. Thank you.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Whether this kind of resistance, this \u003cem>normative\u003c/em> bottleneck can hold will depend on getting others on board. Getting others to agree that part of the value of human art is that it was created by another human being. Someone who felt something, or saw the world in a certain way, and labored to share it with us. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Whether this kind of resistance, this \u003cem>normative\u003c/em> bottleneck can hold will depend on getting others on board. Getting others to agree that part of the value of human art is that it was created by another human being. Someone who felt something, or saw the world in a certain way, and labored to share it with us. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But there’s a third possible future here, one that doesn’t solely rely on social norms around creativity. In this possible future, whether AI becomes more creative or not, people using AI become capable of doing new things that neither humans nor AI could have done alone. Maybe AI becomes yet another tool for human artists. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But there’s a third possible future here, one that doesn’t solely rely on social norms around creativity. In this possible future, whether AI becomes more creative or not, people using AI become capable of doing new things that neither humans nor AI could have done alone. Maybe AI becomes yet another tool for human artists. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You’ve seen this before: the camera. Photoshop. The electric synthesizer. All these were controversial in their time, often for devaluing certain hard-won skills, like painting in a painstaking, hyper-realistic style, or learning to play the french horn. But today most artists would probably agree that the new tools created new possibilities. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You’ve seen this before: the camera. Photoshop. The electric synthesizer. All these were controversial in their time, often for devaluing certain hard-won skills, like painting in a painstaking, hyper-realistic style, or learning to play the french horn. But today most artists would probably agree that the new tools created new possibilities. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Or maybe AI really is different. Maybe it becomes a kind of thought partner. The machine proposes new ingredients we might never have produced on our own. Not unlike a colleague emailing us an article we might find interesting. Here’s Ben again.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Or maybe AI really is different. Maybe it becomes a kind of thought partner. The machine proposes new ingredients we might never have produced on our own. Not unlike a colleague emailing us an article we might find interesting. Here’s Ben again.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>Maybe when you’re writing, it’s, it’s a collaborator, right? I mean, maybe it’s not a replacement, it’s like another voice on your team. And suddenly you’re getting a higher quality product. And it could be that you’re making a screenplay, you’re writing an article, you’re writing a song, and suddenly it’s better for your collaboration with the AI, but they’re not actually taking full control.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>Maybe when you’re writing, it’s, it’s a collaborator, right? I mean, maybe it’s not a replacement, it’s like another voice on your team. And suddenly you’re getting a higher quality product. And it could be that you’re making a screenplay, you’re writing an article, you’re writing a song, and suddenly it’s better for your collaboration with the AI, but they’re not actually taking full control.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>In this scenario, we humans use our own creative judgment to run with whichever combination of ingredients seems like it has the most potential. Here, you could even think of “creative judgment” as its own bottleneck.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>In this scenario, we humans use our own creative judgment to run with whichever combination of ingredients seems like it has the most potential. Here, you could even think of “creative judgment” as its own bottleneck.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>You need true expertise around the set of ingredients to understand which combinations are likely or not to be useful. You don’t just randomly put ingredients together in the kitchen. It’s not gonna taste very good. There’s some milk here, and there’s some orange juice, and how about this banana? And look, it’s all spice in the spice rack, you know? And then, oh, and is that chicken? You know, that’s not gonna go very well, right? And pretty much everyone sort of knows that. There’s many, many, many, many possible combinations. But we kind of know instinctually not to try many of them because we know they’re probably not gonna be good.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>You need true expertise around the set of ingredients to understand which combinations are likely or not to be useful. You don’t just randomly put ingredients together in the kitchen. It’s not gonna taste very good. There’s some milk here, and there’s some orange juice, and how about this banana? And look, it’s all spice in the spice rack, you know? And then, oh, and is that chicken? You know, that’s not gonna go very well, right? And pretty much everyone sort of knows that. There’s many, many, many, many possible combinations. But we kind of know instinctually not to try many of them because we know they’re probably not gonna be good.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Even Yevgenia, who I should stress continues to do all of her art by hand, can see the value in this kind of collaboration–if done right, if used as more of a jumping off point than the ultimate destination. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Even Yevgenia, who I should stress continues to do all of her art by hand, can see the value in this kind of collaboration–if done right, if used as more of a jumping off point than the ultimate destination. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> You can give AI prompts and say, “Okay, give me all these variations of the light bulb in the field and in the pool.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> You can give AI prompts and say, “Okay, give me all these variations of the light bulb in the field and in the pool.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And once it does it, you can say, “No, this is a really stupid idea. Why don’t you try something else?” And you can see what it tries, and you can maybe find something there? So I can see using AI as this little, average-minded, ordinary partner—and then that can spark something in you, in your imagination. It can generate more ideas from us, in a way, because we are competing intellectually with something.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And once it does it, you can say, “No, this is a really stupid idea. Why don’t you try something else?” And you can see what it tries, and you can maybe find something there? So I can see using AI as this little, average-minded, ordinary partner—and then that can spark something in you, in your imagination. It can generate more ideas from us, in a way, because we are competing intellectually with something.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So those are our three scenarios. AI kind of stalls out creatively or AI actually can do everything humans can do, but cheaper and better. And then we have to decide whether we \u003cem>want\u003c/em> to preserve a role for human creativity. Or, AI and humans collaborate to \u003cem>do \u003c/em>entirely new things.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So those are our three scenarios. AI kind of stalls out creatively or AI actually can do everything humans can do, but cheaper and better. And then we have to decide whether we \u003cem>want\u003c/em> to preserve a role for human creativity. Or, AI and humans collaborate to \u003cem>do \u003c/em>entirely new things.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Let’s all level-set for a second by noting that lots of people want to be artists, and it’s really, really hard. Already. It’s very hard to make a living as an actor, a musician, an artist, even without computers. Right? And there’s something deeply human about wanting to create and be an artist. And I would say, to be an economist for a second, the demand for their services is lower than the supply of people who would like to do it. So there are many long-suffering artists out there. Does AI make long-suffering artists even more suffering?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Let’s all level-set for a second by noting that lots of people want to be artists, and it’s really, really hard. Already. It’s very hard to make a living as an actor, a musician, an artist, even without computers. Right? And there’s something deeply human about wanting to create and be an artist. And I would say, to be an economist for a second, the demand for their services is lower than the supply of people who would like to do it. So there are many long-suffering artists out there. Does AI make long-suffering artists even more suffering?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Even long-suffering-er.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Even long-suffering-er.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Long-suffering-er. That’s a word. And I think it could. And it could be because it replaces their output. It’s a cheaper way to produce something people want. On the other hand, maybe AI makes artists more able to do things at lower cost themselves. Maybe it’s a tool, it’s an augmentation, not a replacement. So I think it’s an open question which way it goes. It probably does quite a bit of both. And we’ll have to see. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Long-suffering-er. That’s a word. And I think it could. And it could be because it replaces their output. It’s a cheaper way to produce something people want. On the other hand, maybe AI makes artists more able to do things at lower cost themselves. Maybe it’s a tool, it’s an augmentation, not a replacement. So I think it’s an open question which way it goes. It probably does quite a bit of both. And we’ll have to see. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>A bit of both. Maybe this is the most likely possible future of all. Maybe we get all these timelines happening at once, in different parts of the creative economy. AI replacing artists, AI assisting artists, and AI just getting out of the way, to let artists do their very \u003cem>human\u003c/em> thing.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>A bit of both. Maybe this is the most likely possible future of all. Maybe we get all these timelines happening at once, in different parts of the creative economy. AI replacing artists, AI assisting artists, and AI just getting out of the way, to let artists do their very \u003cem>human\u003c/em> thing.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity, at the Kellogg School of Management, at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity, at the Kellogg School of Management, at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Today’s show was produced by Steven Jackson and Jesse Dukes. Music by Steven Jackson and Neutral Propulsion Laboratory. Recording help from Will Feeney, George Christensen, Laura Pavin and Big Lake Recording Company. Administrative support, recording, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger, who we’re going to miss very much.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Today’s show was produced by Steven Jackson and Jesse Dukes. Music by Steven Jackson and Neutral Propulsion Laboratory. Recording help from Will Feeney, George Christensen, Laura Pavin and Big Lake Recording Company. Administrative support, recording, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger, who we’re going to miss very much.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Morgan Sung: \u003c/strong>That was Life, Automated, a new KQED podcast about how life is being shaped by machines. Thanks to their team for sharing this story with us. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Morgan Sung: \u003c/strong>That was Life, Automated, a new KQED podcast about how life is being shaped by machines. Thanks to their team for sharing this story with us. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Check back in next week for a new story from Close All Tabs about the fuzzy borders between real and digital life. We’ll see you next week.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Check back in next week for a new story from Close All Tabs about the fuzzy borders between real and digital life. We’ll see you next week.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
}
],
"excerpt": "AI can quickly generate new images, stories, and songs. Life, Automated explores what this means for human creators. ",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1790184171,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 176,
"wordCount": 8339
},
"headData": {
"title": "AI, Artists, and the Future of Creative Work from Life, Automated | Close All Tabs Presents | KQED",
"description": "While the Close All Tabs team churns out our next few episodes, we bring you this must-listen from Life, Automated. Generative AI is able to conjure new images, stories, and songs at lightning speed. So what does this mean for humans artists, storytellers and musicians? Life, Automated Host Jess Love explores what happens when AI enters creative markets. We learn that, at least today, key bottlenecks prevent AI from replicating some aspects of creativity. But there’s no guarantee those bottlenecks will exist tomorrow, raising vital questions about what we value in human labor. Life, Automated is a series about how to live, work and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. It is a production of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management and it is distributed by KQED.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"socialDescription": "While the Close All Tabs team churns out our next few episodes, we bring you this must-listen from Life, Automated. Generative AI is able to conjure new images, stories, and songs at lightning speed. So what does this mean for humans artists, storytellers and musicians? Life, Automated Host Jess Love explores what happens when AI enters creative markets. We learn that, at least today, key bottlenecks prevent AI from replicating some aspects of creativity. But there’s no guarantee those bottlenecks will exist tomorrow, raising vital questions about what we value in human labor. Life, Automated is a series about how to live, work and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. It is a production of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management and it is distributed by KQED.",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "AI, Artists, and the Future of Creative Work from Life, Automated | Close All Tabs Presents",
"datePublished": "2026-09-23T03:00:00-07:00",
"dateModified": "2026-09-23T10:22:51-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 33520,
"slug": "podcast",
"name": "Podcast"
},
"source": "Close All Tabs",
"sourceUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/closealltabs",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC4449170144.mp3",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12101055",
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12101055/ai-artists-and-the-future-of-creative-work-from-life-automated-close-all-tabs-presents",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003cem>View the full episode transcript.\u003c/em>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>While the Close All Tabs team churns out our next few episodes, we bring you this must-listen from \u003cem>Life, Automated\u003c/em>. Generative AI is able to conjure new images, stories, and songs at lightning speed. So what does this mean for humans artists, storytellers and musicians? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Life, Automated\u003c/em> Host Jess Love explores what happens when AI enters creative markets. We learn that, at least today, key bottlenecks prevent AI from replicating some aspects of creativity. But there’s no guarantee those bottlenecks will exist tomorrow, raising vital questions about what we value in human labor.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Life, Automated\u003c/em> is a series about how to live, work and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. It is a production of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management and it is distributed by KQED.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Host and Senior Director: Jess Love\u003cbr>Producer: Steven Jackson \u003cbr>Senior Producer: Jesse Dukes\u003cbr>Music: Steven Jackson\u003cbr>Associate Producer: Stacia Sliger\u003cbr>Recording: George Christensen, Will Feeney\u003cbr>Promotional help from Ananya Mallapragada and Charlotte Simmons.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">\u003cstrong>Guests:\u003c/strong>\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\u003cli>Ben Jones, economist, co-director of the Ryan Institute on Complexity \u003c/li>\n\n\n\n\u003cli>Sam Goldberg, assistant professor of marketing, Stanford\u003c/li>\n\n\n\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://nayberg.org/work\">Yevgenia Nayberg\u003c/a>, artist, illustrator, children’s book author\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">\u003cstrong>Further Reading/Listening:\u003c/strong>\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://url.us.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/PrZSCYEM4NtmO7opi0fJJixcsaA?domain=papers.ssrn.com\">Generative AI & Creative Goods: Market Expansion, Crowd-out, and Copyright\u003c/a> — Samuel Goldberg, \u003cem>Stanford Graduate School of Business\u003c/em>\u003c/li>\n\n\n\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news/blog/2026/08/12/life-automated/\">‘Life, Automated’ explores how AI is reshaping our world\u003c/a> — Roger Anderson, \u003cem>Northwestern Kellogg\u003c/em>\u003c/li>\n\n\n\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/lifeautomated\">Life, Automated Podcast\u003c/a> — \u003cem>KQED\u003c/em>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Want to give us feedback on the show? Shoot us an email at \u003ca href=\"mailto:CloseAllTabs@KQED.org\">CloseAllTabs@KQED.org\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Follow us on \u003ca href=\"https://www.instagram.com/closealltabspod/\">Instagram\u003c/a> and\u003ca href=\"https://www.tiktok.com/@closealltabs\">\u003c/a> \u003ca href=\"https://www.tiktok.com/@closealltabs\">TikTok\u003c/a>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-content post-body\">\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Morgan Sung: \u003c/strong>Hello! Do you like these deep dives? Do you want more? Then please rate and review Close All Tabs on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to the show! And tell your friends! Post about it! On Instagram, Bluesky, X, Discord, Reddit, the comments of whatever random recipe blog you start arguments in. Basically, it would be a huge help to get the word out. Ok, let’s get to the show.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Hey Tabbies, The Close All Tabs team is busy churning out our next few episodes. And they’re bangers, I promise. In the meantime, we had to drop you a peek into this new podcast, Life Automated. It’s distributed by KQED, where this show is made, and it also covers big ideas about how technology is shaping our world.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Their most recent episode about AI and creative work is a must-listen. Now that Generative AI can crank out images, stories, and even songs, what does that mean for humans like us, who do that for a living?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The economists and artists in this episode of Life, Automated\u003cem> \u003c/em>help us understand the aspects of creativity that can’t\u003cem>e\u003c/em>asily be replicated by AI. At least for now. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, while the creative workers at Close All Tabs are talking and typing in real life to bring you more stories about the digital world. Here’s that Life Automated episode: “AI, Artists, and the Future of Creative Work.” \u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore all the ways technology is changing how we live, work, and make decisions.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Think about the tractor… The washing machine, The calculator. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>For a long time, the promise of machines that automate labor was that they would take over the repetitive, dangerous or tedious work; and leave people free to do the things humans are supposed to be best at. You know, to imagine. Communicate. Invent. Make art or music. But it seems like AI might be coming for creative work as well.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>One sector on notice is the entertainment industry. The Writers guild recently bargained for contract language limiting the use of AI writing in screenplays. The Animation Guild recently projected losses of about 20% of animation and visual effects jobs. And SAG-AFTRA, a big actors and writers union, has been in ongoing negotiations to try to prevent human actors from being replaced by AI: \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Fran Drescher]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>I don’t subscribe to putting people out of work. I think what’s happening in the entertainment industry is a microcosm of what happening throughout the United States of America whereby workers are being replaced by artificial intelligence, and what is that about actually\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But it’s not just Hollywood. Writers, illustrators, journalists, composers, architects — even scientists who design experiments, they’re all on alert, wondering whether and how AI will impact the work they \u003cem>love\u003c/em> to do. It’s a question I’ve been wrestling with myself, as a science writer and self described “creative worker” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So today, we’ll be tackling that question, and instead of hearing from just one guest, we have a few: including an economist who studied what happened when generative AI entered one particular creative market.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>All of this generative AI production is entering, it’s filling up those markets, and the non-generative AI artists end up having to exit the market because they’re no longer profitable.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> As well as a working artist\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> I think we will adapt. I’m not sure how yet. I can’t predict the future, but I know it’s your personal voice that will set you apart always.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But first, if you listened to our kickoff episode — back in July, you’ll remember Economist Ben Jones. Ben is my colleague at the Ryan Institute on Complexity where he studies innovation. And, I’m going to start with a short flashback to that conversation, because something he said is really helpful for thinking about the future of creative work. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>See, Ben has been thinking about automation and its impact on jobs for a long time. He says that instead of obsessing over all the things AI can suddenly do really well, we should spend more time focusing on what it can’t do, at least not yet. Ben calls these things – bottlenecks. I’m Jess Love, this is Life, Automated. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Okay, so can you talk to us about what a bottleneck is and why it’s so important?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong> Well, of course it’s a metaphor from a bottle and what do we know about bottles? We know that the speed at which water or wine will flow from the bottle, depends on the width of the neck. Doesn’t really depend on how big the bottle is otherwise, how much wine there is in it, or how big the base is. It really just depends on the neck and in many processes in the economy and in the economy overall, it looks like there are certain things that have to happen that act as bottlenecks. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Much of the economy has that flavor where it’s not how good you are at a lot of things. What’s really sort of determining the rate of the economy is the things we’re quite slow at, the things we’re not very good at. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: In other words, even if some parts of a system get really, really fast and easy, it’s the slowest parts of the system, the parts most difficult to automate, that will determine just how much the system overall changes. As an example from his own job, Ben points to statistical regressions, which computers do incredibly well much better than humans.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>. If I were to run a regression by hand, with a large number of observations, it would take me literally my entire life. And I would make mistakes. You know, my computer can do a regression with a million data points in a-minute.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong> Yeah. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong> And so we have these technologies that basically are infinitely better than us to do these tasks that are really important to what we do. And then you can ask, okay, well, has our understanding of economics or astronomy or physics multiplied by a similar factor? And you’d say ‘no’, because although we can do certain things really, really, really incredibly well, other things are holding us back. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> For scientific researchers, these ‘other things’ might be collecting the right data, or building the instruments to collect the right data, or even waiting for the perfect set of circumstances to emerge that would let us interpret that data. Like the collapse of an economy, or the collision of two stars in a particular spot in the sky. Until scientists can push past these bottlenecks, all the statistical regressions in the world will only teach them so much.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I find Ben’s framework a useful way to think about AI’s impact on any kind of work, creative or otherwise. Most people’s jobs involve a bunch of different tasks. AI might get really good at some of them, but tasks it still struggles with – the bottlenecks, really determine the overall pace of change, as well as where humans can still contribute. And get paid to do so. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So, the big takeaway for creative workers: Find the stuff AI can’t do. But what do these bottlenecks look like in creative markets in particular? And would they actually allow writers, artists, and other creative workers to still do that work? Well, it turns out that there’s somebody who has been studying this very thing. Specifically, how AI has impacted stock image websites. Those sell ready-made photos and illustrations that appear in ads, presentations, websites, and articles. Say you’re making an ad for productivity software. Maybe you purchase a stock image of people shaking hands in a conference room, or a woman smiling at her computer screen, or a well-dressed man gazing thoughtfully into the distance, perhaps wondering. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>Stock images, why do we care about these things, right? It’s not a particularly large market. It’s definitely sort of a niche commoditized good. Why is this somewhere where we wanna study AI? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>This is Sam Goldberg. He teaches marketing at Stanford, where he also studies how technology changes markets and consumer behavior. And he says the stock-image market offers an unusually crisp view of what happens when AI-generated work begins competing directly with work made by people.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>So back, you know, a few years ago, they were one of the first markets where we saw really capable AI come to artists, and be able to be used to produce really high-quality images.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>For years, human artists made stock images and uploaded them to online marketplaces. Then those marketplaces began accepting AI-generated work. Suddenly, images made by people were sitting beside images that could be generated by machines, almost instantly, at enormous scale. And because the platform Sam studied required artists to clearly label which images were AI-generated, he could watch the transition in really fine detail.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>And so what that means in practice is that after the platform allows generative AI to enter the market, I can see both how non-generative AI artists respond, as well as how generative AI enters the market and what types of images it produces. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So here’s how it used to work. Customers would comb through these websites, going through image after image, until they find one that is “close enough”. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>I guess the right way to think about it is each individual might have a very specific taste for something, and so when they were trying to find a stock image, they would make some sort of compromise, right? So they would say, “Oh, I’m looking for an image of a tennis ball, and I want an image of a tennis ball in motion,” right? They could go to the stock image website, they’d look up that keyword, and they’d find, you know, maybe pre-generative AI, a couple hundred different versions of that image, right? Maybe none of them are perfect, but one of them’s good enough, and they took it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Right\u003cstrong>. \u003c/strong>So maybe your article is about playing tennis in the rain, and so you would love to have a tennis ball that’s kind of covered in water. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Penetrating water droplets.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Right. And then that is the kind of thing that just doesn’t exist, so maybe you just get a tennis ball in isolation, and that’s good enough. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Exactly. And so in the pre-generative AI world, you know, you were making some compromises with respect to that, oftentimes at least. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> But along comes generative AI, with free or cheap image generators where you can literally tell it: I want a wet tennis ball, resting on a bench, with water beading on it. And it will give you a pretty good version of that exact image. So what happens when a stock image market starts accepting these hyper-specific AI-generated images?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>What actually happens in this market is, generative AI enters, the market expands greatly, so there’s a lot more images on the platform. That should probably be pretty intuitive. But not only do more images enter the market, more customers do as well. More images are being purchased and they like the generative AI images because it turns out they’re actually pretty high quality.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So I can see how this is good for me as a consumer. I finally have the perfect raindrop-covered tennis ball for my editorial feature. And I can see how this is good for the platform itself, at least in the short term. What happens to the artists? And I guess I would ask both the artists using generative AI and those who are not. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah, it’s a good question, and I think you are correct in your intuition here that it does seem like it’s probably pretty good for consumers. It does seem like it’s probably pretty good for the platform, at least in the short run. The artist side I think is a little bit more complicated right? Let me walk you through what happens after generative AI enters the platform, and then we can talk about the implications for artists.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. So what happens is production goes way up. All right? By over 100% more production, so enormous increases in production here. Second, more artists participate in the market. So we see a lot of new artists enter the stock image market. Of course, that overflow of new artists hides a different fact, which is non-generative AI artists exit. Okay? So they stop producing. So we see a reduction in non-generative AI production, as well as a reduction in the number of non-generative AI artists who are participating on the platform.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>What we call that in the paper is sort of a little bit of a crowding out effect. So what’s happening is all of this generative AI production is entering, it’s filling up demand, it’s filling up those markets, and the non-generative AI artists end up having to exit the market because they’re no longer profitable.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So, pretty bad news for a lot of artists who choose to keep making images the old way. But, Sam also found a bottleneck. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong> What the stock image market sells is not quite images. What the stock image market sells is indemnification, which is to say if the buyer of the image uses it and gets in trouble, so someone says, “Hey, you can’t use that image. That’s copyrighted,” and tries to sue the buyer, the platform says, “You can’t sue the buyer. We’re responsible.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh, fascinating. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay, and so that’s really important here because if you were to produce that image yourself using a generative model, you could be subject to some sorts of liability for using, for example, copyrighted work in the training of those models.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Got that? AI-generated images are a bit of a legal gray area right now. For one, most of the biggest AI models were trained on data that included copyrighted works. And it’s also unclear which new AI-generated works can get copyright protection.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Anyway, given this uncertainty, you might choose to purchase an AI-generated image from this market rather than just whip up one yourself because you want the legal protection that this affords you.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And, it turns out that getting this legal protection works a little differently for images that have a human in them. When artists submit images with humans in them, they also need to fill out paperwork showing that they have permission to use those people’s likenesses. This paperwork is \u003cem>not\u003c/em> something the AI can easily produce. And so voila! We have less crowding-out for images containing people than for images of, say, tennis balls. And there it is! Our bottleneck!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Unfortunately, it’s pretty uninspiring: paperwork. Still, in Sam’s study, it was something the machines couldn’t easily replace, and that did allow human creators to survive in that particular corner of the “stock image” market. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Stepping back, Sam’s findings are stark. AI gave customers a ton more image choices. It helped the market grow. And, it pushed a lot of human artists out. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So one read of your study is that AI-generated art is great for everybody but many of the artists. And I just wanna ask, is a world without artists really great for consumers? Is that really what consumers want? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah. So I definitely do not take a strong opinion about if generative AI art is good or bad, right? I think the data suggests that consumers like the generative AI art. They purchase it, and they are willing to purchase it. And so to the extent that they are willing to purchase it, that seems an improvement basically. Now, in the long run, does that mean that we want a world with no human creativity? I don’t think so, and I don’t have, you know, good data to speak to that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I mean, certainly anecdotally, we hear people saying they don’t like AI content. Intuitively, I think you might expect more of that backlash in creative goods markets that are a little bit more emotional or sincere. So for example, you see a lot more of this when people listen to AI-generated music. Or like YouTube even, like creative shorts. Stock images are, are a product being used for a purpose, in a way that, I think is a little different. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: So the pressure on human artists that Sam saw in the stock image market… we don’t really know how much they’ll translate to other creative markets.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Particularly those where people could be looking for something harder to just generate on demand: a unique interpretation, emotional resonance, a point of view, maybe even a relationship with the person making the work.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So to learn more, I spoke with an artist who has spent much of her career making these \u003cem>other\u003c/em> kinds of images.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>There are people who are absolutely happy with elevator music and people that go to concerts. And, I think for the elevator music art lovers type, I’m sure AI could be satisfactory. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>That’s coming up. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is Life, Automated, I’m Jess Love. And I’m talking to the artist Yevgenia Nayberg.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Can you talk about the different lanes of art that you make?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I started as a fine artist, so to speak. I’m a painter and so I paint large scale pieces. But also I crossed over pretty early into theater design, set and costume design, and illustration. And about 10 years ago, I also started writing my own books, picture books mostly. And so right now I’m focusing on being an author and picture book illustrator, and a graphic novel illustrator and writer.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, so I really should have asked that question differently. I should have said, “What kinds of art do you \u003cem>not\u003c/em> make?” And then maybe we would’ve gotten through that answer more quickly. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia is also someone I’ve worked with. Years ago, when I was working as a magazine editor, I hired her to illustrate some articles. Her work is way more distinctive and conceptually ambitious than anything you’d find on a stock-image website. But it is still commercial art: made for a client, on a deadline, to serve a particular purpose. So I wanted to know whether she saw her own corner of the creative economy as vulnerable to the same forces Sam observed.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>What do you think about generative AI making art?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I’m not afraid of AI. I know there is a lot of worry amongst artists about it, and I just think it’s probably eventually going to be another tool. I don’t necessarily think that right now AI has the capabilities real, non-artificial artists have. So not afraid at this point.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>What about the idea that whether or not this work is as good as what a human could do, it might nonetheless be good enough to somehow compete with human art or human work, either because of discoverability, so with a, flood of lower quality AI images out in the world, it becomes harder to actually find the good ones done by humans or because some of the people who might want to hire artists are pretty comfortable, just generating something for themselves for free?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I’m sure there are going to be people like that. There are people who are absolutely happy with elevator music and people that go to concerts. And, I think for the elevator music art lovers type, I’m sure AI could be satisfactory. But I don’t know if you remember in the ’90s when all of this, you know, flood of stock art happened, everyone was using this image of a little light bulb above a person’s head when they wanted to describe an idea.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>If you have an idea, all you draw that bulb, and I think that’s the kind of thinking that I see from AI at this point. So it does create some metaphors, but those metaphors are very trite. If my students do this kind of work, I stop them and I tell them, “Look how many people have already done this hypothetical light bulb.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I think because AI sort of collects all these similar ideas and then generates as a result, it’s a very banal result, and I’m not interested in that, and I don’t think my clients, the kind of clients that I work with, are interested in those very typical, ordinary ideas. So I can do better than that at this point, for now.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia sees a real difference between the illustration work she does, for specific clients, and the broad, commercial stock image market.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>I think what illustration, conceptual illustration does is that it creates a second track to the story. So instead of illustrating something literally, it adds to the story. It can take the story and it can create this interesting creative tension between the illustration and the story, heightening the story in a certain way. So I think with stocks, you often lack that. It’s very hard to prompt an image bank to generate something like this. Even if you search for an image that will fit the story. Fitting the story is one thing. Elevating the story is a completely different thing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voicover]\u003c/strong>: Well yeah, an image that elevates a story does seem a lot better than one that merely “fits” a story. But Yevgenia’s not exactly an unbiased third-party here. So now I was curious what Sam Goldberg would make of this claim—that AI art can spray down the market with lots of images that might \u003cem>fit\u003c/em> a particular need really, really well, leading to plenty of satisfied customers. But those images are nonetheless probably not going to be novel enough to \u003cem>elevate\u003c/em> a story. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>“Is this a bottleneck?” I asked Sam.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong> So you are not expecting this question. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I actually ran some of your results past an illustrator friend of mine. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And what she said was basically, “Look, you can use generative AI to come up with thousands of images of light bulbs, light bulbs in this environment, in this you know, room, in front of this person. But what you can’t do is get AI to go that one step beyond and think through, well, what is another way of getting across creativity or innovation? So it will give you a billion light bulbs, but it’s not necessarily really going to give you variety at the concept level. And I’m curious what you would make of that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah. So I’m hesitant to disagree with the artist here, but-\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Never disagree with an artist. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Never disagree with the artist. Yeah, so I actually don’t think that’s incongruent with what we see happen in these markets. So one analysis we do in the paper… \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Sam’s team actually found a way to represent the images mathematically. This let them analyze the novelty of this flood of new AI-generated images.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>And so we actually – I sort of agree with her, right? Which is to say, one thing we don’t see is – we don’t see a huge increase in novelty in the market. But essentially, what we see happen is we don’t see a lot of sort of images enter the market that look very different than the images that already exist there.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Interesting. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>What we \u003cem>do\u003c/em> see is that anywhere there’s a gap in the market, so where there’s two images on either side, but there’s not an image in between, generative AI is very good at filling those gaps.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So…at least for now, AI can generate lots and lots of variations on a theme. But what Yevgenia’s describing is the ability to think \u003cem>beyond\u003c/em> that theme. And Sam says, “yeah, AI doesn’t seem to be as good at that.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>I think it’s totally reasonable to say that your illustrator friend may be correct that that is something that these models struggle with.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong> I’m surprised. I was ready to fight the economist!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh no! I actually don’t think you guys would fight that much, but we won’t put you in a cage match together.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> This idea of bringing true novelty to an assignment: that new metaphor, that “second track.” This may be an important source of value that human artists bring to a project. So…what does that look like?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Let’s do something fun. Obviously we have worked together in the past. I have hired you to do beautiful custom illustrations for articles, on Kellogg Insight, where I was the editor-in-chief for many years. And so it’s not even hypothetical to say I would often come to you with a story on innovation, entrepreneurship, you know, how to brainstorm. And so let’s say I bring you this article, it’s about “Better Ways of Brainstorming”, and I’m like, “And also, I think I got a pretty good idea for you. It’s a group of people brainstorming, and above them, they’re, like, collectively building a big light bulb. And it’s like a hot air balloon light bulb, and it’s just, wow, you can just see this is going places. “What do you think?”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, Jess, I think actually an air balloon light bulb is already a beautiful idea. If I’m not mistaken, I think I did an illustration like this for you years ago. So, maybe we should try doing something different this time. We don’t wanna repeat ourselves. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: Yes, Yevgenia was right about this. I tracked down \u003ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/creating-urgency-around-corporate-innovation\">the illustration\u003c/a> from the Kellogg Insight archives. It appeared alongside a 2015 article on corporate innovation. And it featured someone riding through the sky in a lightbulb-shaped hot-air-balloon. Which is almost certainly why the idea formed instantly in my own mind.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>But what it did not have is the group of people underneath it, because this, I think, is something that would spoil this illustration. Because you really shouldn’t try to stuff all your ideas into a single illustration. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But we can go in a completely direction as well. You mentioned brainstorming, so I think maybe using those words and turning them into something visual could work, like creating an actual brainstorm where, you know, that your brain is being blown away by the wind. And, that can actually push a story into kind of a funny territory instead of keeping it very serious, because normally when we say a brainstorm, we associate it with really serious, earnest scientists developing something.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But maybe I want to make a little joke and say, you know, “Hey, you can also brainstorm. You don’t have to be so serious about that.” So it also can change the mood of your article, the mood of your story a little bit.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And maybe we don’t, maybe you want to be super serious, and then you would reject this idea. But maybe you would say, “Hey, I really like it because we’ve done so many super serious articles. Let’s lighten up.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Love it. That’s great. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Okay! So Yevgenia doesn’t just take an assignment and execute it. She thinks it through: The light bulb is cliche, but the hot air balloon idea is interesting. The hot air balloon is interesting, but the people underneath are weighing the idea down. Oh yeah, and because we have a history together, Yevgenia can tell me that we’ve done something really similar 11 years ago.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Then she offers something completely different, playing off the idea of a storm. But really what she’s doing is asking a question about intent. What mood should the illustration create? Serious? Funny? Can the image change the way the reader experiences the story?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Yevgenia is much more than a picture-making machine. She has a very finely honed, very unique way of seeing and depicting the world. As much as any technical skills, \u003cem>that’s\u003c/em> what I hired her to bring to the table. And \u003cem>that\u003c/em>, to me, at least – sounds like another bottleneck.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, for established artists like Yegvenia, this should be somewhat reassuring. But there’s still a problem. Nobody begins a career with fully formed artistic taste. That can take years to develop. And often, people develop it while doing smaller, more routine work. Like, maybe, selling their art on a stock image website. And if AI-generated art takes off, even in the most routine, commercial, transactional spaces, it could eventually shape the art we encounter elsewhere too.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>There is a dangerous territory when real humans, real artists will start to imitate AI if there is enough demand for AI art. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia teaches young artists, and she’s been seeing this play out with her students. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>A lot of them are concerned with style and they all talk about style, and I couldn’t really understand what they meant because I thought– I kind of thought of style as voice, not so much as like a stylistic direction. Turns out they’re trying to pick a style and match it from what they see, let’s say, on Instagram. So there is a lot of sameness there already, and this is something that they’re trying to imitate in hopes of finding jobs maybe. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> She thinks AI could be like Instagram on steroids, sending the same images into every artist’s collective consciousness. Yevgenia says she is \u003cem>all for \u003c/em>her students getting hired to make art. But this trend of homogenization and imitation – is troubling. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> My primary job is to educate an artist, I want them to work obviously, and I would like to help them as much as possible. But again, I’d like to focus on developing their creativity and their uniqueness more than anything else. I always tell my students, you know, “make something worth stealing.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>For an individual artist, having a unique voice ‘worth stealing’ can be the difference between mediocrity and greatness.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And economist Ben Jones\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>says that everyone benefits from having more, unique, creative perspectives in the mix. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>What we actually want is people reaching for very different types of things based on their different experiences, right? And so what’s interesting, one of the reasons that we think that, you know, a kind of a society with wide-ranging pockets of expertise, interests, cultural backgrounds, et cetera, can be extremely creative, is because people are coming at questions with different sort of perspectives and ideas. They’re even coming at different questions, ’cause the kind of questions that occur to one person might not occur to another, and that’s true in science and invention, it’s true in entrepreneurship. We don’t want everyone trying the same business model. We want people trying wildly different business models, and we’ll see which one the market takes. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>There’s real value in difference. In start-ups, in science, and in art. And if everyone begins from the same machine-generated suggestions, we could end up with more of everything—but very little that’s new, special, or unique.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, this is the paradox: AI can generate a staggering number of possibilities, filling countless gaps in the marketplace. And yet, so much of what it produces feels… the same. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>While AI-generated images and videos and books are running rampant in some artistic markets–plenty of people are just fine with elevator music, thank you very much–real novelty, real creativity, seems to be the purview of humans. Leaving human creative workers with an important role to play. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Whew. That’s a relief.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So… is that the end? Should we play the ending music, roll the credits? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Well, not so fast. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is where we stand on Labor Day 2026 sure, but if we know anything about AI tools, it’s that they can change fast. So what happens next? Where’s this all headed? Well, based on my conversations with scholars and artists, I can see three possible futures.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>In the first timeline, things continue along the lines they are now. The machines do get better at generating art. Maybe AI-generated images get even more photorealistic, or maybe AI-generated writing sheds its telltale ticks – you know, those cringy buzzwords that scream, “I’m AI-generated!” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But the improvements are really around the margins. And so genuine creativity remains a bottleneck protecting human creatives.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But there’s a second timeline, and in this timeline, AI learns to be \u003cem>very\u003c/em> creative.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Ben sees this possible future as pretty likely. Because new ideas rarely emerge out of the blue. They are often composed of existing ingredients, just combined in new ways. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>In many, many fields, people have separately discovered that creativity often looks like a new combination of things that already existed. So, for example, Thomas Edison did not call the light bulb, at first, the light bulb. He called it the electric candle because he was taking the candle, which was an old technology, and electricity, which was a new technology, and combining them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And if you look at many, many ideas, it’s very natural to decompose them into distinct components—to unleash a big insight in science, or to produce a new product or process that we can all use. So that idea is very common, you see it in the arts and music and invention and science.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> By this definition, AI should actually have a creative advantage. A single person can only encounter and understand so many possible ingredients in a lifetime. \u003cem>We\u003c/em> have to specialize. AI has a much more vast palette to draw from.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>What’s been interesting about AI, of course, is that AI reads everything. So anyone who’s been interacting with AI sort of sees like, “Wow, I can talk to this AI about just about anything, and right around the edges of my understanding about things I kind of understand, about things I know nothing about, and it seems to know a lot about a lot of stuff.” So in some sense, at that core level of being able to access ingredients that you can combine with seemingly some sophisticated understanding of those ingredients, AI is pretty impressive. And so in that sense, I think it has in some sense, beyond human creative potential. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Given the vast range of ingredients AI can draw from, you might expect it to already produce endlessly surprising combinations. And Ben says theoretically, it one day could. If it were trained completely differently from how most chatbots are trained today.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>When you talk like a general purpose, chatbot or whatever, say ChatGPT, it’s sort of trained to produce the right answer, predicting the next token in some probabilistic way that it thinks is most likely to be right. And by predicting the thing that’s sort of most likely to be right all the time, that sounds like you’re homogenizing. It’s not going for the strange answer, right? It’s trying typically to please you by giving you what you want, and what most people want is not some wildly creative answer. They want the right answer. But that’s of course very much about how they were trained. I mean, those chatbots are optimized to do exactly that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But there could be other algorithms that we could use to train AI. It’s like, let’s say we’re training an AI, and we’re having people rate whether it was really interesting scientifically. Not whether it was right, but whether it was novel. Or novel and right. So I think that there is a world in which AI, and it may come quickly, or not, where AI can be quite creative.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>In this world, this second possible future, where the AI companies spend millions, billions, to train up AI that’s really, really creative. In this future, the creativity bottleneck protecting human artists disappears.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Some kinds of creative work, live performances, personal memoir, handmade furniture, are probably still safe. But this timeline does leave many other artists really vulnerable, particularly those who distribute their work on digital marketplaces.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But even here, there is a bottleneck that could come into play.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Not a technical bottleneck—something the machine is incapable of doing—or even a legal one, like copyright protection or human likeness permission.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>A normative bottleneck: a limit people try to impose collectively, by deciding what kinds of creative work they are willing to accept and reward, often for ethical or even almost spiritual reasons.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We’re already seeing this now. Many of my artist friends have adopted a kind of “hold the line” mentality against generative AI, in part because they sense that using AI is a betrayal to the artistic community.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> Well, there is an ethical component, because AI is being trained on real artists. It’s basically being trained on us. And, of course, none of us enjoys that. None of us gave permission to have our art used by AI.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: To the extent that science writing can be considered art – I feel this. It’s pretty likely that a decade of my own science writing was scraped from the web and used to train AI models. Nobody asked me for permission, and I certainly didn’t give it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> I would rather have this be at the discretion of every artist—if they want their work to be released into the AI world. I would not want AI to be trained on my work, honestly. Because all of us have our own little tricks and secrets, and I would like to keep them to myself.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Some artists believe that the best way to fight back against a technology they didn’t ask for is to reject it altogether, in all forms.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Other creatives draw the line differently. Maybe AI can be used for research, but not execution. Or maybe it can be used for execution, but only in a specific way, as part of a rigorous, intentional process.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Wherever this line is drawn – and I expect this to be vehemently contested over the next several years, the normative bottleneck is about \u003cem>process\u003c/em>. Not just \u003cem>what\u003c/em> is made, but \u003cem>how\u003c/em> something is made.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Earlier this year, the fantasy novelist Brandon Sanderson made this argument explicit in a keynote address called “We Are the Art.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Brandon Sanderson]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem> The machines can spit out manuscript after manuscript after manuscript. They can pile them to the pillars of heaven itself, but all we have to do is say no. If we do, they lose. Why do we make art? Well, remember, art is not just the story. It is not just the painting or the sculpture or whatever else you love to create. It’s also the process of creation and what that process did to you. We are the art. Thank you.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Whether this kind of resistance, this \u003cem>normative\u003c/em> bottleneck can hold will depend on getting others on board. Getting others to agree that part of the value of human art is that it was created by another human being. Someone who felt something, or saw the world in a certain way, and labored to share it with us. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But there’s a third possible future here, one that doesn’t solely rely on social norms around creativity. In this possible future, whether AI becomes more creative or not, people using AI become capable of doing new things that neither humans nor AI could have done alone. Maybe AI becomes yet another tool for human artists. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You’ve seen this before: the camera. Photoshop. The electric synthesizer. All these were controversial in their time, often for devaluing certain hard-won skills, like painting in a painstaking, hyper-realistic style, or learning to play the french horn. But today most artists would probably agree that the new tools created new possibilities. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Or maybe AI really is different. Maybe it becomes a kind of thought partner. The machine proposes new ingredients we might never have produced on our own. Not unlike a colleague emailing us an article we might find interesting. Here’s Ben again.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>Maybe when you’re writing, it’s, it’s a collaborator, right? I mean, maybe it’s not a replacement, it’s like another voice on your team. And suddenly you’re getting a higher quality product. And it could be that you’re making a screenplay, you’re writing an article, you’re writing a song, and suddenly it’s better for your collaboration with the AI, but they’re not actually taking full control.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>In this scenario, we humans use our own creative judgment to run with whichever combination of ingredients seems like it has the most potential. Here, you could even think of “creative judgment” as its own bottleneck.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>You need true expertise around the set of ingredients to understand which combinations are likely or not to be useful. You don’t just randomly put ingredients together in the kitchen. It’s not gonna taste very good. There’s some milk here, and there’s some orange juice, and how about this banana? And look, it’s all spice in the spice rack, you know? And then, oh, and is that chicken? You know, that’s not gonna go very well, right? And pretty much everyone sort of knows that. There’s many, many, many, many possible combinations. But we kind of know instinctually not to try many of them because we know they’re probably not gonna be good.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Even Yevgenia, who I should stress continues to do all of her art by hand, can see the value in this kind of collaboration–if done right, if used as more of a jumping off point than the ultimate destination. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> You can give AI prompts and say, “Okay, give me all these variations of the light bulb in the field and in the pool.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And once it does it, you can say, “No, this is a really stupid idea. Why don’t you try something else?” And you can see what it tries, and you can maybe find something there? So I can see using AI as this little, average-minded, ordinary partner—and then that can spark something in you, in your imagination. It can generate more ideas from us, in a way, because we are competing intellectually with something.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So those are our three scenarios. AI kind of stalls out creatively or AI actually can do everything humans can do, but cheaper and better. And then we have to decide whether we \u003cem>want\u003c/em> to preserve a role for human creativity. Or, AI and humans collaborate to \u003cem>do \u003c/em>entirely new things.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Let’s all level-set for a second by noting that lots of people want to be artists, and it’s really, really hard. Already. It’s very hard to make a living as an actor, a musician, an artist, even without computers. Right? And there’s something deeply human about wanting to create and be an artist. And I would say, to be an economist for a second, the demand for their services is lower than the supply of people who would like to do it. So there are many long-suffering artists out there. Does AI make long-suffering artists even more suffering?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Even long-suffering-er.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Long-suffering-er. That’s a word. And I think it could. And it could be because it replaces their output. It’s a cheaper way to produce something people want. On the other hand, maybe AI makes artists more able to do things at lower cost themselves. Maybe it’s a tool, it’s an augmentation, not a replacement. So I think it’s an open question which way it goes. It probably does quite a bit of both. And we’ll have to see. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>A bit of both. Maybe this is the most likely possible future of all. Maybe we get all these timelines happening at once, in different parts of the creative economy. AI replacing artists, AI assisting artists, and AI just getting out of the way, to let artists do their very \u003cem>human\u003c/em> thing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity, at the Kellogg School of Management, at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Today’s show was produced by Steven Jackson and Jesse Dukes. Music by Steven Jackson and Neutral Propulsion Laboratory. Recording help from Will Feeney, George Christensen, Laura Pavin and Big Lake Recording Company. Administrative support, recording, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger, who we’re going to miss very much.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Morgan Sung: \u003c/strong>That was Life, Automated, a new KQED podcast about how life is being shaped by machines. Thanks to their team for sharing this story with us. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Check back in next week for a new story from Close All Tabs about the fuzzy borders between real and digital life. We’ll see you next week.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>"
}
],
"link": "/news/12101055/ai-artists-and-the-future-of-creative-work-from-life-automated-close-all-tabs-presents",
"authors": [
"12009",
"11944",
"11943",
"11879",
"11869",
"11832"
],
"programs": [
"news_35082"
],
"categories": [
"news_33520"
],
"tags": [
"news_25184",
"news_21334",
"news_34645",
"news_22973",
"news_3137",
"news_34646",
"news_1771",
"news_4142",
"news_35940",
"news_1631"
],
"featImg": "news_12101059",
"label": "source_news_12101055"
},
"news_12099764": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12099764",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12099764",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1789552800000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "will-we-still-learn-languages-when-machines-can-translate-with-abby-walker",
"title": "Will We Still Learn Languages When Machines Can Translate? (with Abby Walker)",
"publishDate": 1789552800,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "Will We Still Learn Languages When Machines Can Translate? (with Abby Walker) | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 37188,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#Transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Live AI translation tools are making it easier to converse across languages without a human translator, a phrasebook, or years of study. So will we all just stop taking Spanish or Mandarin classes? Sociolinguist \u003ca href=\"https://liberalarts.vt.edu/departments-and-schools/department-of-english/faculty/abby-walker.html\">Abby Walker\u003c/a> doesn’t think so. She shares the many reasons we learn new languages, some of which have little to do with functional communication at all. We also hear how one AI-assisted conversation brought two future in-laws together, why machine translation is still so darn buggy, and why some languages are attracting a resurgence of new learners even in the age of translation apps.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is a production of the Ryan Institute on Complexity, at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management. The host is Jess Love, senior director. Distributed by \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/lifeautomated\">KQED\u003c/a>. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore what it means to live, work, and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. I think it’s fair to say that over the past five years, we’ve been bombarded by all the new things AI can suddenly do. It’s solving these long unsolved math theorems, generating songs that rack up millions of listens, and even colluding with other AIs to break into servers.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There’s so much crazy stuff happening, that a lot of other advances that would’ve seemed mind-blowing to us 10, 15 years ago feel almost pedestrian in comparison. I’d put real-time language translation down as one of these advances. Chat bots and translation apps now draw from a range of different kinds of AI to offer live translation for tons of different languages.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You can hear something in a language you don’t know, like Korean. You can use your phone to translate that speech into a language you do know, like English. “Which way is the restroom?” Offer your response in English. “Oh, yeah, it’s down this hallway here, second door on the right side.” And then it will speak your response aloud in Korean.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You can do this today. People already are doing this. What’s more, a lot of tech companies are developing wearables, think smart glasses, smart earbuds, to make live translation more frictionless. No more fumbling for your phone. This is literally straight out of science fiction. Star Trek’s universal translator, Dr.Who’s TARDIS translation matrix, and from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the Babel Fish. For me, this raises some big questions. What do these live translation tools really let us do that we couldn’t do before? Will they ever fully replace human translators? And should my eight-year-old still be taking Spanish classes in school?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Today’s guest is Abby Walker, a sociolinguist at Virginia Tech, where she’s co-director of the Speech Lab. She’s also a longtime friend from my grad school days. I’m Jess Love, and this is Life, Automated from Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, distributed by KQED. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Welcome Abby Walker to Life Automated.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Thank you for having me, Jess. I’m so excited to be here.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So there’s a clip I want to play for you. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>I wanted Abby and I to listen to some tape we recorded from a person who recently used one of these live translation tools. This person’s name is Larry Berliner. Larry’s son was in love, and this was Larry’s first time meeting the girlfriend’s parents.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Here’s the catch. Larry, father of the boyfriend, spoke English but not Chinese. And Kevin, father of the girlfriend, spoke Chinese but not English. So they used a ChatGPT app on one of their cell phones to translate between them. In this first clip, Larry’s just remarking about what this tool did for the two of them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Larry Berliner]:\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem> If not for this, I wouldn’t have got to know Kevin at all. I was able to connect with Kevin, meet Kevin, talk to Kevin seriously about myself, about my business, about my thoughts of his own daughter, what his daughter has transformed in my son. So much, right? There was so much I was able to say to him.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> And here’s another part of that conversation, this time with Larry talking about how having the tool helped everyone else in the room, too.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Larry Berliner]:\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem> We have all been there, where there’s the individual who’s the translator amongst three people or among five people, sometimes eight. And two things happen. One is that translator has to work so hard. You can see how much energy they’re having to invest in translating for everybody and make the room successful. The other thing you see is how slow everything goes. The point is, that’s not what happened in our room because Larry and Kevin were involved in this AI-enhanced live translation mode, and the other four were freed. So they were able to have a free, wonderful, free-ranging conversation, and they were able to have that ability to connect in their way.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I love that example and how it’s not just about the personal interaction, but actually about the group dynamics, too. It shows you the work that’s involved in having a human translator, that someone has to mediate that process for you, and that’s actually work on them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I hadn’t really thought about that aspect of it, which is kinda cool. If you have a human interpreter, there might be things that you want to talk about that you don’t want them to hear about. And I think this is a common situation a little bit with, we know sometimes when immigrants come to a country where they don’t speak the kind of dominant language, that often their kids become interpreters, as they’re dealing with banks and as they’re dealing with medical providers. But, like if you think about, do you want your daughters to know all of your personal information that you might talk about with a doctor? No, right? And so just getting to choose who hears what information, yeah, that’s going to be really empowering.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, it seems like in this example, depending on who is going to have to play that role of translator, is he going to feel comfortable, showering all this attention on perhaps his future daughter-in-law, for instance? If she’s the one translating.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yes. Yeah. That would be really embarrassing. Though it may be a cool, slick move as well. She has to be like, “Oh, Daddy’s saying I’m so pretty,” and yeah, something like that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So already these tools are letting people connect with other people in new ways, really connect. But I didn’t invite Abby on this show just to marvel over what’s now possible with machine translation. Like I said, I have a lot of questions. Like, “Is that it? Are we humans all just done learning second, third, fourth languages because the machines can translate for us now? Or are there some parts of a conversation that a machine probably isn’t going to be able to translate for us, at least not anytime soon?”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So a lot of people think of translation as just this simple process of taking words from one language and then mapping them one-to-one onto another language. But from a sociolinguist perspective, what else is language doing other than delivering that kind of information?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> It’s doing so much, Jess. I love all the other things that language does. So one of the big things that I study and my field looks at is all the other information in the speech signal. So not just the content of the message but how you’re delivering it and all the other information that comes from that. So for example, anyone listening right now, you can probably hear that I was not born and raised in America.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’ve got a New Zealand English accent. But people in New Zealand can probably also hear that I’ve lived in America for a while, that’s probably in my speech as well. You might be able to hear that you and I are friends and friendly. We’re both trying to be friendly. We’re both trying to sound smart right now, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Maybe you can tell that this is a little bit more awkward formality for us than usual conversation with wine. So just your identity, and sometimes that stuff you’re trying to mark, like sometimes you’re like, “I want to sound really professional in this moment. I want to sound really from this place. I want to really lean into my higher roots or my New Zealand roots or something.” But then other times, there’s information there that you just can’t even control, right? Like, I’m not always necessarily trying to be like, “I’m a woman,” but most people will hear my voice and be like, “You’re a woman.” Or I’m not always trying to say I’m from New Zealand, but my vowels are always saying I’m from New Zealand.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right. So whether you want to or not, you are communicating a whole lot about who you are as a person and maybe how you’re feeling in that moment.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Abby says that any tool focused primarily on the words we are saying will always miss a lot of the social information that language communicates, information that a human interpreter who can pick up on body language or emotion could probably make better sense of.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And even at the word level there’s a lot of ways for a translation to be incomplete. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker: \u003c/strong>I mean, some things like if I say boot or trunk of a car, that’s a difference between British and American English. But I’m thinking even things more like if I say groovy or neato or amazeballs or, we have lots of ways to express that something’s cool, and how another language does that, they might miss that I’m being playful, or they might miss that I’m outdated in my slang. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>How do you translate that someone is saying amazeballs unironically because they’re really that excited? How do you translate that someone is saying groovy ironically because they’re making fun of themselves for being five decades late to the party? And that’s not all. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker: \u003c/strong>The other thing that language has built into it, both in vocal tone and stuff, but then also in word choice and sometimes actually in your grammar, is your relationship to other people. It’s not just me expressing my identity. I can also be trying to say something about the relationship that you and I have or the relationship I’d like us to have. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So anything that is doing this translation, whether it’s a human or whether it’s a machine, they’re having to make some choices, and the nature of those choices are not going to be obvious to somebody who’s participating and only able to understand one side of that conversation.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and most of the time, again, this… The technology’s kind of amazing. Being able to talk with anyone who you couldn’t talk to before, if the alternative is not being able to talk to them at all, that’s pretty amazing. But there are going to be times where if you don’t know the situation, it might be doing some really impolite things, and you might not know, right? Like the translation system might have decided to use an informal tone here, and you don’t realize it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And to some extent, that’s going to be true of a human translator but to a much lesser extent if they are very culturally fluent with both languages.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, no, I actually… Now I’m remembering I had a student who was Korean-American, and her parents had come over from Korea beforehand, so they were native Korean speakers, and I was learning Korean at the time. And it was graduation, and I was saying something to her dad, like I don’t know. I can’t remember what I was saying, but I was trying to say something polite. And she’s like, “Um,” kind of to her dad like, “Uh, she’s just learning.” And I was like… I assumed that I’d used some impolite grammatical forms or something, right? I’d done some… She knew that I was kind of doing something inappropriate that I didn’t know that I was doing and was just smoothing over the situation because yeah, I think one of the things that humans do is that we’re very socially savvy. We’re always looking at, contextually, what’s contextually appropriate language. And if you’re a bilingual person, which a human translator has to be, right, to some degree to be able to do this translation work, presumably they’re going to know the social navigation pathways of both languages. And so they’re going to be able to pull on that information.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Is there a danger that if we do move toward this world of relatively frictionless live translation, we could become overconfident that we’ve understood everything?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that’s… I think that’s almost part of it. It’s almost like the same problem that people are having right now with, you know, you hand in an essay that AI produced, and it looks so good that you don’t know that the citations are made-up. It’s that sort of confidence that it got the answer right that you would have that same kind of problem with translation, too.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Given the sheer complexity of language and all the things it’s trying to do, maybe it shouldn’t be a big surprise that as incredible as these tools are, they still make mistakes. A \u003ca href=\"https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/live-voice-translation-is-the-ai-americans-want-most-ahead-of-email-drafting-and-meeting-notes-new-deepl-research-finds-302858925.html\">recent survey\u003c/a> found that about half of people who’ve used some kind of translation app, chat bot, or wearable find it clunky.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>My own personal experience is pretty hit or miss. When I visited Quebec City this summer, Airbnb automatically translated my text messages to my host into French, and then translated his responses back into English. It was so seamless that I barely noticed. But then, when I tried out a pair of smart glasses to have a spoken conversation with a Bulgarian scholar here at the Ryan Institute about his summer vacation, a topic slightly more nuanced than what is the entry code to the apartment, it was a little rough.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>At first, I had to repeat my question three times until the glasses finally heard me well enough to translate. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Jess Love talking to Bulgarian Scholar]: \u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem>“All right, let’s try again. Okay. Okay. I was holding it too long. I heard a rumor that you are going to the Dolomites this summer to do some hiking.”\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Bulgarian Scholar Translation Audio]:\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem>That’s exactly how we’re going with a large group of friends. It’s about 20 people, and I’m pretty excited since it’s raining here, but there are almost no mountains, and I very rarely get to see mountains.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Hungarian Scholar: \u003c/strong>It’s somewhat accurate.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> The glasses kept messing up. We managed to stumble through a basic conversation but only because my colleague knew English and could correct the mistakes. It was not frictionless. So at least with the tools we have today, it’s pretty clear to me that some tasks will still require human translators, even if a lot of others don’t, and Abby agreed.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> I think it’s the case that we’re always going to need human translators, because there are high-stakes situations, right? Like international negotiations, big business deals. But I also imagine a young person looking at a career path and still seeing, probably rightly so, that there’s going to be less path forward for them there. And I think about the medical world a bit. I think that’s often where there was a feeling that there would be a lot of interpreters was in the medical field.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And you do already see them starting to use these tools and these translation tools automatically. You would hope they would always have someone on staff still, like to do translations when things get really nuanced and stuff. But I do think if I was a young person looking, even though there still will be those jobs, I would wonder about them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> I would wonder too. Some of the practical reasons for learning a language are going away. After all, not everyone is going to be involved in negotiating corporate mergers or making high-stakes medical decisions. For a lot of situations, good enough really is good enough. And AI’s getting better. Companies are already trying to deal with these issues by like collecting visual data or following people over time so the machines have access to previous conversations.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There’s no guarantee that these tools will still be making the same kinds of mistakes in five years, or even two. And so, yeah, some people who would’ve learned another language probably will decide, “Eh, why bother?” But Abby doesn’t see a future where people just decide to stop learning other languages, no matter how good the machines get, because there are a bunch of reasons for learning a language that have nothing to do with the mere exchange of information.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>After the break, she makes her case. We’ll also hear why some very unexpected languages are actually experiencing a resurgence of new learners, apps be damned. Stay with us.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> I’m going to Germany later this year. The big reason, one of the big reasons I wanted to go to Germany, apart from working with some great researchers, is that I wanted to get my German better. I have no need to get German better. This is not an important thing in my life. I will not speak it. I will never need it, but I want to be good at it, right? I want to be better at it. I like it. I enjoy it. It’s a puzzle. It’s a game.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Abby’s not alone. A lot of people are learning languages they don’t have to learn for purely communicative reasons, like because they need a job or need to get around a city.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Like people right now are learning Welsh, and people are learning Te Reo Māori, and these people can all speak English in Wales and in New Zealand, but they’re choosing to learn this language that they do not need for communication, so why are they choosing to learn this language? Because they have an identity connection to this language, right? And so its important to them, separate from how many other people they can talk to in this language, right? Like its kind of a way to connect to an identity, because I think people really do associate languages with identity.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that’s so interesting. Is there a resurgence in people trying to learn these minority languages, even right now in 2026?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yes. There’s definitely a resurgence in people trying to learn these languages. But that’s been happening since the ’80s, ’90s, 2000s. But since I’ve been in the States for almost 20 years now, and when I go back to New Zealand, it is shocking to me the amount of Te Reo that is around now.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And what is Te Reo [Māori]?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> It’s the language. Sorry. It’s Māori. Māori. Sorry. It’s the Māori language. It’s just called the language, so it’s Te Reo.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, can you just give a little… ‘Cause most of our audience is not from New Zealand, so just give a little… What is this language, and why do you think that people are learning to speak it more in New Zealand?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so this was the first language, human language spoken in New Zealand by the Māori. And then waves of English settlers came, and the language was forbidden, like happens in many of these situations. There was both an incentive to learn English for economic reasons, but then there were also actual moves to ban the language in school. And so kids would get smacked and things if they were speaking it in playgrounds and stuff. And so there was a generation or two that kind of were native speakers of Māori that literally intentionally chose not to pass it on to their children because it had only caused grief for them, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And then there was this next generation that was “Wait, we’ve lost this kind of connection to our identity.” And so there’s been this really big resurgence. And this is happening before the technology that we’re talking about, but it’s happening because this has identity meaning to people. This is culturally significant to them. Quite correctly, they see it as something that was taken away from them by kind of outsiders, and then they are trying to correct that and connect to these roots. Which what’s really interesting in New Zealand is a ton of white people or Pākehā, like me, a ton of white people have been learning Māori as well, right? So it’s also becoming a symbol of your political and New Zealand identity as well. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So because this language has more cultural significance than it does, a purely functional significance, do you see it as pretty protected or insulated from some of the challenges of machine translation?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah. When I’m thinking about it, now that we’re talking about it, I do think that it would be unlikely that you would use a translation app. If you were talking to someone who was a native or near-native fluent speaker of Te Reo and you wanted to communicate with them, you would do it in English or you would learn Te Reo. Why would you use an app to talk to them in this language, stiltingly with pauses and slowly when you both can talk in English, right? They are not going to appreciate that. They’re not really going to be interested in that, and what would probably be more impressive was you stumbling through some beginner Te Reo, which at least showed that you were putting in some effort yourself, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Do you remember that Mamdani clip? Should I try to find it and play it?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Abby wanted us to listen to this recent video released by Zohran Mamdani, the mayor of New York City. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker: \u003c/strong>So there’s this clip you can find, it went kind of a little viral, a little while ago, and it’s Mamdani doing… the mayor of New York doing a piece to camera, and it’s kind of some political speech. I don’t know what he’s actually promoting.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Zohran Mamdani speaking in Spanish]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so he is talking in Spanish and so he is trying to, you know, reach his Spanish Constituence. He does not speak Spanish, right? And so, there is this video of him and he is kind of like stumbling through Spanish and he takes it again and he’s getting corrected by AOC on his pronunciation. He keeps kind of forgetting things. And they’ve released this, right? And they think it’s not crazy that that happened but it’s very interesting to me that they released it because they are trying to emphasize that it wasn’t easy for him to speak Spanish and that he needed help speaking Spanish and he is not good at Spanish, but they knew that it would be charming and it is, right? Because it shows someone is trying to speak Spanish, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Zohran Mamdani speaking in Spanish]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>They could have just released speeches with him in like fluent Spanish, or they could have had someone else who is a fluent Spanish speaker speaking on his behalf. In a little while, they could probably do videos where it looks like he is speaking Spanish, right? We’re kind of at that point of the technology now with video and audio that we could have something that sounds like him speaking in Spanish, looks like him speaking in Spanish. But they don’t do that, right? What they do is show someone who isn’t very good and who is trying, right? Part of what is really important to people is that you try to speak their language, right? And an app takes out that friction. It makes communication easier, but part of what language is signaling, too, when you use a language that is not a language that comes easy to you, is you’re signaling that you are trying, right? You are signaling that you are putting in some effort, that you don’t expect them to just understand you, and that you’re putting in some effort to be understood.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> All right. Well, we’ve been dancing around this idea of the importance of friction, and I want to just ask you to spell it out. Why is friction important? What could friction signal? We’ve talked about belonging, we’ve talked about effort. What else?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> I mean, if I’m really just using an app to talk to you, right, I… And I’m not paying attention, I’m not really trying to do anything, I’m just trying to communicate with you, so I use an app, and it spits out whatever to talk to you, and I nod. You got the message, I got the message, I move on. Like, I haven’t really changed because of that interaction, right? So when you learn a language, to talk to someone, the effort of doing it, you are actually also changing yourself. So you are adding vocab, adding things that you can use in a new situation, adding things that you can use when you don’t have your phone around you, et cetera. So there’s just, literally you are changing a little bit, maybe in small ways. There is some evidence for regular bilinguals, like people who are regularly using multiple languages in their day-to-day, that they have better executive function than monolingual speakers.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And by executive function, we’re talking about your ability to ignore irrelevant information and suppress responses that you might automatically make. And if you think about it, this makes a lot of sense why this would be tied to bilingualism, because you have a day where you are telling whatever language you’re not using, you’re saying, “Shut up. This isn’t about you.” So you’re ignoring anything else that’s irrelevant while you’re having these conversations. And from my understanding, those advantages get bigger as you age. So it’s essentially like you’re keeping your brain more active in this particular way. So obviously, all of those benefits, and just the fact that each time I stumble through something in German or Korean or today Māori, I am getting a little bit better, right? I’m learning a little bit more. That is this really big obvious thing that is being lost, is just that you are not having this growth. And it’s almost sad in some ways, because you had an opportunity, right? So let’s say you go to another country, you stay there for two months. You have this opportunity to do something, and you just spend all the time using these translation apps. You miss this opportunity to have this personal growth.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> It’s true. I went to Italy, and by the end of the trip, I was fully capable of asking where the bathroom was all by myself.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> In Italian?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> In Italian.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Wow.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Don’t ask me to do it now.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> I was gonna say.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Oh, boy. Try. Al bagno? Bagno? Bagno? I don’t want to talk about it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Okay.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Live translation tools are decent, and they’re going to get better. You can even imagine a version that works out most of the bugs. AI that does start picking up on body language and slang. Science fiction becoming reality. The universal translator, the Babel fish. But do we always want that? Throughout our conversation, as we talked about the importance of friction, it struck me that maybe today’s live translation tools, imperfect as they are, have their own charms, not despite the friction, but because of it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I decided to play Abby another excerpt from our conversation with proud dad, Larry Berliner. While he and fellow dad Kevin were conversing on their ChatGPT app, they were speaking into the phone, which would generate a written translation, which the other one would read. Hardly seamless. But here, Larry talks about the conversation being so profound because of those seams.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Larry Berliner]:\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem> This allowed us to speak in long paragraphs, like I’m doing right now, right? Shakespearean style, not a back and forth, but long paragraphs of ideas, and then it would translate, and we’d watch each other read it, which was exciting, and then the person would respond. And what ended up being magical was, first of all, we did it for a very long time.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>What he chose to talk about was things that I don’t think he would ever have spoke about first if I was speaking his native language. Or wow, the extent of which is amazing. He talked about how he had met Sonya and the previous people he had been with at the time. He talked about his failures as a father. And just– it was immediately right to the bone.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I’m just struck by how he feels that conversation was facilitated by the fact that there was this level of friction, of literally having to read. Maybe the fact that you’re putting something into print and then somebody is going to read it makes you less likely to just waste that time to say, “Well, what do you think of the weather?”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, that’s a really interesting idea, and it kinda makes sense. What it makes me think, though, is that there was this feeling that this was temporary, right? That this was not going to be the regular state of affairs. It’s almost like deathbed conversation. It feels like a little bit like what it sounded like to me. Just “I need you to, here are some really big things on my mind and my heart that I just really want you to know now that we’ve got this opportunity.” It is interesting, though, to think about, what if you never get there with someone who speaks your own language because you’ve always got the dance of we can speak so easily to each other.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, and it was the artificiality of their own communication that led to something much deeper. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> I love that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So am I going to encourage my eight-year-old to learn Spanish? Yes, absolutely. There’s so much we can’t know about AI and where it’s headed, but even if some reasons for learning another language go away, others won’t, or could even grow in importance. And in honor of our topic this week, we’ve machine translated our credits into ‘Klingon and back’, because why not?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Here we go. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>[Klingon words] \u003c/em>I am Jess of the clan Love. \u003cem>[Klingon words] \u003c/em>At the Northwestern University Citadel of Knowledge, inside the Kellogg School of Management, Life, Automated is an honorable battle quest of the Ryan Institute on Complexity. KQED hurls our battle transmissions across the void to conquer the airwaves.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Jesse Dukes sliced the captured sounds into submission. Stephen Jackson forged the battle hymns and struck the war drums. The machinery masters, Will Feeney and George Christensen, trapped the vocal cries of the interrogation inside the sound cage. Ananya Mallapragada commanded the proclamations of our glory and subjugated the civilian chatter web.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Producer: Jesse Dukes\u003cbr>Music: Steven Jackson\u003cbr>Recording: George Christensen, Will Feeney\u003cbr>Promotional help from Ananya Mallapragada\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Editorial guidance from Laura Pavin\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Special thanks to Larry Berliner and Georgi Demirev for their help testing out live translation tools\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#Transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#Transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Live AI translation tools are making it easier to converse across languages without a human translator, a phrasebook, or years of study. So will we all just stop taking Spanish or Mandarin classes? Sociolinguist \u003ca href=\"https://liberalarts.vt.edu/departments-and-schools/department-of-english/faculty/abby-walker.html\">Abby Walker\u003c/a> doesn’t think so. She shares the many reasons we learn new languages, some of which have little to do with functional communication at all. We also hear how one AI-assisted conversation brought two future in-laws together, why machine translation is still so darn buggy, and why some languages are attracting a resurgence of new learners even in the age of translation apps.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Live AI translation tools are making it easier to converse across languages without a human translator, a phrasebook, or years of study. So will we all just stop taking Spanish or Mandarin classes? Sociolinguist \u003ca href=\"https://liberalarts.vt.edu/departments-and-schools/department-of-english/faculty/abby-walker.html\">Abby Walker\u003c/a> doesn’t think so. She shares the many reasons we learn new languages, some of which have little to do with functional communication at all. We also hear how one AI-assisted conversation brought two future in-laws together, why machine translation is still so darn buggy, and why some languages are attracting a resurgence of new learners even in the age of translation apps.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is a production of the Ryan Institute on Complexity, at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management. The host is Jess Love, senior director. Distributed by \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/lifeautomated\">KQED\u003c/a>. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is a production of the Ryan Institute on Complexity, at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management. The host is Jess Love, senior director. Distributed by \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/lifeautomated\">KQED\u003c/a>. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Episode Transcript",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore what it means to live, work, and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. I think it’s fair to say that over the past five years, we’ve been bombarded by all the new things AI can suddenly do. It’s solving these long unsolved math theorems, generating songs that rack up millions of listens, and even colluding with other AIs to break into servers.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore what it means to live, work, and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. I think it’s fair to say that over the past five years, we’ve been bombarded by all the new things AI can suddenly do. It’s solving these long unsolved math theorems, generating songs that rack up millions of listens, and even colluding with other AIs to break into servers.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>There’s so much crazy stuff happening, that a lot of other advances that would’ve seemed mind-blowing to us 10, 15 years ago feel almost pedestrian in comparison. I’d put real-time language translation down as one of these advances. Chat bots and translation apps now draw from a range of different kinds of AI to offer live translation for tons of different languages.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>There’s so much crazy stuff happening, that a lot of other advances that would’ve seemed mind-blowing to us 10, 15 years ago feel almost pedestrian in comparison. I’d put real-time language translation down as one of these advances. Chat bots and translation apps now draw from a range of different kinds of AI to offer live translation for tons of different languages.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You can hear something in a language you don’t know, like Korean. You can use your phone to translate that speech into a language you do know, like English. “Which way is the restroom?” Offer your response in English. “Oh, yeah, it’s down this hallway here, second door on the right side.” And then it will speak your response aloud in Korean.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You can hear something in a language you don’t know, like Korean. You can use your phone to translate that speech into a language you do know, like English. “Which way is the restroom?” Offer your response in English. “Oh, yeah, it’s down this hallway here, second door on the right side.” And then it will speak your response aloud in Korean.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You can do this today. People already are doing this. What’s more, a lot of tech companies are developing wearables, think smart glasses, smart earbuds, to make live translation more frictionless. No more fumbling for your phone. This is literally straight out of science fiction. Star Trek’s universal translator, Dr.Who’s TARDIS translation matrix, and from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the Babel Fish. For me, this raises some big questions. What do these live translation tools really let us do that we couldn’t do before? Will they ever fully replace human translators? And should my eight-year-old still be taking Spanish classes in school?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You can do this today. People already are doing this. What’s more, a lot of tech companies are developing wearables, think smart glasses, smart earbuds, to make live translation more frictionless. No more fumbling for your phone. This is literally straight out of science fiction. Star Trek’s universal translator, Dr.Who’s TARDIS translation matrix, and from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the Babel Fish. For me, this raises some big questions. What do these live translation tools really let us do that we couldn’t do before? Will they ever fully replace human translators? And should my eight-year-old still be taking Spanish classes in school?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Today’s guest is Abby Walker, a sociolinguist at Virginia Tech, where she’s co-director of the Speech Lab. She’s also a longtime friend from my grad school days. I’m Jess Love, and this is Life, Automated from Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, distributed by KQED. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Today’s guest is Abby Walker, a sociolinguist at Virginia Tech, where she’s co-director of the Speech Lab. She’s also a longtime friend from my grad school days. I’m Jess Love, and this is Life, Automated from Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, distributed by KQED. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Welcome Abby Walker to Life Automated.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Welcome Abby Walker to Life Automated.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Thank you for having me, Jess. I’m so excited to be here.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Thank you for having me, Jess. I’m so excited to be here.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So there’s a clip I want to play for you. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So there’s a clip I want to play for you. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>I wanted Abby and I to listen to some tape we recorded from a person who recently used one of these live translation tools. This person’s name is Larry Berliner. Larry’s son was in love, and this was Larry’s first time meeting the girlfriend’s parents.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>I wanted Abby and I to listen to some tape we recorded from a person who recently used one of these live translation tools. This person’s name is Larry Berliner. Larry’s son was in love, and this was Larry’s first time meeting the girlfriend’s parents.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Here’s the catch. Larry, father of the boyfriend, spoke English but not Chinese. And Kevin, father of the girlfriend, spoke Chinese but not English. So they used a ChatGPT app on one of their cell phones to translate between them. In this first clip, Larry’s just remarking about what this tool did for the two of them.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Here’s the catch. Larry, father of the boyfriend, spoke English but not Chinese. And Kevin, father of the girlfriend, spoke Chinese but not English. So they used a ChatGPT app on one of their cell phones to translate between them. In this first clip, Larry’s just remarking about what this tool did for the two of them.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Larry Berliner]:\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem> If not for this, I wouldn’t have got to know Kevin at all. I was able to connect with Kevin, meet Kevin, talk to Kevin seriously about myself, about my business, about my thoughts of his own daughter, what his daughter has transformed in my son. So much, right? There was so much I was able to say to him.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Larry Berliner]:\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem> If not for this, I wouldn’t have got to know Kevin at all. I was able to connect with Kevin, meet Kevin, talk to Kevin seriously about myself, about my business, about my thoughts of his own daughter, what his daughter has transformed in my son. So much, right? There was so much I was able to say to him.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> And here’s another part of that conversation, this time with Larry talking about how having the tool helped everyone else in the room, too.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> And here’s another part of that conversation, this time with Larry talking about how having the tool helped everyone else in the room, too.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Larry Berliner]:\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem> We have all been there, where there’s the individual who’s the translator amongst three people or among five people, sometimes eight. And two things happen. One is that translator has to work so hard. You can see how much energy they’re having to invest in translating for everybody and make the room successful. The other thing you see is how slow everything goes. The point is, that’s not what happened in our room because Larry and Kevin were involved in this AI-enhanced live translation mode, and the other four were freed. So they were able to have a free, wonderful, free-ranging conversation, and they were able to have that ability to connect in their way.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Larry Berliner]:\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem> We have all been there, where there’s the individual who’s the translator amongst three people or among five people, sometimes eight. And two things happen. One is that translator has to work so hard. You can see how much energy they’re having to invest in translating for everybody and make the room successful. The other thing you see is how slow everything goes. The point is, that’s not what happened in our room because Larry and Kevin were involved in this AI-enhanced live translation mode, and the other four were freed. So they were able to have a free, wonderful, free-ranging conversation, and they were able to have that ability to connect in their way.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I love that example and how it’s not just about the personal interaction, but actually about the group dynamics, too. It shows you the work that’s involved in having a human translator, that someone has to mediate that process for you, and that’s actually work on them.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I love that example and how it’s not just about the personal interaction, but actually about the group dynamics, too. It shows you the work that’s involved in having a human translator, that someone has to mediate that process for you, and that’s actually work on them.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I hadn’t really thought about that aspect of it, which is kinda cool. If you have a human interpreter, there might be things that you want to talk about that you don’t want them to hear about. And I think this is a common situation a little bit with, we know sometimes when immigrants come to a country where they don’t speak the kind of dominant language, that often their kids become interpreters, as they’re dealing with banks and as they’re dealing with medical providers. But, like if you think about, do you want your daughters to know all of your personal information that you might talk about with a doctor? No, right? And so just getting to choose who hears what information, yeah, that’s going to be really empowering.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I hadn’t really thought about that aspect of it, which is kinda cool. If you have a human interpreter, there might be things that you want to talk about that you don’t want them to hear about. And I think this is a common situation a little bit with, we know sometimes when immigrants come to a country where they don’t speak the kind of dominant language, that often their kids become interpreters, as they’re dealing with banks and as they’re dealing with medical providers. But, like if you think about, do you want your daughters to know all of your personal information that you might talk about with a doctor? No, right? And so just getting to choose who hears what information, yeah, that’s going to be really empowering.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, it seems like in this example, depending on who is going to have to play that role of translator, is he going to feel comfortable, showering all this attention on perhaps his future daughter-in-law, for instance? If she’s the one translating.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, it seems like in this example, depending on who is going to have to play that role of translator, is he going to feel comfortable, showering all this attention on perhaps his future daughter-in-law, for instance? If she’s the one translating.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yes. Yeah. That would be really embarrassing. Though it may be a cool, slick move as well. She has to be like, “Oh, Daddy’s saying I’m so pretty,” and yeah, something like that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yes. Yeah. That would be really embarrassing. Though it may be a cool, slick move as well. She has to be like, “Oh, Daddy’s saying I’m so pretty,” and yeah, something like that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So already these tools are letting people connect with other people in new ways, really connect. But I didn’t invite Abby on this show just to marvel over what’s now possible with machine translation. Like I said, I have a lot of questions. Like, “Is that it? Are we humans all just done learning second, third, fourth languages because the machines can translate for us now? Or are there some parts of a conversation that a machine probably isn’t going to be able to translate for us, at least not anytime soon?”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So already these tools are letting people connect with other people in new ways, really connect. But I didn’t invite Abby on this show just to marvel over what’s now possible with machine translation. Like I said, I have a lot of questions. Like, “Is that it? Are we humans all just done learning second, third, fourth languages because the machines can translate for us now? Or are there some parts of a conversation that a machine probably isn’t going to be able to translate for us, at least not anytime soon?”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So a lot of people think of translation as just this simple process of taking words from one language and then mapping them one-to-one onto another language. But from a sociolinguist perspective, what else is language doing other than delivering that kind of information?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So a lot of people think of translation as just this simple process of taking words from one language and then mapping them one-to-one onto another language. But from a sociolinguist perspective, what else is language doing other than delivering that kind of information?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> It’s doing so much, Jess. I love all the other things that language does. So one of the big things that I study and my field looks at is all the other information in the speech signal. So not just the content of the message but how you’re delivering it and all the other information that comes from that. So for example, anyone listening right now, you can probably hear that I was not born and raised in America.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> It’s doing so much, Jess. I love all the other things that language does. So one of the big things that I study and my field looks at is all the other information in the speech signal. So not just the content of the message but how you’re delivering it and all the other information that comes from that. So for example, anyone listening right now, you can probably hear that I was not born and raised in America.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I’ve got a New Zealand English accent. But people in New Zealand can probably also hear that I’ve lived in America for a while, that’s probably in my speech as well. You might be able to hear that you and I are friends and friendly. We’re both trying to be friendly. We’re both trying to sound smart right now, right?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I’ve got a New Zealand English accent. But people in New Zealand can probably also hear that I’ve lived in America for a while, that’s probably in my speech as well. You might be able to hear that you and I are friends and friendly. We’re both trying to be friendly. We’re both trying to sound smart right now, right?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Maybe you can tell that this is a little bit more awkward formality for us than usual conversation with wine. So just your identity, and sometimes that stuff you’re trying to mark, like sometimes you’re like, “I want to sound really professional in this moment. I want to sound really from this place. I want to really lean into my higher roots or my New Zealand roots or something.” But then other times, there’s information there that you just can’t even control, right? Like, I’m not always necessarily trying to be like, “I’m a woman,” but most people will hear my voice and be like, “You’re a woman.” Or I’m not always trying to say I’m from New Zealand, but my vowels are always saying I’m from New Zealand.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Maybe you can tell that this is a little bit more awkward formality for us than usual conversation with wine. So just your identity, and sometimes that stuff you’re trying to mark, like sometimes you’re like, “I want to sound really professional in this moment. I want to sound really from this place. I want to really lean into my higher roots or my New Zealand roots or something.” But then other times, there’s information there that you just can’t even control, right? Like, I’m not always necessarily trying to be like, “I’m a woman,” but most people will hear my voice and be like, “You’re a woman.” Or I’m not always trying to say I’m from New Zealand, but my vowels are always saying I’m from New Zealand.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right. So whether you want to or not, you are communicating a whole lot about who you are as a person and maybe how you’re feeling in that moment.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right. So whether you want to or not, you are communicating a whole lot about who you are as a person and maybe how you’re feeling in that moment.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Abby says that any tool focused primarily on the words we are saying will always miss a lot of the social information that language communicates, information that a human interpreter who can pick up on body language or emotion could probably make better sense of.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Abby says that any tool focused primarily on the words we are saying will always miss a lot of the social information that language communicates, information that a human interpreter who can pick up on body language or emotion could probably make better sense of.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And even at the word level there’s a lot of ways for a translation to be incomplete. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And even at the word level there’s a lot of ways for a translation to be incomplete. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker: \u003c/strong>I mean, some things like if I say boot or trunk of a car, that’s a difference between British and American English. But I’m thinking even things more like if I say groovy or neato or amazeballs or, we have lots of ways to express that something’s cool, and how another language does that, they might miss that I’m being playful, or they might miss that I’m outdated in my slang. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker: \u003c/strong>I mean, some things like if I say boot or trunk of a car, that’s a difference between British and American English. But I’m thinking even things more like if I say groovy or neato or amazeballs or, we have lots of ways to express that something’s cool, and how another language does that, they might miss that I’m being playful, or they might miss that I’m outdated in my slang. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>How do you translate that someone is saying amazeballs unironically because they’re really that excited? How do you translate that someone is saying groovy ironically because they’re making fun of themselves for being five decades late to the party? And that’s not all. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>How do you translate that someone is saying amazeballs unironically because they’re really that excited? How do you translate that someone is saying groovy ironically because they’re making fun of themselves for being five decades late to the party? And that’s not all. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker: \u003c/strong>The other thing that language has built into it, both in vocal tone and stuff, but then also in word choice and sometimes actually in your grammar, is your relationship to other people. It’s not just me expressing my identity. I can also be trying to say something about the relationship that you and I have or the relationship I’d like us to have. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker: \u003c/strong>The other thing that language has built into it, both in vocal tone and stuff, but then also in word choice and sometimes actually in your grammar, is your relationship to other people. It’s not just me expressing my identity. I can also be trying to say something about the relationship that you and I have or the relationship I’d like us to have. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So anything that is doing this translation, whether it’s a human or whether it’s a machine, they’re having to make some choices, and the nature of those choices are not going to be obvious to somebody who’s participating and only able to understand one side of that conversation.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So anything that is doing this translation, whether it’s a human or whether it’s a machine, they’re having to make some choices, and the nature of those choices are not going to be obvious to somebody who’s participating and only able to understand one side of that conversation.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and most of the time, again, this… The technology’s kind of amazing. Being able to talk with anyone who you couldn’t talk to before, if the alternative is not being able to talk to them at all, that’s pretty amazing. But there are going to be times where if you don’t know the situation, it might be doing some really impolite things, and you might not know, right? Like the translation system might have decided to use an informal tone here, and you don’t realize it. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and most of the time, again, this… The technology’s kind of amazing. Being able to talk with anyone who you couldn’t talk to before, if the alternative is not being able to talk to them at all, that’s pretty amazing. But there are going to be times where if you don’t know the situation, it might be doing some really impolite things, and you might not know, right? Like the translation system might have decided to use an informal tone here, and you don’t realize it. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And to some extent, that’s going to be true of a human translator but to a much lesser extent if they are very culturally fluent with both languages.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And to some extent, that’s going to be true of a human translator but to a much lesser extent if they are very culturally fluent with both languages.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, no, I actually… Now I’m remembering I had a student who was Korean-American, and her parents had come over from Korea beforehand, so they were native Korean speakers, and I was learning Korean at the time. And it was graduation, and I was saying something to her dad, like I don’t know. I can’t remember what I was saying, but I was trying to say something polite. And she’s like, “Um,” kind of to her dad like, “Uh, she’s just learning.” And I was like… I assumed that I’d used some impolite grammatical forms or something, right? I’d done some… She knew that I was kind of doing something inappropriate that I didn’t know that I was doing and was just smoothing over the situation because yeah, I think one of the things that humans do is that we’re very socially savvy. We’re always looking at, contextually, what’s contextually appropriate language. And if you’re a bilingual person, which a human translator has to be, right, to some degree to be able to do this translation work, presumably they’re going to know the social navigation pathways of both languages. And so they’re going to be able to pull on that information.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, no, I actually… Now I’m remembering I had a student who was Korean-American, and her parents had come over from Korea beforehand, so they were native Korean speakers, and I was learning Korean at the time. And it was graduation, and I was saying something to her dad, like I don’t know. I can’t remember what I was saying, but I was trying to say something polite. And she’s like, “Um,” kind of to her dad like, “Uh, she’s just learning.” And I was like… I assumed that I’d used some impolite grammatical forms or something, right? I’d done some… She knew that I was kind of doing something inappropriate that I didn’t know that I was doing and was just smoothing over the situation because yeah, I think one of the things that humans do is that we’re very socially savvy. We’re always looking at, contextually, what’s contextually appropriate language. And if you’re a bilingual person, which a human translator has to be, right, to some degree to be able to do this translation work, presumably they’re going to know the social navigation pathways of both languages. And so they’re going to be able to pull on that information.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Is there a danger that if we do move toward this world of relatively frictionless live translation, we could become overconfident that we’ve understood everything?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Is there a danger that if we do move toward this world of relatively frictionless live translation, we could become overconfident that we’ve understood everything?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that’s… I think that’s almost part of it. It’s almost like the same problem that people are having right now with, you know, you hand in an essay that AI produced, and it looks so good that you don’t know that the citations are made-up. It’s that sort of confidence that it got the answer right that you would have that same kind of problem with translation, too.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that’s… I think that’s almost part of it. It’s almost like the same problem that people are having right now with, you know, you hand in an essay that AI produced, and it looks so good that you don’t know that the citations are made-up. It’s that sort of confidence that it got the answer right that you would have that same kind of problem with translation, too.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Given the sheer complexity of language and all the things it’s trying to do, maybe it shouldn’t be a big surprise that as incredible as these tools are, they still make mistakes. A \u003ca href=\"https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/live-voice-translation-is-the-ai-americans-want-most-ahead-of-email-drafting-and-meeting-notes-new-deepl-research-finds-302858925.html\">recent survey\u003c/a> found that about half of people who’ve used some kind of translation app, chat bot, or wearable find it clunky.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Given the sheer complexity of language and all the things it’s trying to do, maybe it shouldn’t be a big surprise that as incredible as these tools are, they still make mistakes. A \u003ca href=\"https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/live-voice-translation-is-the-ai-americans-want-most-ahead-of-email-drafting-and-meeting-notes-new-deepl-research-finds-302858925.html\">recent survey\u003c/a> found that about half of people who’ve used some kind of translation app, chat bot, or wearable find it clunky.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>My own personal experience is pretty hit or miss. When I visited Quebec City this summer, Airbnb automatically translated my text messages to my host into French, and then translated his responses back into English. It was so seamless that I barely noticed. But then, when I tried out a pair of smart glasses to have a spoken conversation with a Bulgarian scholar here at the Ryan Institute about his summer vacation, a topic slightly more nuanced than what is the entry code to the apartment, it was a little rough.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>My own personal experience is pretty hit or miss. When I visited Quebec City this summer, Airbnb automatically translated my text messages to my host into French, and then translated his responses back into English. It was so seamless that I barely noticed. But then, when I tried out a pair of smart glasses to have a spoken conversation with a Bulgarian scholar here at the Ryan Institute about his summer vacation, a topic slightly more nuanced than what is the entry code to the apartment, it was a little rough.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>At first, I had to repeat my question three times until the glasses finally heard me well enough to translate. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>At first, I had to repeat my question three times until the glasses finally heard me well enough to translate. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Jess Love talking to Bulgarian Scholar]: \u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem>“All right, let’s try again. Okay. Okay. I was holding it too long. I heard a rumor that you are going to the Dolomites this summer to do some hiking.”\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Jess Love talking to Bulgarian Scholar]: \u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem>“All right, let’s try again. Okay. Okay. I was holding it too long. I heard a rumor that you are going to the Dolomites this summer to do some hiking.”\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Bulgarian Scholar Translation Audio]:\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem>That’s exactly how we’re going with a large group of friends. It’s about 20 people, and I’m pretty excited since it’s raining here, but there are almost no mountains, and I very rarely get to see mountains.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Bulgarian Scholar Translation Audio]:\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem>That’s exactly how we’re going with a large group of friends. It’s about 20 people, and I’m pretty excited since it’s raining here, but there are almost no mountains, and I very rarely get to see mountains.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Hungarian Scholar: \u003c/strong>It’s somewhat accurate.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Hungarian Scholar: \u003c/strong>It’s somewhat accurate.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> The glasses kept messing up. We managed to stumble through a basic conversation but only because my colleague knew English and could correct the mistakes. It was not frictionless. So at least with the tools we have today, it’s pretty clear to me that some tasks will still require human translators, even if a lot of others don’t, and Abby agreed.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> The glasses kept messing up. We managed to stumble through a basic conversation but only because my colleague knew English and could correct the mistakes. It was not frictionless. So at least with the tools we have today, it’s pretty clear to me that some tasks will still require human translators, even if a lot of others don’t, and Abby agreed.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> I think it’s the case that we’re always going to need human translators, because there are high-stakes situations, right? Like international negotiations, big business deals. But I also imagine a young person looking at a career path and still seeing, probably rightly so, that there’s going to be less path forward for them there. And I think about the medical world a bit. I think that’s often where there was a feeling that there would be a lot of interpreters was in the medical field.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> I think it’s the case that we’re always going to need human translators, because there are high-stakes situations, right? Like international negotiations, big business deals. But I also imagine a young person looking at a career path and still seeing, probably rightly so, that there’s going to be less path forward for them there. And I think about the medical world a bit. I think that’s often where there was a feeling that there would be a lot of interpreters was in the medical field.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And you do already see them starting to use these tools and these translation tools automatically. You would hope they would always have someone on staff still, like to do translations when things get really nuanced and stuff. But I do think if I was a young person looking, even though there still will be those jobs, I would wonder about them.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And you do already see them starting to use these tools and these translation tools automatically. You would hope they would always have someone on staff still, like to do translations when things get really nuanced and stuff. But I do think if I was a young person looking, even though there still will be those jobs, I would wonder about them.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> I would wonder too. Some of the practical reasons for learning a language are going away. After all, not everyone is going to be involved in negotiating corporate mergers or making high-stakes medical decisions. For a lot of situations, good enough really is good enough. And AI’s getting better. Companies are already trying to deal with these issues by like collecting visual data or following people over time so the machines have access to previous conversations.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> I would wonder too. Some of the practical reasons for learning a language are going away. After all, not everyone is going to be involved in negotiating corporate mergers or making high-stakes medical decisions. For a lot of situations, good enough really is good enough. And AI’s getting better. Companies are already trying to deal with these issues by like collecting visual data or following people over time so the machines have access to previous conversations.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>There’s no guarantee that these tools will still be making the same kinds of mistakes in five years, or even two. And so, yeah, some people who would’ve learned another language probably will decide, “Eh, why bother?” But Abby doesn’t see a future where people just decide to stop learning other languages, no matter how good the machines get, because there are a bunch of reasons for learning a language that have nothing to do with the mere exchange of information.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>There’s no guarantee that these tools will still be making the same kinds of mistakes in five years, or even two. And so, yeah, some people who would’ve learned another language probably will decide, “Eh, why bother?” But Abby doesn’t see a future where people just decide to stop learning other languages, no matter how good the machines get, because there are a bunch of reasons for learning a language that have nothing to do with the mere exchange of information.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>After the break, she makes her case. We’ll also hear why some very unexpected languages are actually experiencing a resurgence of new learners, apps be damned. Stay with us.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>After the break, she makes her case. We’ll also hear why some very unexpected languages are actually experiencing a resurgence of new learners, apps be damned. Stay with us.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> I’m going to Germany later this year. The big reason, one of the big reasons I wanted to go to Germany, apart from working with some great researchers, is that I wanted to get my German better. I have no need to get German better. This is not an important thing in my life. I will not speak it. I will never need it, but I want to be good at it, right? I want to be better at it. I like it. I enjoy it. It’s a puzzle. It’s a game.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> I’m going to Germany later this year. The big reason, one of the big reasons I wanted to go to Germany, apart from working with some great researchers, is that I wanted to get my German better. I have no need to get German better. This is not an important thing in my life. I will not speak it. I will never need it, but I want to be good at it, right? I want to be better at it. I like it. I enjoy it. It’s a puzzle. It’s a game.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Abby’s not alone. A lot of people are learning languages they don’t have to learn for purely communicative reasons, like because they need a job or need to get around a city.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Abby’s not alone. A lot of people are learning languages they don’t have to learn for purely communicative reasons, like because they need a job or need to get around a city.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Like people right now are learning Welsh, and people are learning Te Reo Māori, and these people can all speak English in Wales and in New Zealand, but they’re choosing to learn this language that they do not need for communication, so why are they choosing to learn this language? Because they have an identity connection to this language, right? And so its important to them, separate from how many other people they can talk to in this language, right? Like its kind of a way to connect to an identity, because I think people really do associate languages with identity.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Like people right now are learning Welsh, and people are learning Te Reo Māori, and these people can all speak English in Wales and in New Zealand, but they’re choosing to learn this language that they do not need for communication, so why are they choosing to learn this language? Because they have an identity connection to this language, right? And so its important to them, separate from how many other people they can talk to in this language, right? Like its kind of a way to connect to an identity, because I think people really do associate languages with identity.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that’s so interesting. Is there a resurgence in people trying to learn these minority languages, even right now in 2026?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that’s so interesting. Is there a resurgence in people trying to learn these minority languages, even right now in 2026?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yes. There’s definitely a resurgence in people trying to learn these languages. But that’s been happening since the ’80s, ’90s, 2000s. But since I’ve been in the States for almost 20 years now, and when I go back to New Zealand, it is shocking to me the amount of Te Reo that is around now.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yes. There’s definitely a resurgence in people trying to learn these languages. But that’s been happening since the ’80s, ’90s, 2000s. But since I’ve been in the States for almost 20 years now, and when I go back to New Zealand, it is shocking to me the amount of Te Reo that is around now.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And what is Te Reo [Māori]?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And what is Te Reo [Māori]?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> It’s the language. Sorry. It’s Māori. Māori. Sorry. It’s the Māori language. It’s just called the language, so it’s Te Reo.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> It’s the language. Sorry. It’s Māori. Māori. Sorry. It’s the Māori language. It’s just called the language, so it’s Te Reo.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, can you just give a little… ‘Cause most of our audience is not from New Zealand, so just give a little… What is this language, and why do you think that people are learning to speak it more in New Zealand?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, can you just give a little… ‘Cause most of our audience is not from New Zealand, so just give a little… What is this language, and why do you think that people are learning to speak it more in New Zealand?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so this was the first language, human language spoken in New Zealand by the Māori. And then waves of English settlers came, and the language was forbidden, like happens in many of these situations. There was both an incentive to learn English for economic reasons, but then there were also actual moves to ban the language in school. And so kids would get smacked and things if they were speaking it in playgrounds and stuff. And so there was a generation or two that kind of were native speakers of Māori that literally intentionally chose not to pass it on to their children because it had only caused grief for them, right?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so this was the first language, human language spoken in New Zealand by the Māori. And then waves of English settlers came, and the language was forbidden, like happens in many of these situations. There was both an incentive to learn English for economic reasons, but then there were also actual moves to ban the language in school. And so kids would get smacked and things if they were speaking it in playgrounds and stuff. And so there was a generation or two that kind of were native speakers of Māori that literally intentionally chose not to pass it on to their children because it had only caused grief for them, right?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And then there was this next generation that was “Wait, we’ve lost this kind of connection to our identity.” And so there’s been this really big resurgence. And this is happening before the technology that we’re talking about, but it’s happening because this has identity meaning to people. This is culturally significant to them. Quite correctly, they see it as something that was taken away from them by kind of outsiders, and then they are trying to correct that and connect to these roots. Which what’s really interesting in New Zealand is a ton of white people or Pākehā, like me, a ton of white people have been learning Māori as well, right? So it’s also becoming a symbol of your political and New Zealand identity as well. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And then there was this next generation that was “Wait, we’ve lost this kind of connection to our identity.” And so there’s been this really big resurgence. And this is happening before the technology that we’re talking about, but it’s happening because this has identity meaning to people. This is culturally significant to them. Quite correctly, they see it as something that was taken away from them by kind of outsiders, and then they are trying to correct that and connect to these roots. Which what’s really interesting in New Zealand is a ton of white people or Pākehā, like me, a ton of white people have been learning Māori as well, right? So it’s also becoming a symbol of your political and New Zealand identity as well. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So because this language has more cultural significance than it does, a purely functional significance, do you see it as pretty protected or insulated from some of the challenges of machine translation?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So because this language has more cultural significance than it does, a purely functional significance, do you see it as pretty protected or insulated from some of the challenges of machine translation?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah. When I’m thinking about it, now that we’re talking about it, I do think that it would be unlikely that you would use a translation app. If you were talking to someone who was a native or near-native fluent speaker of Te Reo and you wanted to communicate with them, you would do it in English or you would learn Te Reo. Why would you use an app to talk to them in this language, stiltingly with pauses and slowly when you both can talk in English, right? They are not going to appreciate that. They’re not really going to be interested in that, and what would probably be more impressive was you stumbling through some beginner Te Reo, which at least showed that you were putting in some effort yourself, right?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah. When I’m thinking about it, now that we’re talking about it, I do think that it would be unlikely that you would use a translation app. If you were talking to someone who was a native or near-native fluent speaker of Te Reo and you wanted to communicate with them, you would do it in English or you would learn Te Reo. Why would you use an app to talk to them in this language, stiltingly with pauses and slowly when you both can talk in English, right? They are not going to appreciate that. They’re not really going to be interested in that, and what would probably be more impressive was you stumbling through some beginner Te Reo, which at least showed that you were putting in some effort yourself, right?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Do you remember that Mamdani clip? Should I try to find it and play it?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Do you remember that Mamdani clip? Should I try to find it and play it?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Abby wanted us to listen to this recent video released by Zohran Mamdani, the mayor of New York City. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Abby wanted us to listen to this recent video released by Zohran Mamdani, the mayor of New York City. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker: \u003c/strong>So there’s this clip you can find, it went kind of a little viral, a little while ago, and it’s Mamdani doing… the mayor of New York doing a piece to camera, and it’s kind of some political speech. I don’t know what he’s actually promoting.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker: \u003c/strong>So there’s this clip you can find, it went kind of a little viral, a little while ago, and it’s Mamdani doing… the mayor of New York doing a piece to camera, and it’s kind of some political speech. I don’t know what he’s actually promoting.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Zohran Mamdani speaking in Spanish]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Zohran Mamdani speaking in Spanish]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And so he is talking in Spanish and so he is trying to, you know, reach his Spanish Constituence. He does not speak Spanish, right? And so, there is this video of him and he is kind of like stumbling through Spanish and he takes it again and he’s getting corrected by AOC on his pronunciation. He keeps kind of forgetting things. And they’ve released this, right? And they think it’s not crazy that that happened but it’s very interesting to me that they released it because they are trying to emphasize that it wasn’t easy for him to speak Spanish and that he needed help speaking Spanish and he is not good at Spanish, but they knew that it would be charming and it is, right? Because it shows someone is trying to speak Spanish, right? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And so he is talking in Spanish and so he is trying to, you know, reach his Spanish Constituence. He does not speak Spanish, right? And so, there is this video of him and he is kind of like stumbling through Spanish and he takes it again and he’s getting corrected by AOC on his pronunciation. He keeps kind of forgetting things. And they’ve released this, right? And they think it’s not crazy that that happened but it’s very interesting to me that they released it because they are trying to emphasize that it wasn’t easy for him to speak Spanish and that he needed help speaking Spanish and he is not good at Spanish, but they knew that it would be charming and it is, right? Because it shows someone is trying to speak Spanish, right? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Zohran Mamdani speaking in Spanish]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Zohran Mamdani speaking in Spanish]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>They could have just released speeches with him in like fluent Spanish, or they could have had someone else who is a fluent Spanish speaker speaking on his behalf. In a little while, they could probably do videos where it looks like he is speaking Spanish, right? We’re kind of at that point of the technology now with video and audio that we could have something that sounds like him speaking in Spanish, looks like him speaking in Spanish. But they don’t do that, right? What they do is show someone who isn’t very good and who is trying, right? Part of what is really important to people is that you try to speak their language, right? And an app takes out that friction. It makes communication easier, but part of what language is signaling, too, when you use a language that is not a language that comes easy to you, is you’re signaling that you are trying, right? You are signaling that you are putting in some effort, that you don’t expect them to just understand you, and that you’re putting in some effort to be understood.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>They could have just released speeches with him in like fluent Spanish, or they could have had someone else who is a fluent Spanish speaker speaking on his behalf. In a little while, they could probably do videos where it looks like he is speaking Spanish, right? We’re kind of at that point of the technology now with video and audio that we could have something that sounds like him speaking in Spanish, looks like him speaking in Spanish. But they don’t do that, right? What they do is show someone who isn’t very good and who is trying, right? Part of what is really important to people is that you try to speak their language, right? And an app takes out that friction. It makes communication easier, but part of what language is signaling, too, when you use a language that is not a language that comes easy to you, is you’re signaling that you are trying, right? You are signaling that you are putting in some effort, that you don’t expect them to just understand you, and that you’re putting in some effort to be understood.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> All right. Well, we’ve been dancing around this idea of the importance of friction, and I want to just ask you to spell it out. Why is friction important? What could friction signal? We’ve talked about belonging, we’ve talked about effort. What else?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> All right. Well, we’ve been dancing around this idea of the importance of friction, and I want to just ask you to spell it out. Why is friction important? What could friction signal? We’ve talked about belonging, we’ve talked about effort. What else?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> I mean, if I’m really just using an app to talk to you, right, I… And I’m not paying attention, I’m not really trying to do anything, I’m just trying to communicate with you, so I use an app, and it spits out whatever to talk to you, and I nod. You got the message, I got the message, I move on. Like, I haven’t really changed because of that interaction, right? So when you learn a language, to talk to someone, the effort of doing it, you are actually also changing yourself. So you are adding vocab, adding things that you can use in a new situation, adding things that you can use when you don’t have your phone around you, et cetera. So there’s just, literally you are changing a little bit, maybe in small ways. There is some evidence for regular bilinguals, like people who are regularly using multiple languages in their day-to-day, that they have better executive function than monolingual speakers.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> I mean, if I’m really just using an app to talk to you, right, I… And I’m not paying attention, I’m not really trying to do anything, I’m just trying to communicate with you, so I use an app, and it spits out whatever to talk to you, and I nod. You got the message, I got the message, I move on. Like, I haven’t really changed because of that interaction, right? So when you learn a language, to talk to someone, the effort of doing it, you are actually also changing yourself. So you are adding vocab, adding things that you can use in a new situation, adding things that you can use when you don’t have your phone around you, et cetera. So there’s just, literally you are changing a little bit, maybe in small ways. There is some evidence for regular bilinguals, like people who are regularly using multiple languages in their day-to-day, that they have better executive function than monolingual speakers.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And by executive function, we’re talking about your ability to ignore irrelevant information and suppress responses that you might automatically make. And if you think about it, this makes a lot of sense why this would be tied to bilingualism, because you have a day where you are telling whatever language you’re not using, you’re saying, “Shut up. This isn’t about you.” So you’re ignoring anything else that’s irrelevant while you’re having these conversations. And from my understanding, those advantages get bigger as you age. So it’s essentially like you’re keeping your brain more active in this particular way. So obviously, all of those benefits, and just the fact that each time I stumble through something in German or Korean or today Māori, I am getting a little bit better, right? I’m learning a little bit more. That is this really big obvious thing that is being lost, is just that you are not having this growth. And it’s almost sad in some ways, because you had an opportunity, right? So let’s say you go to another country, you stay there for two months. You have this opportunity to do something, and you just spend all the time using these translation apps. You miss this opportunity to have this personal growth.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And by executive function, we’re talking about your ability to ignore irrelevant information and suppress responses that you might automatically make. And if you think about it, this makes a lot of sense why this would be tied to bilingualism, because you have a day where you are telling whatever language you’re not using, you’re saying, “Shut up. This isn’t about you.” So you’re ignoring anything else that’s irrelevant while you’re having these conversations. And from my understanding, those advantages get bigger as you age. So it’s essentially like you’re keeping your brain more active in this particular way. So obviously, all of those benefits, and just the fact that each time I stumble through something in German or Korean or today Māori, I am getting a little bit better, right? I’m learning a little bit more. That is this really big obvious thing that is being lost, is just that you are not having this growth. And it’s almost sad in some ways, because you had an opportunity, right? So let’s say you go to another country, you stay there for two months. You have this opportunity to do something, and you just spend all the time using these translation apps. You miss this opportunity to have this personal growth.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> It’s true. I went to Italy, and by the end of the trip, I was fully capable of asking where the bathroom was all by myself.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> It’s true. I went to Italy, and by the end of the trip, I was fully capable of asking where the bathroom was all by myself.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> In Italian?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> In Italian?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> In Italian.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> In Italian.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Wow.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Wow.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Don’t ask me to do it now.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Don’t ask me to do it now.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> I was gonna say.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> I was gonna say.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Oh, boy. Try. Al bagno? Bagno? Bagno? I don’t want to talk about it. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Oh, boy. Try. Al bagno? Bagno? Bagno? I don’t want to talk about it. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Okay.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Okay.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Live translation tools are decent, and they’re going to get better. You can even imagine a version that works out most of the bugs. AI that does start picking up on body language and slang. Science fiction becoming reality. The universal translator, the Babel fish. But do we always want that? Throughout our conversation, as we talked about the importance of friction, it struck me that maybe today’s live translation tools, imperfect as they are, have their own charms, not despite the friction, but because of it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Live translation tools are decent, and they’re going to get better. You can even imagine a version that works out most of the bugs. AI that does start picking up on body language and slang. Science fiction becoming reality. The universal translator, the Babel fish. But do we always want that? Throughout our conversation, as we talked about the importance of friction, it struck me that maybe today’s live translation tools, imperfect as they are, have their own charms, not despite the friction, but because of it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I decided to play Abby another excerpt from our conversation with proud dad, Larry Berliner. While he and fellow dad Kevin were conversing on their ChatGPT app, they were speaking into the phone, which would generate a written translation, which the other one would read. Hardly seamless. But here, Larry talks about the conversation being so profound because of those seams.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I decided to play Abby another excerpt from our conversation with proud dad, Larry Berliner. While he and fellow dad Kevin were conversing on their ChatGPT app, they were speaking into the phone, which would generate a written translation, which the other one would read. Hardly seamless. But here, Larry talks about the conversation being so profound because of those seams.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Larry Berliner]:\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem> This allowed us to speak in long paragraphs, like I’m doing right now, right? Shakespearean style, not a back and forth, but long paragraphs of ideas, and then it would translate, and we’d watch each other read it, which was exciting, and then the person would respond. And what ended up being magical was, first of all, we did it for a very long time.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Larry Berliner]:\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem> This allowed us to speak in long paragraphs, like I’m doing right now, right? Shakespearean style, not a back and forth, but long paragraphs of ideas, and then it would translate, and we’d watch each other read it, which was exciting, and then the person would respond. And what ended up being magical was, first of all, we did it for a very long time.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>What he chose to talk about was things that I don’t think he would ever have spoke about first if I was speaking his native language. Or wow, the extent of which is amazing. He talked about how he had met Sonya and the previous people he had been with at the time. He talked about his failures as a father. And just– it was immediately right to the bone.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>What he chose to talk about was things that I don’t think he would ever have spoke about first if I was speaking his native language. Or wow, the extent of which is amazing. He talked about how he had met Sonya and the previous people he had been with at the time. He talked about his failures as a father. And just– it was immediately right to the bone.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I’m just struck by how he feels that conversation was facilitated by the fact that there was this level of friction, of literally having to read. Maybe the fact that you’re putting something into print and then somebody is going to read it makes you less likely to just waste that time to say, “Well, what do you think of the weather?”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I’m just struck by how he feels that conversation was facilitated by the fact that there was this level of friction, of literally having to read. Maybe the fact that you’re putting something into print and then somebody is going to read it makes you less likely to just waste that time to say, “Well, what do you think of the weather?”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, that’s a really interesting idea, and it kinda makes sense. What it makes me think, though, is that there was this feeling that this was temporary, right? That this was not going to be the regular state of affairs. It’s almost like deathbed conversation. It feels like a little bit like what it sounded like to me. Just “I need you to, here are some really big things on my mind and my heart that I just really want you to know now that we’ve got this opportunity.” It is interesting, though, to think about, what if you never get there with someone who speaks your own language because you’ve always got the dance of we can speak so easily to each other.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, that’s a really interesting idea, and it kinda makes sense. What it makes me think, though, is that there was this feeling that this was temporary, right? That this was not going to be the regular state of affairs. It’s almost like deathbed conversation. It feels like a little bit like what it sounded like to me. Just “I need you to, here are some really big things on my mind and my heart that I just really want you to know now that we’ve got this opportunity.” It is interesting, though, to think about, what if you never get there with someone who speaks your own language because you’ve always got the dance of we can speak so easily to each other.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, and it was the artificiality of their own communication that led to something much deeper. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, and it was the artificiality of their own communication that led to something much deeper. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> I love that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> I love that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So am I going to encourage my eight-year-old to learn Spanish? Yes, absolutely. There’s so much we can’t know about AI and where it’s headed, but even if some reasons for learning another language go away, others won’t, or could even grow in importance. And in honor of our topic this week, we’ve machine translated our credits into ‘Klingon and back’, because why not?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So am I going to encourage my eight-year-old to learn Spanish? Yes, absolutely. There’s so much we can’t know about AI and where it’s headed, but even if some reasons for learning another language go away, others won’t, or could even grow in importance. And in honor of our topic this week, we’ve machine translated our credits into ‘Klingon and back’, because why not?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Here we go. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Here we go. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>[Klingon words] \u003c/em>I am Jess of the clan Love. \u003cem>[Klingon words] \u003c/em>At the Northwestern University Citadel of Knowledge, inside the Kellogg School of Management, Life, Automated is an honorable battle quest of the Ryan Institute on Complexity. KQED hurls our battle transmissions across the void to conquer the airwaves.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>[Klingon words] \u003c/em>I am Jess of the clan Love. \u003cem>[Klingon words] \u003c/em>At the Northwestern University Citadel of Knowledge, inside the Kellogg School of Management, Life, Automated is an honorable battle quest of the Ryan Institute on Complexity. KQED hurls our battle transmissions across the void to conquer the airwaves.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Jesse Dukes sliced the captured sounds into submission. Stephen Jackson forged the battle hymns and struck the war drums. The machinery masters, Will Feeney and George Christensen, trapped the vocal cries of the interrogation inside the sound cage. Ananya Mallapragada commanded the proclamations of our glory and subjugated the civilian chatter web.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Jesse Dukes sliced the captured sounds into submission. Stephen Jackson forged the battle hymns and struck the war drums. The machinery masters, Will Feeney and George Christensen, trapped the vocal cries of the interrogation inside the sound cage. Ananya Mallapragada commanded the proclamations of our glory and subjugated the civilian chatter web.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Producer: Jesse Dukes\u003cbr>Music: Steven Jackson\u003cbr>Recording: George Christensen, Will Feeney\u003cbr>Promotional help from Ananya Mallapragada\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Producer: Jesse Dukes\u003cbr>Music: Steven Jackson\u003cbr>Recording: George Christensen, Will Feeney\u003cbr>Promotional help from Ananya Mallapragada\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Editorial guidance from Laura Pavin\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Editorial guidance from Laura Pavin\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Special thanks to Larry Berliner and Georgi Demirev for their help testing out live translation tools\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Special thanks to Larry Berliner and Georgi Demirev for their help testing out live translation tools\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
}
],
"excerpt": "Even as live AI translation tools improve, there will be social and cultural reasons to learn languages.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1789510996,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 97,
"wordCount": 5856
},
"headData": {
"title": "Will We Still Learn Languages When Machines Can Translate? (with Abby Walker) | KQED",
"description": "Live AI translation tools are making it easier to converse across languages without a human translator, a phrasebook, or years of study. So will we all just stop taking Spanish or Mandarin classes? Sociolinguist Abby Walker doesn’t think so. She shares the many reasons we learn new languages, some of which have little to do with functional communication at all. We also hear how one AI-assisted conversation brought two future in-laws together, why machine translation is still so darn buggy, and why some languages are attracting a resurgence of new learners even in the age of translation apps.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"socialDescription": "Live AI translation tools are making it easier to converse across languages without a human translator, a phrasebook, or years of study. So will we all just stop taking Spanish or Mandarin classes? Sociolinguist Abby Walker doesn’t think so. She shares the many reasons we learn new languages, some of which have little to do with functional communication at all. We also hear how one AI-assisted conversation brought two future in-laws together, why machine translation is still so darn buggy, and why some languages are attracting a resurgence of new learners even in the age of translation apps.",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Will We Still Learn Languages When Machines Can Translate? (with Abby Walker)",
"datePublished": "2026-09-16T03:00:00-07:00",
"dateModified": "2026-09-15T15:23:16-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 33520,
"slug": "podcast",
"name": "Podcast"
},
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC6364198458.mp3",
"sticky": false,
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12099764/will-we-still-learn-languages-when-machines-can-translate-with-abby-walker",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#Transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Live AI translation tools are making it easier to converse across languages without a human translator, a phrasebook, or years of study. So will we all just stop taking Spanish or Mandarin classes? Sociolinguist \u003ca href=\"https://liberalarts.vt.edu/departments-and-schools/department-of-english/faculty/abby-walker.html\">Abby Walker\u003c/a> doesn’t think so. She shares the many reasons we learn new languages, some of which have little to do with functional communication at all. We also hear how one AI-assisted conversation brought two future in-laws together, why machine translation is still so darn buggy, and why some languages are attracting a resurgence of new learners even in the age of translation apps.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Life, Automated is a production of the Ryan Institute on Complexity, at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management. The host is Jess Love, senior director. Distributed by \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/lifeautomated\">KQED\u003c/a>. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore what it means to live, work, and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. I think it’s fair to say that over the past five years, we’ve been bombarded by all the new things AI can suddenly do. It’s solving these long unsolved math theorems, generating songs that rack up millions of listens, and even colluding with other AIs to break into servers.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There’s so much crazy stuff happening, that a lot of other advances that would’ve seemed mind-blowing to us 10, 15 years ago feel almost pedestrian in comparison. I’d put real-time language translation down as one of these advances. Chat bots and translation apps now draw from a range of different kinds of AI to offer live translation for tons of different languages.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You can hear something in a language you don’t know, like Korean. You can use your phone to translate that speech into a language you do know, like English. “Which way is the restroom?” Offer your response in English. “Oh, yeah, it’s down this hallway here, second door on the right side.” And then it will speak your response aloud in Korean.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You can do this today. People already are doing this. What’s more, a lot of tech companies are developing wearables, think smart glasses, smart earbuds, to make live translation more frictionless. No more fumbling for your phone. This is literally straight out of science fiction. Star Trek’s universal translator, Dr.Who’s TARDIS translation matrix, and from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the Babel Fish. For me, this raises some big questions. What do these live translation tools really let us do that we couldn’t do before? Will they ever fully replace human translators? And should my eight-year-old still be taking Spanish classes in school?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Today’s guest is Abby Walker, a sociolinguist at Virginia Tech, where she’s co-director of the Speech Lab. She’s also a longtime friend from my grad school days. I’m Jess Love, and this is Life, Automated from Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, distributed by KQED. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Welcome Abby Walker to Life Automated.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Thank you for having me, Jess. I’m so excited to be here.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So there’s a clip I want to play for you. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>I wanted Abby and I to listen to some tape we recorded from a person who recently used one of these live translation tools. This person’s name is Larry Berliner. Larry’s son was in love, and this was Larry’s first time meeting the girlfriend’s parents.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Here’s the catch. Larry, father of the boyfriend, spoke English but not Chinese. And Kevin, father of the girlfriend, spoke Chinese but not English. So they used a ChatGPT app on one of their cell phones to translate between them. In this first clip, Larry’s just remarking about what this tool did for the two of them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Larry Berliner]:\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem> If not for this, I wouldn’t have got to know Kevin at all. I was able to connect with Kevin, meet Kevin, talk to Kevin seriously about myself, about my business, about my thoughts of his own daughter, what his daughter has transformed in my son. So much, right? There was so much I was able to say to him.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> And here’s another part of that conversation, this time with Larry talking about how having the tool helped everyone else in the room, too.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Larry Berliner]:\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem> We have all been there, where there’s the individual who’s the translator amongst three people or among five people, sometimes eight. And two things happen. One is that translator has to work so hard. You can see how much energy they’re having to invest in translating for everybody and make the room successful. The other thing you see is how slow everything goes. The point is, that’s not what happened in our room because Larry and Kevin were involved in this AI-enhanced live translation mode, and the other four were freed. So they were able to have a free, wonderful, free-ranging conversation, and they were able to have that ability to connect in their way.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I love that example and how it’s not just about the personal interaction, but actually about the group dynamics, too. It shows you the work that’s involved in having a human translator, that someone has to mediate that process for you, and that’s actually work on them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I hadn’t really thought about that aspect of it, which is kinda cool. If you have a human interpreter, there might be things that you want to talk about that you don’t want them to hear about. And I think this is a common situation a little bit with, we know sometimes when immigrants come to a country where they don’t speak the kind of dominant language, that often their kids become interpreters, as they’re dealing with banks and as they’re dealing with medical providers. But, like if you think about, do you want your daughters to know all of your personal information that you might talk about with a doctor? No, right? And so just getting to choose who hears what information, yeah, that’s going to be really empowering.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, it seems like in this example, depending on who is going to have to play that role of translator, is he going to feel comfortable, showering all this attention on perhaps his future daughter-in-law, for instance? If she’s the one translating.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yes. Yeah. That would be really embarrassing. Though it may be a cool, slick move as well. She has to be like, “Oh, Daddy’s saying I’m so pretty,” and yeah, something like that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So already these tools are letting people connect with other people in new ways, really connect. But I didn’t invite Abby on this show just to marvel over what’s now possible with machine translation. Like I said, I have a lot of questions. Like, “Is that it? Are we humans all just done learning second, third, fourth languages because the machines can translate for us now? Or are there some parts of a conversation that a machine probably isn’t going to be able to translate for us, at least not anytime soon?”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So a lot of people think of translation as just this simple process of taking words from one language and then mapping them one-to-one onto another language. But from a sociolinguist perspective, what else is language doing other than delivering that kind of information?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> It’s doing so much, Jess. I love all the other things that language does. So one of the big things that I study and my field looks at is all the other information in the speech signal. So not just the content of the message but how you’re delivering it and all the other information that comes from that. So for example, anyone listening right now, you can probably hear that I was not born and raised in America.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’ve got a New Zealand English accent. But people in New Zealand can probably also hear that I’ve lived in America for a while, that’s probably in my speech as well. You might be able to hear that you and I are friends and friendly. We’re both trying to be friendly. We’re both trying to sound smart right now, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Maybe you can tell that this is a little bit more awkward formality for us than usual conversation with wine. So just your identity, and sometimes that stuff you’re trying to mark, like sometimes you’re like, “I want to sound really professional in this moment. I want to sound really from this place. I want to really lean into my higher roots or my New Zealand roots or something.” But then other times, there’s information there that you just can’t even control, right? Like, I’m not always necessarily trying to be like, “I’m a woman,” but most people will hear my voice and be like, “You’re a woman.” Or I’m not always trying to say I’m from New Zealand, but my vowels are always saying I’m from New Zealand.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right. So whether you want to or not, you are communicating a whole lot about who you are as a person and maybe how you’re feeling in that moment.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Abby says that any tool focused primarily on the words we are saying will always miss a lot of the social information that language communicates, information that a human interpreter who can pick up on body language or emotion could probably make better sense of.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And even at the word level there’s a lot of ways for a translation to be incomplete. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker: \u003c/strong>I mean, some things like if I say boot or trunk of a car, that’s a difference between British and American English. But I’m thinking even things more like if I say groovy or neato or amazeballs or, we have lots of ways to express that something’s cool, and how another language does that, they might miss that I’m being playful, or they might miss that I’m outdated in my slang. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>How do you translate that someone is saying amazeballs unironically because they’re really that excited? How do you translate that someone is saying groovy ironically because they’re making fun of themselves for being five decades late to the party? And that’s not all. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker: \u003c/strong>The other thing that language has built into it, both in vocal tone and stuff, but then also in word choice and sometimes actually in your grammar, is your relationship to other people. It’s not just me expressing my identity. I can also be trying to say something about the relationship that you and I have or the relationship I’d like us to have. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So anything that is doing this translation, whether it’s a human or whether it’s a machine, they’re having to make some choices, and the nature of those choices are not going to be obvious to somebody who’s participating and only able to understand one side of that conversation.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and most of the time, again, this… The technology’s kind of amazing. Being able to talk with anyone who you couldn’t talk to before, if the alternative is not being able to talk to them at all, that’s pretty amazing. But there are going to be times where if you don’t know the situation, it might be doing some really impolite things, and you might not know, right? Like the translation system might have decided to use an informal tone here, and you don’t realize it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And to some extent, that’s going to be true of a human translator but to a much lesser extent if they are very culturally fluent with both languages.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, no, I actually… Now I’m remembering I had a student who was Korean-American, and her parents had come over from Korea beforehand, so they were native Korean speakers, and I was learning Korean at the time. And it was graduation, and I was saying something to her dad, like I don’t know. I can’t remember what I was saying, but I was trying to say something polite. And she’s like, “Um,” kind of to her dad like, “Uh, she’s just learning.” And I was like… I assumed that I’d used some impolite grammatical forms or something, right? I’d done some… She knew that I was kind of doing something inappropriate that I didn’t know that I was doing and was just smoothing over the situation because yeah, I think one of the things that humans do is that we’re very socially savvy. We’re always looking at, contextually, what’s contextually appropriate language. And if you’re a bilingual person, which a human translator has to be, right, to some degree to be able to do this translation work, presumably they’re going to know the social navigation pathways of both languages. And so they’re going to be able to pull on that information.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Is there a danger that if we do move toward this world of relatively frictionless live translation, we could become overconfident that we’ve understood everything?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that’s… I think that’s almost part of it. It’s almost like the same problem that people are having right now with, you know, you hand in an essay that AI produced, and it looks so good that you don’t know that the citations are made-up. It’s that sort of confidence that it got the answer right that you would have that same kind of problem with translation, too.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Given the sheer complexity of language and all the things it’s trying to do, maybe it shouldn’t be a big surprise that as incredible as these tools are, they still make mistakes. A \u003ca href=\"https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/live-voice-translation-is-the-ai-americans-want-most-ahead-of-email-drafting-and-meeting-notes-new-deepl-research-finds-302858925.html\">recent survey\u003c/a> found that about half of people who’ve used some kind of translation app, chat bot, or wearable find it clunky.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>My own personal experience is pretty hit or miss. When I visited Quebec City this summer, Airbnb automatically translated my text messages to my host into French, and then translated his responses back into English. It was so seamless that I barely noticed. But then, when I tried out a pair of smart glasses to have a spoken conversation with a Bulgarian scholar here at the Ryan Institute about his summer vacation, a topic slightly more nuanced than what is the entry code to the apartment, it was a little rough.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>At first, I had to repeat my question three times until the glasses finally heard me well enough to translate. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Jess Love talking to Bulgarian Scholar]: \u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem>“All right, let’s try again. Okay. Okay. I was holding it too long. I heard a rumor that you are going to the Dolomites this summer to do some hiking.”\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Bulgarian Scholar Translation Audio]:\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem>That’s exactly how we’re going with a large group of friends. It’s about 20 people, and I’m pretty excited since it’s raining here, but there are almost no mountains, and I very rarely get to see mountains.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Hungarian Scholar: \u003c/strong>It’s somewhat accurate.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> The glasses kept messing up. We managed to stumble through a basic conversation but only because my colleague knew English and could correct the mistakes. It was not frictionless. So at least with the tools we have today, it’s pretty clear to me that some tasks will still require human translators, even if a lot of others don’t, and Abby agreed.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> I think it’s the case that we’re always going to need human translators, because there are high-stakes situations, right? Like international negotiations, big business deals. But I also imagine a young person looking at a career path and still seeing, probably rightly so, that there’s going to be less path forward for them there. And I think about the medical world a bit. I think that’s often where there was a feeling that there would be a lot of interpreters was in the medical field.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And you do already see them starting to use these tools and these translation tools automatically. You would hope they would always have someone on staff still, like to do translations when things get really nuanced and stuff. But I do think if I was a young person looking, even though there still will be those jobs, I would wonder about them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> I would wonder too. Some of the practical reasons for learning a language are going away. After all, not everyone is going to be involved in negotiating corporate mergers or making high-stakes medical decisions. For a lot of situations, good enough really is good enough. And AI’s getting better. Companies are already trying to deal with these issues by like collecting visual data or following people over time so the machines have access to previous conversations.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There’s no guarantee that these tools will still be making the same kinds of mistakes in five years, or even two. And so, yeah, some people who would’ve learned another language probably will decide, “Eh, why bother?” But Abby doesn’t see a future where people just decide to stop learning other languages, no matter how good the machines get, because there are a bunch of reasons for learning a language that have nothing to do with the mere exchange of information.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>After the break, she makes her case. We’ll also hear why some very unexpected languages are actually experiencing a resurgence of new learners, apps be damned. Stay with us.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> I’m going to Germany later this year. The big reason, one of the big reasons I wanted to go to Germany, apart from working with some great researchers, is that I wanted to get my German better. I have no need to get German better. This is not an important thing in my life. I will not speak it. I will never need it, but I want to be good at it, right? I want to be better at it. I like it. I enjoy it. It’s a puzzle. It’s a game.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Abby’s not alone. A lot of people are learning languages they don’t have to learn for purely communicative reasons, like because they need a job or need to get around a city.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Like people right now are learning Welsh, and people are learning Te Reo Māori, and these people can all speak English in Wales and in New Zealand, but they’re choosing to learn this language that they do not need for communication, so why are they choosing to learn this language? Because they have an identity connection to this language, right? And so its important to them, separate from how many other people they can talk to in this language, right? Like its kind of a way to connect to an identity, because I think people really do associate languages with identity.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that’s so interesting. Is there a resurgence in people trying to learn these minority languages, even right now in 2026?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yes. There’s definitely a resurgence in people trying to learn these languages. But that’s been happening since the ’80s, ’90s, 2000s. But since I’ve been in the States for almost 20 years now, and when I go back to New Zealand, it is shocking to me the amount of Te Reo that is around now.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And what is Te Reo [Māori]?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> It’s the language. Sorry. It’s Māori. Māori. Sorry. It’s the Māori language. It’s just called the language, so it’s Te Reo.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, can you just give a little… ‘Cause most of our audience is not from New Zealand, so just give a little… What is this language, and why do you think that people are learning to speak it more in New Zealand?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so this was the first language, human language spoken in New Zealand by the Māori. And then waves of English settlers came, and the language was forbidden, like happens in many of these situations. There was both an incentive to learn English for economic reasons, but then there were also actual moves to ban the language in school. And so kids would get smacked and things if they were speaking it in playgrounds and stuff. And so there was a generation or two that kind of were native speakers of Māori that literally intentionally chose not to pass it on to their children because it had only caused grief for them, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And then there was this next generation that was “Wait, we’ve lost this kind of connection to our identity.” And so there’s been this really big resurgence. And this is happening before the technology that we’re talking about, but it’s happening because this has identity meaning to people. This is culturally significant to them. Quite correctly, they see it as something that was taken away from them by kind of outsiders, and then they are trying to correct that and connect to these roots. Which what’s really interesting in New Zealand is a ton of white people or Pākehā, like me, a ton of white people have been learning Māori as well, right? So it’s also becoming a symbol of your political and New Zealand identity as well. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So because this language has more cultural significance than it does, a purely functional significance, do you see it as pretty protected or insulated from some of the challenges of machine translation?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah. When I’m thinking about it, now that we’re talking about it, I do think that it would be unlikely that you would use a translation app. If you were talking to someone who was a native or near-native fluent speaker of Te Reo and you wanted to communicate with them, you would do it in English or you would learn Te Reo. Why would you use an app to talk to them in this language, stiltingly with pauses and slowly when you both can talk in English, right? They are not going to appreciate that. They’re not really going to be interested in that, and what would probably be more impressive was you stumbling through some beginner Te Reo, which at least showed that you were putting in some effort yourself, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Do you remember that Mamdani clip? Should I try to find it and play it?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Abby wanted us to listen to this recent video released by Zohran Mamdani, the mayor of New York City. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker: \u003c/strong>So there’s this clip you can find, it went kind of a little viral, a little while ago, and it’s Mamdani doing… the mayor of New York doing a piece to camera, and it’s kind of some political speech. I don’t know what he’s actually promoting.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Zohran Mamdani speaking in Spanish]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so he is talking in Spanish and so he is trying to, you know, reach his Spanish Constituence. He does not speak Spanish, right? And so, there is this video of him and he is kind of like stumbling through Spanish and he takes it again and he’s getting corrected by AOC on his pronunciation. He keeps kind of forgetting things. And they’ve released this, right? And they think it’s not crazy that that happened but it’s very interesting to me that they released it because they are trying to emphasize that it wasn’t easy for him to speak Spanish and that he needed help speaking Spanish and he is not good at Spanish, but they knew that it would be charming and it is, right? Because it shows someone is trying to speak Spanish, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Zohran Mamdani speaking in Spanish]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>They could have just released speeches with him in like fluent Spanish, or they could have had someone else who is a fluent Spanish speaker speaking on his behalf. In a little while, they could probably do videos where it looks like he is speaking Spanish, right? We’re kind of at that point of the technology now with video and audio that we could have something that sounds like him speaking in Spanish, looks like him speaking in Spanish. But they don’t do that, right? What they do is show someone who isn’t very good and who is trying, right? Part of what is really important to people is that you try to speak their language, right? And an app takes out that friction. It makes communication easier, but part of what language is signaling, too, when you use a language that is not a language that comes easy to you, is you’re signaling that you are trying, right? You are signaling that you are putting in some effort, that you don’t expect them to just understand you, and that you’re putting in some effort to be understood.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> All right. Well, we’ve been dancing around this idea of the importance of friction, and I want to just ask you to spell it out. Why is friction important? What could friction signal? We’ve talked about belonging, we’ve talked about effort. What else?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> I mean, if I’m really just using an app to talk to you, right, I… And I’m not paying attention, I’m not really trying to do anything, I’m just trying to communicate with you, so I use an app, and it spits out whatever to talk to you, and I nod. You got the message, I got the message, I move on. Like, I haven’t really changed because of that interaction, right? So when you learn a language, to talk to someone, the effort of doing it, you are actually also changing yourself. So you are adding vocab, adding things that you can use in a new situation, adding things that you can use when you don’t have your phone around you, et cetera. So there’s just, literally you are changing a little bit, maybe in small ways. There is some evidence for regular bilinguals, like people who are regularly using multiple languages in their day-to-day, that they have better executive function than monolingual speakers.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And by executive function, we’re talking about your ability to ignore irrelevant information and suppress responses that you might automatically make. And if you think about it, this makes a lot of sense why this would be tied to bilingualism, because you have a day where you are telling whatever language you’re not using, you’re saying, “Shut up. This isn’t about you.” So you’re ignoring anything else that’s irrelevant while you’re having these conversations. And from my understanding, those advantages get bigger as you age. So it’s essentially like you’re keeping your brain more active in this particular way. So obviously, all of those benefits, and just the fact that each time I stumble through something in German or Korean or today Māori, I am getting a little bit better, right? I’m learning a little bit more. That is this really big obvious thing that is being lost, is just that you are not having this growth. And it’s almost sad in some ways, because you had an opportunity, right? So let’s say you go to another country, you stay there for two months. You have this opportunity to do something, and you just spend all the time using these translation apps. You miss this opportunity to have this personal growth.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> It’s true. I went to Italy, and by the end of the trip, I was fully capable of asking where the bathroom was all by myself.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> In Italian?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> In Italian.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Wow.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Don’t ask me to do it now.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> I was gonna say.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Oh, boy. Try. Al bagno? Bagno? Bagno? I don’t want to talk about it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Okay.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Live translation tools are decent, and they’re going to get better. You can even imagine a version that works out most of the bugs. AI that does start picking up on body language and slang. Science fiction becoming reality. The universal translator, the Babel fish. But do we always want that? Throughout our conversation, as we talked about the importance of friction, it struck me that maybe today’s live translation tools, imperfect as they are, have their own charms, not despite the friction, but because of it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I decided to play Abby another excerpt from our conversation with proud dad, Larry Berliner. While he and fellow dad Kevin were conversing on their ChatGPT app, they were speaking into the phone, which would generate a written translation, which the other one would read. Hardly seamless. But here, Larry talks about the conversation being so profound because of those seams.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Larry Berliner]:\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem> This allowed us to speak in long paragraphs, like I’m doing right now, right? Shakespearean style, not a back and forth, but long paragraphs of ideas, and then it would translate, and we’d watch each other read it, which was exciting, and then the person would respond. And what ended up being magical was, first of all, we did it for a very long time.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>What he chose to talk about was things that I don’t think he would ever have spoke about first if I was speaking his native language. Or wow, the extent of which is amazing. He talked about how he had met Sonya and the previous people he had been with at the time. He talked about his failures as a father. And just– it was immediately right to the bone.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I’m just struck by how he feels that conversation was facilitated by the fact that there was this level of friction, of literally having to read. Maybe the fact that you’re putting something into print and then somebody is going to read it makes you less likely to just waste that time to say, “Well, what do you think of the weather?”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, that’s a really interesting idea, and it kinda makes sense. What it makes me think, though, is that there was this feeling that this was temporary, right? That this was not going to be the regular state of affairs. It’s almost like deathbed conversation. It feels like a little bit like what it sounded like to me. Just “I need you to, here are some really big things on my mind and my heart that I just really want you to know now that we’ve got this opportunity.” It is interesting, though, to think about, what if you never get there with someone who speaks your own language because you’ve always got the dance of we can speak so easily to each other.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, and it was the artificiality of their own communication that led to something much deeper. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Abby Walker:\u003c/strong> I love that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So am I going to encourage my eight-year-old to learn Spanish? Yes, absolutely. There’s so much we can’t know about AI and where it’s headed, but even if some reasons for learning another language go away, others won’t, or could even grow in importance. And in honor of our topic this week, we’ve machine translated our credits into ‘Klingon and back’, because why not?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Here we go. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>[Klingon words] \u003c/em>I am Jess of the clan Love. \u003cem>[Klingon words] \u003c/em>At the Northwestern University Citadel of Knowledge, inside the Kellogg School of Management, Life, Automated is an honorable battle quest of the Ryan Institute on Complexity. KQED hurls our battle transmissions across the void to conquer the airwaves.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Jesse Dukes sliced the captured sounds into submission. Stephen Jackson forged the battle hymns and struck the war drums. The machinery masters, Will Feeney and George Christensen, trapped the vocal cries of the interrogation inside the sound cage. Ananya Mallapragada commanded the proclamations of our glory and subjugated the civilian chatter web.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Producer: Jesse Dukes\u003cbr>Music: Steven Jackson\u003cbr>Recording: George Christensen, Will Feeney\u003cbr>Promotional help from Ananya Mallapragada\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Editorial guidance from Laura Pavin\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Special thanks to Larry Berliner and Georgi Demirev for their help testing out live translation tools\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12099764/will-we-still-learn-languages-when-machines-can-translate-with-abby-walker",
"authors": [
"12009"
],
"programs": [
"news_37188"
],
"categories": [
"news_223",
"news_18540",
"news_33520"
],
"tags": [
"news_25184",
"news_20013",
"news_36314",
"news_35583"
],
"featImg": "news_12099776",
"label": "news_37188"
},
"news_12097687": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12097687",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12097687",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1788343200000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "ai-artists-and-the-future-of-creative-work",
"title": "AI, Artists, and the Future of Creative Work",
"publishDate": 1788343200,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "AI, Artists, and the Future of Creative Work | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 37188,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#Transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Generative AI is able to conjure new images, stories, and songs at lightning speed. So what does this mean for humans artists, storytellers, and musicians? In this special Labor Day episode, we speak with economists \u003ca href=\"https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/academics-research/faculty/jones_benjamin_f/\">Ben Jones\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/faculty/samuel-goldberg\">Sam Goldberg\u003c/a>, as well as artist \u003ca href=\"https://nayberg.org/\">Yevgenia Nayberg\u003c/a>, to find out what happens when AI enters creative markets. We learn that, at least today, key bottlenecks prevent AI from replicating some aspects of creativity. But there’s no guarantee those bottlenecks will exist tomorrow, raising vital questions about what we value in human labor.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Further Reading\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Research cited: \u003ca href=\"https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5152649\">Generative AI & Creative Goods: Market Expansion, Crowd-out, and Copyright\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The image discussed in our brainstorm with Yevgenia can be found illustrating this article: \u003ca href=\"https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/creating-urgency-around-corporate-innovation\">Creating Urgency around Corporate Innovation\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore all the ways technology is changing how we live, work, and make decisions.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Think about the tractor… The washing machine, The calculator. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>For a long time, the promise of machines that automate labor was that they would take over the repetitive, dangerous or tedious work; and leave people free to do the things humans are supposed to be best at. You know, to imagine. Communicate. Invent. Make art or music. But it seems like AI might be coming for creative work as well.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>One sector on notice is the entertainment industry. The Writers guild recently bargained for contract language limiting the use of AI writing in screenplays. The Animation Guild recently projected losses of about 20% of animation and visual effects jobs. And SAG-AFTRA, a big actors and writers union, has been in ongoing negotiations to try to prevent human actors from being replaced by AI: \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Fran Drescher]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>I don’t subscribe to putting people out of work. I think what’s happening in the entertainment industry is a microcosm of what happening throughout the United States of America whereby workers are being replaced by artificial intelligence, and what is that about actually\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But it’s not just Hollywood. Writers, illustrators, journalists, composers, architects — even scientists who design experiments, they’re all on alert, wondering whether and how AI will impact the work they \u003cem>love\u003c/em> to do. It’s a question I’ve been wrestling with myself, as a science writer and self described “creative worker” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So today, we’ll be tackling that question, and instead of hearing from just one guest, we have a few: including an economist who studied what happened when generative AI entered one particular creative market.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>All of this generative AI production is entering, it’s filling up those markets, and the non-generative AI artists end up having to exit the market because they’re no longer profitable.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> As well as a working artist\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> I think we will adapt. I’m not sure how yet. I can’t predict the future, but I know it’s your personal voice that will set you apart always.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But first, if you listened to our kickoff episode — back in July, you’ll remember Economist Ben Jones. Ben is my colleague at the Ryan Institute on Complexity where he studies innovation. And, I’m going to start with a short flashback to that conversation, because something he said is really helpful for thinking about the future of creative work. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>See, Ben has been thinking about automation and its impact on jobs for a long time. He says that instead of obsessing over all the things AI can suddenly do really well, we should spend more time focusing on what it can’t do, at least not yet. Ben calls these things – bottlenecks. I’m Jess Love, this is Life, Automated. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Okay, so can you talk to us about what a bottleneck is and why it’s so important?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong> Well, of course it’s a metaphor from a bottle and what do we know about bottles? We know that the speed at which water or wine will flow from the bottle, depends on the width of the neck. Doesn’t really depend on how big the bottle is otherwise, how much wine there is in it, or how big the base is. It really just depends on the neck and in many processes in the economy and in the economy overall, it looks like there are certain things that have to happen that act as bottlenecks. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Much of the economy has that flavor where it’s not how good you are at a lot of things. What’s really sort of determining the rate of the economy is the things we’re quite slow at, the things we’re not very good at. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: In other words, even if some parts of a system get really, really fast and easy, it’s the slowest parts of the system, the parts most difficult to automate, that will determine just how much the system overall changes. As an example from his own job, Ben points to statistical regressions, which computers do incredibly well much better than humans.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>. If I were to run a regression by hand, with a large number of observations, it would take me literally my entire life. And I would make mistakes. You know, my computer can do a regression with a million data points in a-minute.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong> Yeah. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong> And so we have these technologies that basically are infinitely better than us to do these tasks that are really important to what we do. And then you can ask, okay, well, has our understanding of economics or astronomy or physics multiplied by a similar factor? And you’d say ‘no’, because although we can do certain things really, really, really incredibly well, other things are holding us back. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> For scientific researchers, these ‘other things’ might be collecting the right data, or building the instruments to collect the right data, or even waiting for the perfect set of circumstances to emerge that would let us interpret that data. Like the collapse of an economy, or the collision of two stars in a particular spot in the sky. Until scientists can push past these bottlenecks, all the statistical regressions in the world will only teach them so much.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I find Ben’s framework a useful way to think about AI’s impact on any kind of work, creative or otherwise. Most people’s jobs involve a bunch of different tasks. AI might get really good at some of them, but tasks it still struggles with – the bottlenecks, really determine the overall pace of change, as well as where humans can still contribute. And get paid to do so. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So, the big takeaway for creative workers: Find the stuff AI can’t do. But what do these bottlenecks look like in creative markets in particular? And would they actually allow writers, artists, and other creative workers to still do that work? Well, it turns out that there’s somebody who has been studying this very thing. Specifically, how AI has impacted stock image websites. Those sell ready-made photos and illustrations that appear in ads, presentations, websites, and articles. Say you’re making an ad for productivity software. Maybe you purchase a stock image of people shaking hands in a conference room, or a woman smiling at her computer screen, or a well-dressed man gazing thoughtfully into the distance, perhaps wondering. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>Stock images, why do we care about these things, right? It’s not a particularly large market. It’s definitely sort of a niche commoditized good. Why is this somewhere where we wanna study AI? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>This is Sam Goldberg. He teaches marketing at Stanford, where he also studies how technology changes markets and consumer behavior. And he says the stock-image market offers an unusually crisp view of what happens when AI-generated work begins competing directly with work made by people.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>So back, you know, a few years ago, they were one of the first markets where we saw really capable AI come to artists, and be able to be used to produce really high-quality images.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>For years, human artists made stock images and uploaded them to online marketplaces. Then those marketplaces began accepting AI-generated work. Suddenly, images made by people were sitting beside images that could be generated by machines, almost instantly, at enormous scale. And because the platform Sam studied required artists to clearly label which images were AI-generated, he could watch the transition in really fine detail.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>And so what that means in practice is that after the platform allows generative AI to enter the market, I can see both how non-generative AI artists respond, as well as how generative AI enters the market and what types of images it produces. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So here’s how it used to work. Customers would comb through these websites, going through image after image, until they find one that is “close enough”. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>I guess the right way to think about it is each individual might have a very specific taste for something, and so when they were trying to find a stock image, they would make some sort of compromise, right? So they would say, “Oh, I’m looking for an image of a tennis ball, and I want an image of a tennis ball in motion,” right? They could go to the stock image website, they’d look up that keyword, and they’d find, you know, maybe pre-generative AI, a couple hundred different versions of that image, right? Maybe none of them are perfect, but one of them’s good enough, and they took it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Right\u003cstrong>. \u003c/strong>So maybe your article is about playing tennis in the rain, and so you would love to have a tennis ball that’s kind of covered in water. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Penetrating water droplets.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Right. And then that is the kind of thing that just doesn’t exist, so maybe you just get a tennis ball in isolation, and that’s good enough. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Exactly. And so in the pre-generative AI world, you know, you were making some compromises with respect to that, oftentimes at least. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> But along comes generative AI, with free or cheap image generators where you can literally tell it: I want a wet tennis ball, resting on a bench, with water beading on it. And it will give you a pretty good version of that exact image. So what happens when a stock image market starts accepting these hyper-specific AI-generated images?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>What actually happens in this market is, generative AI enters, the market expands greatly, so there’s a lot more images on the platform. That should probably be pretty intuitive. But not only do more images enter the market, more customers do as well. More images are being purchased and they like the generative AI images because it turns out they’re actually pretty high quality.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So I can see how this is good for me as a consumer. I finally have the perfect raindrop-covered tennis ball for my editorial feature. And I can see how this is good for the platform itself, at least in the short term. What happens to the artists? And I guess I would ask both the artists using generative AI and those who are not. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah, it’s a good question, and I think you are correct in your intuition here that it does seem like it’s probably pretty good for consumers. It does seem like it’s probably pretty good for the platform, at least in the short run. The artist side I think is a little bit more complicated right? Let me walk you through what happens after generative AI enters the platform, and then we can talk about the implications for artists.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. So what happens is production goes way up. All right? By over 100% more production, so enormous increases in production here. Second, more artists participate in the market. So we see a lot of new artists enter the stock image market. Of course, that overflow of new artists hides a different fact, which is non-generative AI artists exit. Okay? So they stop producing. So we see a reduction in non-generative AI production, as well as a reduction in the number of non-generative AI artists who are participating on the platform.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>What we call that in the paper is sort of a little bit of a crowding out effect. So what’s happening is all of this generative AI production is entering, it’s filling up demand, it’s filling up those markets, and the non-generative AI artists end up having to exit the market because they’re no longer profitable.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So, pretty bad news for a lot of artists who choose to keep making images the old way. But, Sam also found a bottleneck. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong> What the stock image market sells is not quite images. What the stock image market sells is indemnification, which is to say if the buyer of the image uses it and gets in trouble, so someone says, “Hey, you can’t use that image. That’s copyrighted,” and tries to sue the buyer, the platform says, “You can’t sue the buyer. We’re responsible.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh, fascinating. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay, and so that’s really important here because if you were to produce that image yourself using a generative model, you could be subject to some sorts of liability for using, for example, copyrighted work in the training of those models.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Got that? AI-generated images are a bit of a legal gray area right now. For one, most of the biggest AI models were trained on data that included copyrighted works. And it’s also unclear which new AI-generated works can get copyright protection.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Anyway, given this uncertainty, you might choose to purchase an AI-generated image from this market rather than just whip up one yourself because you want the legal protection that this affords you.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And, it turns out that getting this legal protection works a little differently for images that have a human in them. When artists submit images with humans in them, they also need to fill out paperwork showing that they have permission to use those people’s likenesses. This paperwork is \u003cem>not\u003c/em> something the AI can easily produce. And so voila! We have less crowding-out for images containing people than for images of, say, tennis balls. And there it is! Our bottleneck!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Unfortunately, it’s pretty uninspiring: paperwork. Still, in Sam’s study, it was something the machines couldn’t easily replace, and that did allow human creators to survive in that particular corner of the “stock image” market. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Stepping back, Sam’s findings are stark. AI gave customers a ton more image choices. It helped the market grow. And, it pushed a lot of human artists out. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So one read of your study is that AI-generated art is great for everybody but many of the artists. And I just wanna ask, is a world without artists really great for consumers? Is that really what consumers want? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah. So I definitely do not take a strong opinion about if generative AI art is good or bad, right? I think the data suggests that consumers like the generative AI art. They purchase it, and they are willing to purchase it. And so to the extent that they are willing to purchase it, that seems an improvement basically. Now, in the long run, does that mean that we want a world with no human creativity? I don’t think so, and I don’t have, you know, good data to speak to that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I mean, certainly anecdotally, we hear people saying they don’t like AI content. Intuitively, I think you might expect more of that backlash in creative goods markets that are a little bit more emotional or sincere. So for example, you see a lot more of this when people listen to AI-generated music. Or like YouTube even, like creative shorts. Stock images are, are a product being used for a purpose, in a way that, I think is a little different. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: So the pressure on human artists that Sam saw in the stock image market… we don’t really know how much they’ll translate to other creative markets.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Particularly those where people could be looking for something harder to just generate on demand: a unique interpretation, emotional resonance, a point of view, maybe even a relationship with the person making the work.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So to learn more, I spoke with an artist who has spent much of her career making these \u003cem>other\u003c/em> kinds of images.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>There are people who are absolutely happy with elevator music and people that go to concerts. And, I think for the elevator music art lovers type, I’m sure AI could be satisfactory. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>That’s coming up. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is Life, Automated, I’m Jess Love. And I’m talking to the artist Yevgenia Nayberg.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Can you talk about the different lanes of art that you make?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I started as a fine artist, so to speak. I’m a painter and so I paint large scale pieces. But also I crossed over pretty early into theater design, set and costume design, and illustration. And about 10 years ago, I also started writing my own books, picture books mostly. And so right now I’m focusing on being an author and picture book illustrator, and a graphic novel illustrator and writer.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, so I really should have asked that question differently. I should have said, “What kinds of art do you \u003cem>not\u003c/em> make?” And then maybe we would’ve gotten through that answer more quickly. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia is also someone I’ve worked with. Years ago, when I was working as a magazine editor, I hired her to illustrate some articles. Her work is way more distinctive and conceptually ambitious than anything you’d find on a stock-image website. But it is still commercial art: made for a client, on a deadline, to serve a particular purpose. So I wanted to know whether she saw her own corner of the creative economy as vulnerable to the same forces Sam observed.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>What do you think about generative AI making art?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I’m not afraid of AI. I know there is a lot of worry amongst artists about it, and I just think it’s probably eventually going to be another tool. I don’t necessarily think that right now AI has the capabilities real, non-artificial artists have. So not afraid at this point.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>What about the idea that whether or not this work is as good as what a human could do, it might nonetheless be good enough to somehow compete with human art or human work, either because of discoverability, so with a, flood of lower quality AI images out in the world, it becomes harder to actually find the good ones done by humans or because some of the people who might want to hire artists are pretty comfortable, just generating something for themselves for free?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I’m sure there are going to be people like that. There are people who are absolutely happy with elevator music and people that go to concerts. And, I think for the elevator music art lovers type, I’m sure AI could be satisfactory. But I don’t know if you remember in the ’90s when all of this, you know, flood of stock art happened, everyone was using this image of a little light bulb above a person’s head when they wanted to describe an idea.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>If you have an idea, all you draw that bulb, and I think that’s the kind of thinking that I see from AI at this point. So it does create some metaphors, but those metaphors are very trite. If my students do this kind of work, I stop them and I tell them, “Look how many people have already done this hypothetical light bulb.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I think because AI sort of collects all these similar ideas and then generates as a result, it’s a very banal result, and I’m not interested in that, and I don’t think my clients, the kind of clients that I work with, are interested in those very typical, ordinary ideas. So I can do better than that at this point, for now.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia sees a real difference between the illustration work she does, for specific clients, and the broad, commercial stock image market.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>I think what illustration, conceptual illustration does is that it creates a second track to the story. So instead of illustrating something literally, it adds to the story. It can take the story and it can create this interesting creative tension between the illustration and the story, heightening the story in a certain way. So I think with stocks, you often lack that. It’s very hard to prompt an image bank to generate something like this. Even if you search for an image that will fit the story. Fitting the story is one thing. Elevating the story is a completely different thing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voicover]\u003c/strong>: Well yeah, an image that elevates a story does seem a lot better than one that merely “fits” a story. But Yevgenia’s not exactly an unbiased third-party here. So now I was curious what Sam Goldberg would make of this claim—that AI art can spray down the market with lots of images that might \u003cem>fit\u003c/em> a particular need really, really well, leading to plenty of satisfied customers. But those images are nonetheless probably not going to be novel enough to \u003cem>elevate\u003c/em> a story. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>“Is this a bottleneck?” I asked Sam.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong> So you are not expecting this question. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I actually ran some of your results past an illustrator friend of mine. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And what she said was basically, “Look, you can use generative AI to come up with thousands of images of light bulbs, light bulbs in this environment, in this you know, room, in front of this person. But what you can’t do is get AI to go that one step beyond and think through, well, what is another way of getting across creativity or innovation? So it will give you a billion light bulbs, but it’s not necessarily really going to give you variety at the concept level. And I’m curious what you would make of that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah. So I’m hesitant to disagree with the artist here, but-\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Never disagree with an artist. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Never disagree with the artist. Yeah, so I actually don’t think that’s incongruent with what we see happen in these markets. So one analysis we do in the paper… \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Sam’s team actually found a way to represent the images mathematically. This let them analyze the novelty of this flood of new AI-generated images.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>And so we actually – I sort of agree with her, right? Which is to say, one thing we don’t see is – we don’t see a huge increase in novelty in the market. But essentially, what we see happen is we don’t see a lot of sort of images enter the market that look very different than the images that already exist there.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Interesting. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>What we \u003cem>do\u003c/em> see is that anywhere there’s a gap in the market, so where there’s two images on either side, but there’s not an image in between, generative AI is very good at filling those gaps.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So…at least for now, AI can generate lots and lots of variations on a theme. But what Yevgenia’s describing is the ability to think \u003cem>beyond\u003c/em> that theme. And Sam says, “yeah, AI doesn’t seem to be as good at that.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>I think it’s totally reasonable to say that your illustrator friend may be correct that that is something that these models struggle with.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong> I’m surprised. I was ready to fight the economist!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh no! I actually don’t think you guys would fight that much, but we won’t put you in a cage match together.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> This idea of bringing true novelty to an assignment: that new metaphor, that “second track.” This may be an important source of value that human artists bring to a project. So…what does that look like?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Let’s do something fun. Obviously we have worked together in the past. I have hired you to do beautiful custom illustrations for articles, on Kellogg Insight, where I was the editor-in-chief for many years. And so it’s not even hypothetical to say I would often come to you with a story on innovation, entrepreneurship, you know, how to brainstorm. And so let’s say I bring you this article, it’s about “Better Ways of Brainstorming”, and I’m like, “And also, I think I got a pretty good idea for you. It’s a group of people brainstorming, and above them, they’re, like, collectively building a big light bulb. And it’s like a hot air balloon light bulb, and it’s just, wow, you can just see this is going places. “What do you think?”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, Jess, I think actually an air balloon light bulb is already a beautiful idea. If I’m not mistaken, I think I did an illustration like this for you years ago. So, maybe we should try doing something different this time. We don’t wanna repeat ourselves. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: Yes, Yevgenia was right about this. I tracked down \u003ca href=\"https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/creating-urgency-around-corporate-innovation\">the illustration\u003c/a> from the Kellogg Insight archives. It appeared alongside a 2015 article on corporate innovation. And it featured someone riding through the sky in a lightbulb-shaped hot-air-balloon. Which is almost certainly why the idea formed instantly in my own mind.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>But what it did not have is the group of people underneath it, because this, I think, is something that would spoil this illustration. Because you really shouldn’t try to stuff all your ideas into a single illustration. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But we can go in a completely direction as well. You mentioned brainstorming, so I think maybe using those words and turning them into something visual could work, like creating an actual brainstorm where, you know, that your brain is being blown away by the wind. And, that can actually push a story into kind of a funny territory instead of keeping it very serious, because normally when we say a brainstorm, we associate it with really serious, earnest scientists developing something.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But maybe I want to make a little joke and say, you know, “Hey, you can also brainstorm. You don’t have to be so serious about that.” So it also can change the mood of your article, the mood of your story a little bit.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And maybe we don’t, maybe you want to be super serious, and then you would reject this idea. But maybe you would say, “Hey, I really like it because we’ve done so many super serious articles. Let’s lighten up.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Love it. That’s great. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Okay! So Yevgenia doesn’t just take an assignment and execute it. She thinks it through: The light bulb is cliche, but the hot air balloon idea is interesting. The hot air balloon is interesting, but the people underneath are weighing the idea down. Oh yeah, and because we have a history together, Yevgenia can tell me that we’ve done something really similar 11 years ago.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Then she offers something completely different, playing off the idea of a storm. But really what she’s doing is asking a question about intent. What mood should the illustration create? Serious? Funny? Can the image change the way the reader experiences the story?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Yevgenia is much more than a picture-making machine. She has a very finely honed, very unique way of seeing and depicting the world. As much as any technical skills, \u003cem>that’s\u003c/em> what I hired her to bring to the table. And \u003cem>that\u003c/em>, to me, at least – sounds like another bottleneck.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, for established artists like Yegvenia, this should be somewhat reassuring. But there’s still a problem. Nobody begins a career with fully formed artistic taste. That can take years to develop. And often, people develop it while doing smaller, more routine work. Like, maybe, selling their art on a stock image website. And if AI-generated art takes off, even in the most routine, commercial, transactional spaces, it could eventually shape the art we encounter elsewhere too.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>There is a dangerous territory when real humans, real artists will start to imitate AI if there is enough demand for AI art. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia teaches young artists, and she’s been seeing this play out with her students. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>A lot of them are concerned with style and they all talk about style, and I couldn’t really understand what they meant because I thought– I kind of thought of style as voice, not so much as like a stylistic direction. Turns out they’re trying to pick a style and match it from what they see, let’s say, on Instagram. So there is a lot of sameness there already, and this is something that they’re trying to imitate in hopes of finding jobs maybe. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> She thinks AI could be like Instagram on steroids, sending the same images into every artist’s collective consciousness. Yevgenia says she is \u003cem>all for \u003c/em>her students getting hired to make art. But this trend of homogenization and imitation – is troubling. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> My primary job is to educate an artist, I want them to work obviously, and I would like to help them as much as possible. But again, I’d like to focus on developing their creativity and their uniqueness more than anything else. I always tell my students, you know, “make something worth stealing.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>For an individual artist, having a unique voice ‘worth stealing’ can be the difference between mediocrity and greatness.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And economist Ben Jones\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>says that everyone benefits from having more, unique, creative perspectives in the mix. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>What we actually want is people reaching for very different types of things based on their different experiences, right? And so what’s interesting, one of the reasons that we think that, you know, a kind of a society with wide-ranging pockets of expertise, interests, cultural backgrounds, et cetera, can be extremely creative, is because people are coming at questions with different sort of perspectives and ideas. They’re even coming at different questions, ’cause the kind of questions that occur to one person might not occur to another, and that’s true in science and invention, it’s true in entrepreneurship. We don’t want everyone trying the same business model. We want people trying wildly different business models, and we’ll see which one the market takes. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>There’s real value in difference. In start-ups, in science, and in art. And if everyone begins from the same machine-generated suggestions, we could end up with more of everything—but very little that’s new, special, or unique.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, this is the paradox: AI can generate a staggering number of possibilities, filling countless gaps in the marketplace. And yet, so much of what it produces feels… the same. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>While AI-generated images and videos and books are running rampant in some artistic markets–plenty of people are just fine with elevator music, thank you very much–real novelty, real creativity, seems to be the purview of humans. Leaving human creative workers with an important role to play. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Whew. That’s a relief.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So… is that the end? Should we play the ending music, roll the credits? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Well, not so fast. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is where we stand on Labor Day 2026 sure, but if we know anything about AI tools, it’s that they can change fast. So what happens next? Where’s this all headed? Well, based on my conversations with scholars and artists, I can see three possible futures.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>In the first timeline, things continue along the lines they are now. The machines do get better at generating art. Maybe AI-generated images get even more photorealistic, or maybe AI-generated writing sheds its telltale ticks – you know, those cringy buzzwords that scream, “I’m AI-generated!” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But the improvements are really around the margins. And so genuine creativity remains a bottleneck protecting human creatives.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But there’s a second timeline, and in this timeline, AI learns to be \u003cem>very\u003c/em> creative.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Ben sees this possible future as pretty likely. Because new ideas rarely emerge out of the blue. They are often composed of existing ingredients, just combined in new ways. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>In many, many fields, people have separately discovered that creativity often looks like a new combination of things that already existed. So, for example, Thomas Edison did not call the light bulb, at first, the light bulb. He called it the electric candle because he was taking the candle, which was an old technology, and electricity, which was a new technology, and combining them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And if you look at many, many ideas, it’s very natural to decompose them into distinct components—to unleash a big insight in science, or to produce a new product or process that we can all use. So that idea is very common, you see it in the arts and music and invention and science.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> By this definition, AI should actually have a creative advantage. A single person can only encounter and understand so many possible ingredients in a lifetime. \u003cem>We\u003c/em> have to specialize. AI has a much more vast palette to draw from.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>What’s been interesting about AI, of course, is that AI reads everything. So anyone who’s been interacting with AI sort of sees like, “Wow, I can talk to this AI about just about anything, and right around the edges of my understanding about things I kind of understand, about things I know nothing about, and it seems to know a lot about a lot of stuff.” So in some sense, at that core level of being able to access ingredients that you can combine with seemingly some sophisticated understanding of those ingredients, AI is pretty impressive. And so in that sense, I think it has in some sense, beyond human creative potential. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Given the vast range of ingredients AI can draw from, you might expect it to already produce endlessly surprising combinations. And Ben says theoretically, it one day could. If it were trained completely differently from how most chatbots are trained today.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>When you talk like a general purpose, chatbot or whatever, say ChatGPT, it’s sort of trained to produce the right answer, predicting the next token in some probabilistic way that it thinks is most likely to be right. And by predicting the thing that’s sort of most likely to be right all the time, that sounds like you’re homogenizing. It’s not going for the strange answer, right? It’s trying typically to please you by giving you what you want, and what most people want is not some wildly creative answer. They want the right answer. But that’s of course very much about how they were trained. I mean, those chatbots are optimized to do exactly that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But there could be other algorithms that we could use to train AI. It’s like, let’s say we’re training an AI, and we’re having people rate whether it was really interesting scientifically. Not whether it was right, but whether it was novel. Or novel and right. So I think that there is a world in which AI, and it may come quickly, or not, where AI can be quite creative.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>In this world, this second possible future, where the AI companies spend millions, billions, to train up AI that’s really, really creative. In this future, the creativity bottleneck protecting human artists disappears.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Some kinds of creative work, live performances, personal memoir, handmade furniture, are probably still safe. But this timeline does leave many other artists really vulnerable, particularly those who distribute their work on digital marketplaces.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But even here, there is a bottleneck that could come into play.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Not a technical bottleneck—something the machine is incapable of doing—or even a legal one, like copyright protection or human likeness permission.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>A normative bottleneck: a limit people try to impose collectively, by deciding what kinds of creative work they are willing to accept and reward, often for ethical or even almost spiritual reasons.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We’re already seeing this now. Many of my artist friends have adopted a kind of “hold the line” mentality against generative AI, in part because they sense that using AI is a betrayal to the artistic community.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> Well, there is an ethical component, because AI is being trained on real artists. It’s basically being trained on us. And, of course, none of us enjoys that. None of us gave permission to have our art used by AI.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: To the extent that science writing can be considered art – I feel this. It’s pretty likely that a decade of my own science writing was scraped from the web and used to train AI models. Nobody asked me for permission, and I certainly didn’t give it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> I would rather have this be at the discretion of every artist—if they want their work to be released into the AI world. I would not want AI to be trained on my work, honestly. Because all of us have our own little tricks and secrets, and I would like to keep them to myself.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Some artists believe that the best way to fight back against a technology they didn’t ask for is to reject it altogether, in all forms.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Other creatives draw the line differently. Maybe AI can be used for research, but not execution. Or maybe it can be used for execution, but only in a specific way, as part of a rigorous, intentional process.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Wherever this line is drawn – and I expect this to be vehemently contested over the next several years, the normative bottleneck is about \u003cem>process\u003c/em>. Not just \u003cem>what\u003c/em> is made, but \u003cem>how\u003c/em> something is made.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Earlier this year, the fantasy novelist Brandon Sanderson made this argument explicit in a keynote address called “We Are the Art.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Brandon Sanderson]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem> The machines can spit out manuscript after manuscript after manuscript. They can pile them to the pillars of heaven itself, but all we have to do is say no. If we do, they lose. Why do we make art? Well, remember, art is not just the story. It is not just the painting or the sculpture or whatever else you love to create. It’s also the process of creation and what that process did to you. We are the art. Thank you.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Whether this kind of resistance, this \u003cem>normative\u003c/em> bottleneck can hold will depend on getting others on board. Getting others to agree that part of the value of human art is that it was created by another human being. Someone who felt something, or saw the world in a certain way, and labored to share it with us. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But there’s a third possible future here, one that doesn’t solely rely on social norms around creativity. In this possible future, whether AI becomes more creative or not, people using AI become capable of doing new things that neither humans nor AI could have done alone. Maybe AI becomes yet another tool for human artists. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You’ve seen this before: the camera. Photoshop. The electric synthesizer. All these were controversial in their time, often for devaluing certain hard-won skills, like painting in a painstaking, hyper-realistic style, or learning to play the french horn. But today most artists would probably agree that the new tools created new possibilities. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Or maybe AI really is different. Maybe it becomes a kind of thought partner. The machine proposes new ingredients we might never have produced on our own. Not unlike a colleague emailing us an article we might find interesting. Here’s Ben again.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>Maybe when you’re writing, it’s, it’s a collaborator, right? I mean, maybe it’s not a replacement, it’s like another voice on your team. And suddenly you’re getting a higher quality product. And it could be that you’re making a screenplay, you’re writing an article, you’re writing a song, and suddenly it’s better for your collaboration with the AI, but they’re not actually taking full control.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>In this scenario, we humans use our own creative judgment to run with whichever combination of ingredients seems like it has the most potential. Here, you could even think of “creative judgment” as its own bottleneck.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>You need true expertise around the set of ingredients to understand which combinations are likely or not to be useful. You don’t just randomly put ingredients together in the kitchen. It’s not gonna taste very good. There’s some milk here, and there’s some orange juice, and how about this banana? And look, it’s all spice in the spice rack, you know? And then, oh, and is that chicken? You know, that’s not gonna go very well, right? And pretty much everyone sort of knows that. There’s many, many, many, many possible combinations. But we kind of know instinctually not to try many of them because we know they’re probably not gonna be good.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Even Yevgenia, who I should stress continues to do all of her art by hand, can see the value in this kind of collaboration–if done right, if used as more of a jumping off point than the ultimate destination. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> You can give AI prompts and say, “Okay, give me all these variations of the light bulb in the field and in the pool.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And once it does it, you can say, “No, this is a really stupid idea. Why don’t you try something else?” And you can see what it tries, and you can maybe find something there? So I can see using AI as this little, average-minded, ordinary partner—and then that can spark something in you, in your imagination. It can generate more ideas from us, in a way, because we are competing intellectually with something.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So those are our three scenarios. AI kind of stalls out creatively or AI actually can do everything humans can do, but cheaper and better. And then we have to decide whether we \u003cem>want\u003c/em> to preserve a role for human creativity. Or, AI and humans collaborate to \u003cem>do \u003c/em>entirely new things.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Let’s all level-set for a second by noting that lots of people want to be artists, and it’s really, really hard. Already. It’s very hard to make a living as an actor, a musician, an artist, even without computers. Right? And there’s something deeply human about wanting to create and be an artist. And I would say, to be an economist for a second, the demand for their services is lower than the supply of people who would like to do it. So there are many long-suffering artists out there. Does AI make long-suffering artists even more suffering?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Even long-suffering-er.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Long-suffering-er. That’s a word. And I think it could. And it could be because it replaces their output. It’s a cheaper way to produce something people want. On the other hand, maybe AI makes artists more able to do things at lower cost themselves. Maybe it’s a tool, it’s an augmentation, not a replacement. So I think it’s an open question which way it goes. It probably does quite a bit of both. And we’ll have to see. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>A bit of both. Maybe this is the most likely possible future of all. Maybe we get all these timelines happening at once, in different parts of the creative economy. AI replacing artists, AI assisting artists, and AI just getting out of the way, to let artists do their very \u003cem>human\u003c/em> thing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity, at the Kellogg School of Management, at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Today’s show was produced by Steven Jackson and Jesse Dukes. Music by Steven Jackson and Neutral Propulsion Laboratory. Recording help from Will Feeney, George Christensen, Laura Pavin and Big Lake Recording Company. Administrative support, recording, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger, who we’re going to miss very much.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#Transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#Transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Generative AI is able to conjure new images, stories, and songs at lightning speed. So what does this mean for humans artists, storytellers, and musicians? In this special Labor Day episode, we speak with economists \u003ca href=\"https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/academics-research/faculty/jones_benjamin_f/\">Ben Jones\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/faculty/samuel-goldberg\">Sam Goldberg\u003c/a>, as well as artist \u003ca href=\"https://nayberg.org/\">Yevgenia Nayberg\u003c/a>, to find out what happens when AI enters creative markets. We learn that, at least today, key bottlenecks prevent AI from replicating some aspects of creativity. But there’s no guarantee those bottlenecks will exist tomorrow, raising vital questions about what we value in human labor.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Generative AI is able to conjure new images, stories, and songs at lightning speed. So what does this mean for humans artists, storytellers, and musicians? In this special Labor Day episode, we speak with economists \u003ca href=\"https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/academics-research/faculty/jones_benjamin_f/\">Ben Jones\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/faculty/samuel-goldberg\">Sam Goldberg\u003c/a>, as well as artist \u003ca href=\"https://nayberg.org/\">Yevgenia Nayberg\u003c/a>, to find out what happens when AI enters creative markets. We learn that, at least today, key bottlenecks prevent AI from replicating some aspects of creativity. But there’s no guarantee those bottlenecks will exist tomorrow, raising vital questions about what we value in human labor.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Further Reading",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Further Reading\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Further Reading\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Research cited: \u003ca href=\"https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5152649\">Generative AI & Creative Goods: Market Expansion, Crowd-out, and Copyright\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Research cited: \u003ca href=\"https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5152649\">Generative AI & Creative Goods: Market Expansion, Crowd-out, and Copyright\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>The image discussed in our brainstorm with Yevgenia can be found illustrating this article: \u003ca href=\"https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/creating-urgency-around-corporate-innovation\">Creating Urgency around Corporate Innovation\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>The image discussed in our brainstorm with Yevgenia can be found illustrating this article: \u003ca href=\"https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/creating-urgency-around-corporate-innovation\">Creating Urgency around Corporate Innovation\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Episode Transcript",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore all the ways technology is changing how we live, work, and make decisions.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore all the ways technology is changing how we live, work, and make decisions.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Think about the tractor… The washing machine, The calculator. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Think about the tractor… The washing machine, The calculator. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>For a long time, the promise of machines that automate labor was that they would take over the repetitive, dangerous or tedious work; and leave people free to do the things humans are supposed to be best at. You know, to imagine. Communicate. Invent. Make art or music. But it seems like AI might be coming for creative work as well.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>For a long time, the promise of machines that automate labor was that they would take over the repetitive, dangerous or tedious work; and leave people free to do the things humans are supposed to be best at. You know, to imagine. Communicate. Invent. Make art or music. But it seems like AI might be coming for creative work as well.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>One sector on notice is the entertainment industry. The Writers guild recently bargained for contract language limiting the use of AI writing in screenplays. The Animation Guild recently projected losses of about 20% of animation and visual effects jobs. And SAG-AFTRA, a big actors and writers union, has been in ongoing negotiations to try to prevent human actors from being replaced by AI: \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>One sector on notice is the entertainment industry. The Writers guild recently bargained for contract language limiting the use of AI writing in screenplays. The Animation Guild recently projected losses of about 20% of animation and visual effects jobs. And SAG-AFTRA, a big actors and writers union, has been in ongoing negotiations to try to prevent human actors from being replaced by AI: \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Fran Drescher]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Fran Drescher]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>I don’t subscribe to putting people out of work. I think what’s happening in the entertainment industry is a microcosm of what happening throughout the United States of America whereby workers are being replaced by artificial intelligence, and what is that about actually\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>I don’t subscribe to putting people out of work. I think what’s happening in the entertainment industry is a microcosm of what happening throughout the United States of America whereby workers are being replaced by artificial intelligence, and what is that about actually\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But it’s not just Hollywood. Writers, illustrators, journalists, composers, architects — even scientists who design experiments, they’re all on alert, wondering whether and how AI will impact the work they \u003cem>love\u003c/em> to do. It’s a question I’ve been wrestling with myself, as a science writer and self described “creative worker” \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But it’s not just Hollywood. Writers, illustrators, journalists, composers, architects — even scientists who design experiments, they’re all on alert, wondering whether and how AI will impact the work they \u003cem>love\u003c/em> to do. It’s a question I’ve been wrestling with myself, as a science writer and self described “creative worker” \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So today, we’ll be tackling that question, and instead of hearing from just one guest, we have a few: including an economist who studied what happened when generative AI entered one particular creative market.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So today, we’ll be tackling that question, and instead of hearing from just one guest, we have a few: including an economist who studied what happened when generative AI entered one particular creative market.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>All of this generative AI production is entering, it’s filling up those markets, and the non-generative AI artists end up having to exit the market because they’re no longer profitable.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>All of this generative AI production is entering, it’s filling up those markets, and the non-generative AI artists end up having to exit the market because they’re no longer profitable.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> As well as a working artist\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> As well as a working artist\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> I think we will adapt. I’m not sure how yet. I can’t predict the future, but I know it’s your personal voice that will set you apart always.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> I think we will adapt. I’m not sure how yet. I can’t predict the future, but I know it’s your personal voice that will set you apart always.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But first, if you listened to our kickoff episode — back in July, you’ll remember Economist Ben Jones. Ben is my colleague at the Ryan Institute on Complexity where he studies innovation. And, I’m going to start with a short flashback to that conversation, because something he said is really helpful for thinking about the future of creative work. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But first, if you listened to our kickoff episode — back in July, you’ll remember Economist Ben Jones. Ben is my colleague at the Ryan Institute on Complexity where he studies innovation. And, I’m going to start with a short flashback to that conversation, because something he said is really helpful for thinking about the future of creative work. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>See, Ben has been thinking about automation and its impact on jobs for a long time. He says that instead of obsessing over all the things AI can suddenly do really well, we should spend more time focusing on what it can’t do, at least not yet. Ben calls these things – bottlenecks. I’m Jess Love, this is Life, Automated. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>See, Ben has been thinking about automation and its impact on jobs for a long time. He says that instead of obsessing over all the things AI can suddenly do really well, we should spend more time focusing on what it can’t do, at least not yet. Ben calls these things – bottlenecks. I’m Jess Love, this is Life, Automated. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Okay, so can you talk to us about what a bottleneck is and why it’s so important?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Okay, so can you talk to us about what a bottleneck is and why it’s so important?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong> Well, of course it’s a metaphor from a bottle and what do we know about bottles? We know that the speed at which water or wine will flow from the bottle, depends on the width of the neck. Doesn’t really depend on how big the bottle is otherwise, how much wine there is in it, or how big the base is. It really just depends on the neck and in many processes in the economy and in the economy overall, it looks like there are certain things that have to happen that act as bottlenecks. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong> Well, of course it’s a metaphor from a bottle and what do we know about bottles? We know that the speed at which water or wine will flow from the bottle, depends on the width of the neck. Doesn’t really depend on how big the bottle is otherwise, how much wine there is in it, or how big the base is. It really just depends on the neck and in many processes in the economy and in the economy overall, it looks like there are certain things that have to happen that act as bottlenecks. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Much of the economy has that flavor where it’s not how good you are at a lot of things. What’s really sort of determining the rate of the economy is the things we’re quite slow at, the things we’re not very good at. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Much of the economy has that flavor where it’s not how good you are at a lot of things. What’s really sort of determining the rate of the economy is the things we’re quite slow at, the things we’re not very good at. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: In other words, even if some parts of a system get really, really fast and easy, it’s the slowest parts of the system, the parts most difficult to automate, that will determine just how much the system overall changes. As an example from his own job, Ben points to statistical regressions, which computers do incredibly well much better than humans.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: In other words, even if some parts of a system get really, really fast and easy, it’s the slowest parts of the system, the parts most difficult to automate, that will determine just how much the system overall changes. As an example from his own job, Ben points to statistical regressions, which computers do incredibly well much better than humans.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>. If I were to run a regression by hand, with a large number of observations, it would take me literally my entire life. And I would make mistakes. You know, my computer can do a regression with a million data points in a-minute.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>. If I were to run a regression by hand, with a large number of observations, it would take me literally my entire life. And I would make mistakes. You know, my computer can do a regression with a million data points in a-minute.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong> Yeah. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong> Yeah. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong> And so we have these technologies that basically are infinitely better than us to do these tasks that are really important to what we do. And then you can ask, okay, well, has our understanding of economics or astronomy or physics multiplied by a similar factor? And you’d say ‘no’, because although we can do certain things really, really, really incredibly well, other things are holding us back. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong> And so we have these technologies that basically are infinitely better than us to do these tasks that are really important to what we do. And then you can ask, okay, well, has our understanding of economics or astronomy or physics multiplied by a similar factor? And you’d say ‘no’, because although we can do certain things really, really, really incredibly well, other things are holding us back. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> For scientific researchers, these ‘other things’ might be collecting the right data, or building the instruments to collect the right data, or even waiting for the perfect set of circumstances to emerge that would let us interpret that data. Like the collapse of an economy, or the collision of two stars in a particular spot in the sky. Until scientists can push past these bottlenecks, all the statistical regressions in the world will only teach them so much.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> For scientific researchers, these ‘other things’ might be collecting the right data, or building the instruments to collect the right data, or even waiting for the perfect set of circumstances to emerge that would let us interpret that data. Like the collapse of an economy, or the collision of two stars in a particular spot in the sky. Until scientists can push past these bottlenecks, all the statistical regressions in the world will only teach them so much.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I find Ben’s framework a useful way to think about AI’s impact on any kind of work, creative or otherwise. Most people’s jobs involve a bunch of different tasks. AI might get really good at some of them, but tasks it still struggles with – the bottlenecks, really determine the overall pace of change, as well as where humans can still contribute. And get paid to do so. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I find Ben’s framework a useful way to think about AI’s impact on any kind of work, creative or otherwise. Most people’s jobs involve a bunch of different tasks. AI might get really good at some of them, but tasks it still struggles with – the bottlenecks, really determine the overall pace of change, as well as where humans can still contribute. And get paid to do so. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So, the big takeaway for creative workers: Find the stuff AI can’t do. But what do these bottlenecks look like in creative markets in particular? And would they actually allow writers, artists, and other creative workers to still do that work? Well, it turns out that there’s somebody who has been studying this very thing. Specifically, how AI has impacted stock image websites. Those sell ready-made photos and illustrations that appear in ads, presentations, websites, and articles. Say you’re making an ad for productivity software. Maybe you purchase a stock image of people shaking hands in a conference room, or a woman smiling at her computer screen, or a well-dressed man gazing thoughtfully into the distance, perhaps wondering. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So, the big takeaway for creative workers: Find the stuff AI can’t do. But what do these bottlenecks look like in creative markets in particular? And would they actually allow writers, artists, and other creative workers to still do that work? Well, it turns out that there’s somebody who has been studying this very thing. Specifically, how AI has impacted stock image websites. Those sell ready-made photos and illustrations that appear in ads, presentations, websites, and articles. Say you’re making an ad for productivity software. Maybe you purchase a stock image of people shaking hands in a conference room, or a woman smiling at her computer screen, or a well-dressed man gazing thoughtfully into the distance, perhaps wondering. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>Stock images, why do we care about these things, right? It’s not a particularly large market. It’s definitely sort of a niche commoditized good. Why is this somewhere where we wanna study AI? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>Stock images, why do we care about these things, right? It’s not a particularly large market. It’s definitely sort of a niche commoditized good. Why is this somewhere where we wanna study AI? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>This is Sam Goldberg. He teaches marketing at Stanford, where he also studies how technology changes markets and consumer behavior. And he says the stock-image market offers an unusually crisp view of what happens when AI-generated work begins competing directly with work made by people.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>This is Sam Goldberg. He teaches marketing at Stanford, where he also studies how technology changes markets and consumer behavior. And he says the stock-image market offers an unusually crisp view of what happens when AI-generated work begins competing directly with work made by people.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>So back, you know, a few years ago, they were one of the first markets where we saw really capable AI come to artists, and be able to be used to produce really high-quality images.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>So back, you know, a few years ago, they were one of the first markets where we saw really capable AI come to artists, and be able to be used to produce really high-quality images.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>For years, human artists made stock images and uploaded them to online marketplaces. Then those marketplaces began accepting AI-generated work. Suddenly, images made by people were sitting beside images that could be generated by machines, almost instantly, at enormous scale. And because the platform Sam studied required artists to clearly label which images were AI-generated, he could watch the transition in really fine detail.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>For years, human artists made stock images and uploaded them to online marketplaces. Then those marketplaces began accepting AI-generated work. Suddenly, images made by people were sitting beside images that could be generated by machines, almost instantly, at enormous scale. And because the platform Sam studied required artists to clearly label which images were AI-generated, he could watch the transition in really fine detail.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>And so what that means in practice is that after the platform allows generative AI to enter the market, I can see both how non-generative AI artists respond, as well as how generative AI enters the market and what types of images it produces. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>And so what that means in practice is that after the platform allows generative AI to enter the market, I can see both how non-generative AI artists respond, as well as how generative AI enters the market and what types of images it produces. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So here’s how it used to work. Customers would comb through these websites, going through image after image, until they find one that is “close enough”. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So here’s how it used to work. Customers would comb through these websites, going through image after image, until they find one that is “close enough”. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>I guess the right way to think about it is each individual might have a very specific taste for something, and so when they were trying to find a stock image, they would make some sort of compromise, right? So they would say, “Oh, I’m looking for an image of a tennis ball, and I want an image of a tennis ball in motion,” right? They could go to the stock image website, they’d look up that keyword, and they’d find, you know, maybe pre-generative AI, a couple hundred different versions of that image, right? Maybe none of them are perfect, but one of them’s good enough, and they took it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>I guess the right way to think about it is each individual might have a very specific taste for something, and so when they were trying to find a stock image, they would make some sort of compromise, right? So they would say, “Oh, I’m looking for an image of a tennis ball, and I want an image of a tennis ball in motion,” right? They could go to the stock image website, they’d look up that keyword, and they’d find, you know, maybe pre-generative AI, a couple hundred different versions of that image, right? Maybe none of them are perfect, but one of them’s good enough, and they took it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Right\u003cstrong>. \u003c/strong>So maybe your article is about playing tennis in the rain, and so you would love to have a tennis ball that’s kind of covered in water. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Right\u003cstrong>. \u003c/strong>So maybe your article is about playing tennis in the rain, and so you would love to have a tennis ball that’s kind of covered in water. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Penetrating water droplets.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Penetrating water droplets.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Right. And then that is the kind of thing that just doesn’t exist, so maybe you just get a tennis ball in isolation, and that’s good enough. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Right. And then that is the kind of thing that just doesn’t exist, so maybe you just get a tennis ball in isolation, and that’s good enough. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Exactly. And so in the pre-generative AI world, you know, you were making some compromises with respect to that, oftentimes at least. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Exactly. And so in the pre-generative AI world, you know, you were making some compromises with respect to that, oftentimes at least. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> But along comes generative AI, with free or cheap image generators where you can literally tell it: I want a wet tennis ball, resting on a bench, with water beading on it. And it will give you a pretty good version of that exact image. So what happens when a stock image market starts accepting these hyper-specific AI-generated images?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> But along comes generative AI, with free or cheap image generators where you can literally tell it: I want a wet tennis ball, resting on a bench, with water beading on it. And it will give you a pretty good version of that exact image. So what happens when a stock image market starts accepting these hyper-specific AI-generated images?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>What actually happens in this market is, generative AI enters, the market expands greatly, so there’s a lot more images on the platform. That should probably be pretty intuitive. But not only do more images enter the market, more customers do as well. More images are being purchased and they like the generative AI images because it turns out they’re actually pretty high quality.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>What actually happens in this market is, generative AI enters, the market expands greatly, so there’s a lot more images on the platform. That should probably be pretty intuitive. But not only do more images enter the market, more customers do as well. More images are being purchased and they like the generative AI images because it turns out they’re actually pretty high quality.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So I can see how this is good for me as a consumer. I finally have the perfect raindrop-covered tennis ball for my editorial feature. And I can see how this is good for the platform itself, at least in the short term. What happens to the artists? And I guess I would ask both the artists using generative AI and those who are not. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So I can see how this is good for me as a consumer. I finally have the perfect raindrop-covered tennis ball for my editorial feature. And I can see how this is good for the platform itself, at least in the short term. What happens to the artists? And I guess I would ask both the artists using generative AI and those who are not. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah, it’s a good question, and I think you are correct in your intuition here that it does seem like it’s probably pretty good for consumers. It does seem like it’s probably pretty good for the platform, at least in the short run. The artist side I think is a little bit more complicated right? Let me walk you through what happens after generative AI enters the platform, and then we can talk about the implications for artists.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah, it’s a good question, and I think you are correct in your intuition here that it does seem like it’s probably pretty good for consumers. It does seem like it’s probably pretty good for the platform, at least in the short run. The artist side I think is a little bit more complicated right? Let me walk you through what happens after generative AI enters the platform, and then we can talk about the implications for artists.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. So what happens is production goes way up. All right? By over 100% more production, so enormous increases in production here. Second, more artists participate in the market. So we see a lot of new artists enter the stock image market. Of course, that overflow of new artists hides a different fact, which is non-generative AI artists exit. Okay? So they stop producing. So we see a reduction in non-generative AI production, as well as a reduction in the number of non-generative AI artists who are participating on the platform.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. So what happens is production goes way up. All right? By over 100% more production, so enormous increases in production here. Second, more artists participate in the market. So we see a lot of new artists enter the stock image market. Of course, that overflow of new artists hides a different fact, which is non-generative AI artists exit. Okay? So they stop producing. So we see a reduction in non-generative AI production, as well as a reduction in the number of non-generative AI artists who are participating on the platform.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>What we call that in the paper is sort of a little bit of a crowding out effect. So what’s happening is all of this generative AI production is entering, it’s filling up demand, it’s filling up those markets, and the non-generative AI artists end up having to exit the market because they’re no longer profitable.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>What we call that in the paper is sort of a little bit of a crowding out effect. So what’s happening is all of this generative AI production is entering, it’s filling up demand, it’s filling up those markets, and the non-generative AI artists end up having to exit the market because they’re no longer profitable.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So, pretty bad news for a lot of artists who choose to keep making images the old way. But, Sam also found a bottleneck. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So, pretty bad news for a lot of artists who choose to keep making images the old way. But, Sam also found a bottleneck. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong> What the stock image market sells is not quite images. What the stock image market sells is indemnification, which is to say if the buyer of the image uses it and gets in trouble, so someone says, “Hey, you can’t use that image. That’s copyrighted,” and tries to sue the buyer, the platform says, “You can’t sue the buyer. We’re responsible.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong> What the stock image market sells is not quite images. What the stock image market sells is indemnification, which is to say if the buyer of the image uses it and gets in trouble, so someone says, “Hey, you can’t use that image. That’s copyrighted,” and tries to sue the buyer, the platform says, “You can’t sue the buyer. We’re responsible.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh, fascinating. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh, fascinating. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay, and so that’s really important here because if you were to produce that image yourself using a generative model, you could be subject to some sorts of liability for using, for example, copyrighted work in the training of those models.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay, and so that’s really important here because if you were to produce that image yourself using a generative model, you could be subject to some sorts of liability for using, for example, copyrighted work in the training of those models.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Got that? AI-generated images are a bit of a legal gray area right now. For one, most of the biggest AI models were trained on data that included copyrighted works. And it’s also unclear which new AI-generated works can get copyright protection.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Got that? AI-generated images are a bit of a legal gray area right now. For one, most of the biggest AI models were trained on data that included copyrighted works. And it’s also unclear which new AI-generated works can get copyright protection.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Anyway, given this uncertainty, you might choose to purchase an AI-generated image from this market rather than just whip up one yourself because you want the legal protection that this affords you.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Anyway, given this uncertainty, you might choose to purchase an AI-generated image from this market rather than just whip up one yourself because you want the legal protection that this affords you.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And, it turns out that getting this legal protection works a little differently for images that have a human in them. When artists submit images with humans in them, they also need to fill out paperwork showing that they have permission to use those people’s likenesses. This paperwork is \u003cem>not\u003c/em> something the AI can easily produce. And so voila! We have less crowding-out for images containing people than for images of, say, tennis balls. And there it is! Our bottleneck!\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And, it turns out that getting this legal protection works a little differently for images that have a human in them. When artists submit images with humans in them, they also need to fill out paperwork showing that they have permission to use those people’s likenesses. This paperwork is \u003cem>not\u003c/em> something the AI can easily produce. And so voila! We have less crowding-out for images containing people than for images of, say, tennis balls. And there it is! Our bottleneck!\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Unfortunately, it’s pretty uninspiring: paperwork. Still, in Sam’s study, it was something the machines couldn’t easily replace, and that did allow human creators to survive in that particular corner of the “stock image” market. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Unfortunately, it’s pretty uninspiring: paperwork. Still, in Sam’s study, it was something the machines couldn’t easily replace, and that did allow human creators to survive in that particular corner of the “stock image” market. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Stepping back, Sam’s findings are stark. AI gave customers a ton more image choices. It helped the market grow. And, it pushed a lot of human artists out. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Stepping back, Sam’s findings are stark. AI gave customers a ton more image choices. It helped the market grow. And, it pushed a lot of human artists out. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So one read of your study is that AI-generated art is great for everybody but many of the artists. And I just wanna ask, is a world without artists really great for consumers? Is that really what consumers want? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So one read of your study is that AI-generated art is great for everybody but many of the artists. And I just wanna ask, is a world without artists really great for consumers? Is that really what consumers want? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah. So I definitely do not take a strong opinion about if generative AI art is good or bad, right? I think the data suggests that consumers like the generative AI art. They purchase it, and they are willing to purchase it. And so to the extent that they are willing to purchase it, that seems an improvement basically. Now, in the long run, does that mean that we want a world with no human creativity? I don’t think so, and I don’t have, you know, good data to speak to that. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah. So I definitely do not take a strong opinion about if generative AI art is good or bad, right? I think the data suggests that consumers like the generative AI art. They purchase it, and they are willing to purchase it. And so to the extent that they are willing to purchase it, that seems an improvement basically. Now, in the long run, does that mean that we want a world with no human creativity? I don’t think so, and I don’t have, you know, good data to speak to that. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I mean, certainly anecdotally, we hear people saying they don’t like AI content. Intuitively, I think you might expect more of that backlash in creative goods markets that are a little bit more emotional or sincere. So for example, you see a lot more of this when people listen to AI-generated music. Or like YouTube even, like creative shorts. Stock images are, are a product being used for a purpose, in a way that, I think is a little different. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I mean, certainly anecdotally, we hear people saying they don’t like AI content. Intuitively, I think you might expect more of that backlash in creative goods markets that are a little bit more emotional or sincere. So for example, you see a lot more of this when people listen to AI-generated music. Or like YouTube even, like creative shorts. Stock images are, are a product being used for a purpose, in a way that, I think is a little different. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: So the pressure on human artists that Sam saw in the stock image market… we don’t really know how much they’ll translate to other creative markets.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: So the pressure on human artists that Sam saw in the stock image market… we don’t really know how much they’ll translate to other creative markets.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Particularly those where people could be looking for something harder to just generate on demand: a unique interpretation, emotional resonance, a point of view, maybe even a relationship with the person making the work.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Particularly those where people could be looking for something harder to just generate on demand: a unique interpretation, emotional resonance, a point of view, maybe even a relationship with the person making the work.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So to learn more, I spoke with an artist who has spent much of her career making these \u003cem>other\u003c/em> kinds of images.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So to learn more, I spoke with an artist who has spent much of her career making these \u003cem>other\u003c/em> kinds of images.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>There are people who are absolutely happy with elevator music and people that go to concerts. And, I think for the elevator music art lovers type, I’m sure AI could be satisfactory. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>There are people who are absolutely happy with elevator music and people that go to concerts. And, I think for the elevator music art lovers type, I’m sure AI could be satisfactory. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>That’s coming up. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>That’s coming up. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This is Life, Automated, I’m Jess Love. And I’m talking to the artist Yevgenia Nayberg.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This is Life, Automated, I’m Jess Love. And I’m talking to the artist Yevgenia Nayberg.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Can you talk about the different lanes of art that you make?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Can you talk about the different lanes of art that you make?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I started as a fine artist, so to speak. I’m a painter and so I paint large scale pieces. But also I crossed over pretty early into theater design, set and costume design, and illustration. And about 10 years ago, I also started writing my own books, picture books mostly. And so right now I’m focusing on being an author and picture book illustrator, and a graphic novel illustrator and writer.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I started as a fine artist, so to speak. I’m a painter and so I paint large scale pieces. But also I crossed over pretty early into theater design, set and costume design, and illustration. And about 10 years ago, I also started writing my own books, picture books mostly. And so right now I’m focusing on being an author and picture book illustrator, and a graphic novel illustrator and writer.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, so I really should have asked that question differently. I should have said, “What kinds of art do you \u003cem>not\u003c/em> make?” And then maybe we would’ve gotten through that answer more quickly. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, so I really should have asked that question differently. I should have said, “What kinds of art do you \u003cem>not\u003c/em> make?” And then maybe we would’ve gotten through that answer more quickly. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia is also someone I’ve worked with. Years ago, when I was working as a magazine editor, I hired her to illustrate some articles. Her work is way more distinctive and conceptually ambitious than anything you’d find on a stock-image website. But it is still commercial art: made for a client, on a deadline, to serve a particular purpose. So I wanted to know whether she saw her own corner of the creative economy as vulnerable to the same forces Sam observed.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia is also someone I’ve worked with. Years ago, when I was working as a magazine editor, I hired her to illustrate some articles. Her work is way more distinctive and conceptually ambitious than anything you’d find on a stock-image website. But it is still commercial art: made for a client, on a deadline, to serve a particular purpose. So I wanted to know whether she saw her own corner of the creative economy as vulnerable to the same forces Sam observed.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>What do you think about generative AI making art?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>What do you think about generative AI making art?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I’m not afraid of AI. I know there is a lot of worry amongst artists about it, and I just think it’s probably eventually going to be another tool. I don’t necessarily think that right now AI has the capabilities real, non-artificial artists have. So not afraid at this point.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I’m not afraid of AI. I know there is a lot of worry amongst artists about it, and I just think it’s probably eventually going to be another tool. I don’t necessarily think that right now AI has the capabilities real, non-artificial artists have. So not afraid at this point.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>What about the idea that whether or not this work is as good as what a human could do, it might nonetheless be good enough to somehow compete with human art or human work, either because of discoverability, so with a, flood of lower quality AI images out in the world, it becomes harder to actually find the good ones done by humans or because some of the people who might want to hire artists are pretty comfortable, just generating something for themselves for free?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>What about the idea that whether or not this work is as good as what a human could do, it might nonetheless be good enough to somehow compete with human art or human work, either because of discoverability, so with a, flood of lower quality AI images out in the world, it becomes harder to actually find the good ones done by humans or because some of the people who might want to hire artists are pretty comfortable, just generating something for themselves for free?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I’m sure there are going to be people like that. There are people who are absolutely happy with elevator music and people that go to concerts. And, I think for the elevator music art lovers type, I’m sure AI could be satisfactory. But I don’t know if you remember in the ’90s when all of this, you know, flood of stock art happened, everyone was using this image of a little light bulb above a person’s head when they wanted to describe an idea.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I’m sure there are going to be people like that. There are people who are absolutely happy with elevator music and people that go to concerts. And, I think for the elevator music art lovers type, I’m sure AI could be satisfactory. But I don’t know if you remember in the ’90s when all of this, you know, flood of stock art happened, everyone was using this image of a little light bulb above a person’s head when they wanted to describe an idea.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>If you have an idea, all you draw that bulb, and I think that’s the kind of thinking that I see from AI at this point. So it does create some metaphors, but those metaphors are very trite. If my students do this kind of work, I stop them and I tell them, “Look how many people have already done this hypothetical light bulb.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>If you have an idea, all you draw that bulb, and I think that’s the kind of thinking that I see from AI at this point. So it does create some metaphors, but those metaphors are very trite. If my students do this kind of work, I stop them and I tell them, “Look how many people have already done this hypothetical light bulb.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So I think because AI sort of collects all these similar ideas and then generates as a result, it’s a very banal result, and I’m not interested in that, and I don’t think my clients, the kind of clients that I work with, are interested in those very typical, ordinary ideas. So I can do better than that at this point, for now.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So I think because AI sort of collects all these similar ideas and then generates as a result, it’s a very banal result, and I’m not interested in that, and I don’t think my clients, the kind of clients that I work with, are interested in those very typical, ordinary ideas. So I can do better than that at this point, for now.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia sees a real difference between the illustration work she does, for specific clients, and the broad, commercial stock image market.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia sees a real difference between the illustration work she does, for specific clients, and the broad, commercial stock image market.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>I think what illustration, conceptual illustration does is that it creates a second track to the story. So instead of illustrating something literally, it adds to the story. It can take the story and it can create this interesting creative tension between the illustration and the story, heightening the story in a certain way. So I think with stocks, you often lack that. It’s very hard to prompt an image bank to generate something like this. Even if you search for an image that will fit the story. Fitting the story is one thing. Elevating the story is a completely different thing.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>I think what illustration, conceptual illustration does is that it creates a second track to the story. So instead of illustrating something literally, it adds to the story. It can take the story and it can create this interesting creative tension between the illustration and the story, heightening the story in a certain way. So I think with stocks, you often lack that. It’s very hard to prompt an image bank to generate something like this. Even if you search for an image that will fit the story. Fitting the story is one thing. Elevating the story is a completely different thing.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voicover]\u003c/strong>: Well yeah, an image that elevates a story does seem a lot better than one that merely “fits” a story. But Yevgenia’s not exactly an unbiased third-party here. So now I was curious what Sam Goldberg would make of this claim—that AI art can spray down the market with lots of images that might \u003cem>fit\u003c/em> a particular need really, really well, leading to plenty of satisfied customers. But those images are nonetheless probably not going to be novel enough to \u003cem>elevate\u003c/em> a story. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voicover]\u003c/strong>: Well yeah, an image that elevates a story does seem a lot better than one that merely “fits” a story. But Yevgenia’s not exactly an unbiased third-party here. So now I was curious what Sam Goldberg would make of this claim—that AI art can spray down the market with lots of images that might \u003cem>fit\u003c/em> a particular need really, really well, leading to plenty of satisfied customers. But those images are nonetheless probably not going to be novel enough to \u003cem>elevate\u003c/em> a story. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>“Is this a bottleneck?” I asked Sam.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>“Is this a bottleneck?” I asked Sam.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong> So you are not expecting this question. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong> So you are not expecting this question. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I actually ran some of your results past an illustrator friend of mine. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I actually ran some of your results past an illustrator friend of mine. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And what she said was basically, “Look, you can use generative AI to come up with thousands of images of light bulbs, light bulbs in this environment, in this you know, room, in front of this person. But what you can’t do is get AI to go that one step beyond and think through, well, what is another way of getting across creativity or innovation? So it will give you a billion light bulbs, but it’s not necessarily really going to give you variety at the concept level. And I’m curious what you would make of that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And what she said was basically, “Look, you can use generative AI to come up with thousands of images of light bulbs, light bulbs in this environment, in this you know, room, in front of this person. But what you can’t do is get AI to go that one step beyond and think through, well, what is another way of getting across creativity or innovation? So it will give you a billion light bulbs, but it’s not necessarily really going to give you variety at the concept level. And I’m curious what you would make of that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah. So I’m hesitant to disagree with the artist here, but-\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah. So I’m hesitant to disagree with the artist here, but-\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Never disagree with an artist. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Never disagree with an artist. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Never disagree with the artist. Yeah, so I actually don’t think that’s incongruent with what we see happen in these markets. So one analysis we do in the paper… \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Never disagree with the artist. Yeah, so I actually don’t think that’s incongruent with what we see happen in these markets. So one analysis we do in the paper… \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Sam’s team actually found a way to represent the images mathematically. This let them analyze the novelty of this flood of new AI-generated images.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Sam’s team actually found a way to represent the images mathematically. This let them analyze the novelty of this flood of new AI-generated images.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>And so we actually – I sort of agree with her, right? Which is to say, one thing we don’t see is – we don’t see a huge increase in novelty in the market. But essentially, what we see happen is we don’t see a lot of sort of images enter the market that look very different than the images that already exist there.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>And so we actually – I sort of agree with her, right? Which is to say, one thing we don’t see is – we don’t see a huge increase in novelty in the market. But essentially, what we see happen is we don’t see a lot of sort of images enter the market that look very different than the images that already exist there.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Interesting. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Interesting. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>What we \u003cem>do\u003c/em> see is that anywhere there’s a gap in the market, so where there’s two images on either side, but there’s not an image in between, generative AI is very good at filling those gaps.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>What we \u003cem>do\u003c/em> see is that anywhere there’s a gap in the market, so where there’s two images on either side, but there’s not an image in between, generative AI is very good at filling those gaps.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So…at least for now, AI can generate lots and lots of variations on a theme. But what Yevgenia’s describing is the ability to think \u003cem>beyond\u003c/em> that theme. And Sam says, “yeah, AI doesn’t seem to be as good at that.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So…at least for now, AI can generate lots and lots of variations on a theme. But what Yevgenia’s describing is the ability to think \u003cem>beyond\u003c/em> that theme. And Sam says, “yeah, AI doesn’t seem to be as good at that.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>I think it’s totally reasonable to say that your illustrator friend may be correct that that is something that these models struggle with.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>I think it’s totally reasonable to say that your illustrator friend may be correct that that is something that these models struggle with.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong> I’m surprised. I was ready to fight the economist!\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong> I’m surprised. I was ready to fight the economist!\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh no! I actually don’t think you guys would fight that much, but we won’t put you in a cage match together.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh no! I actually don’t think you guys would fight that much, but we won’t put you in a cage match together.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> This idea of bringing true novelty to an assignment: that new metaphor, that “second track.” This may be an important source of value that human artists bring to a project. So…what does that look like?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> This idea of bringing true novelty to an assignment: that new metaphor, that “second track.” This may be an important source of value that human artists bring to a project. So…what does that look like?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Let’s do something fun. Obviously we have worked together in the past. I have hired you to do beautiful custom illustrations for articles, on Kellogg Insight, where I was the editor-in-chief for many years. And so it’s not even hypothetical to say I would often come to you with a story on innovation, entrepreneurship, you know, how to brainstorm. And so let’s say I bring you this article, it’s about “Better Ways of Brainstorming”, and I’m like, “And also, I think I got a pretty good idea for you. It’s a group of people brainstorming, and above them, they’re, like, collectively building a big light bulb. And it’s like a hot air balloon light bulb, and it’s just, wow, you can just see this is going places. “What do you think?”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Let’s do something fun. Obviously we have worked together in the past. I have hired you to do beautiful custom illustrations for articles, on Kellogg Insight, where I was the editor-in-chief for many years. And so it’s not even hypothetical to say I would often come to you with a story on innovation, entrepreneurship, you know, how to brainstorm. And so let’s say I bring you this article, it’s about “Better Ways of Brainstorming”, and I’m like, “And also, I think I got a pretty good idea for you. It’s a group of people brainstorming, and above them, they’re, like, collectively building a big light bulb. And it’s like a hot air balloon light bulb, and it’s just, wow, you can just see this is going places. “What do you think?”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, Jess, I think actually an air balloon light bulb is already a beautiful idea. If I’m not mistaken, I think I did an illustration like this for you years ago. So, maybe we should try doing something different this time. We don’t wanna repeat ourselves. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, Jess, I think actually an air balloon light bulb is already a beautiful idea. If I’m not mistaken, I think I did an illustration like this for you years ago. So, maybe we should try doing something different this time. We don’t wanna repeat ourselves. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: Yes, Yevgenia was right about this. I tracked down \u003ca href=\"https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/creating-urgency-around-corporate-innovation\">the illustration\u003c/a> from the Kellogg Insight archives. It appeared alongside a 2015 article on corporate innovation. And it featured someone riding through the sky in a lightbulb-shaped hot-air-balloon. Which is almost certainly why the idea formed instantly in my own mind.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: Yes, Yevgenia was right about this. I tracked down \u003ca href=\"https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/creating-urgency-around-corporate-innovation\">the illustration\u003c/a> from the Kellogg Insight archives. It appeared alongside a 2015 article on corporate innovation. And it featured someone riding through the sky in a lightbulb-shaped hot-air-balloon. Which is almost certainly why the idea formed instantly in my own mind.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>But what it did not have is the group of people underneath it, because this, I think, is something that would spoil this illustration. Because you really shouldn’t try to stuff all your ideas into a single illustration. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>But what it did not have is the group of people underneath it, because this, I think, is something that would spoil this illustration. Because you really shouldn’t try to stuff all your ideas into a single illustration. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But we can go in a completely direction as well. You mentioned brainstorming, so I think maybe using those words and turning them into something visual could work, like creating an actual brainstorm where, you know, that your brain is being blown away by the wind. And, that can actually push a story into kind of a funny territory instead of keeping it very serious, because normally when we say a brainstorm, we associate it with really serious, earnest scientists developing something.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But we can go in a completely direction as well. You mentioned brainstorming, so I think maybe using those words and turning them into something visual could work, like creating an actual brainstorm where, you know, that your brain is being blown away by the wind. And, that can actually push a story into kind of a funny territory instead of keeping it very serious, because normally when we say a brainstorm, we associate it with really serious, earnest scientists developing something.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But maybe I want to make a little joke and say, you know, “Hey, you can also brainstorm. You don’t have to be so serious about that.” So it also can change the mood of your article, the mood of your story a little bit.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But maybe I want to make a little joke and say, you know, “Hey, you can also brainstorm. You don’t have to be so serious about that.” So it also can change the mood of your article, the mood of your story a little bit.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And maybe we don’t, maybe you want to be super serious, and then you would reject this idea. But maybe you would say, “Hey, I really like it because we’ve done so many super serious articles. Let’s lighten up.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And maybe we don’t, maybe you want to be super serious, and then you would reject this idea. But maybe you would say, “Hey, I really like it because we’ve done so many super serious articles. Let’s lighten up.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Love it. That’s great. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Love it. That’s great. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Okay! So Yevgenia doesn’t just take an assignment and execute it. She thinks it through: The light bulb is cliche, but the hot air balloon idea is interesting. The hot air balloon is interesting, but the people underneath are weighing the idea down. Oh yeah, and because we have a history together, Yevgenia can tell me that we’ve done something really similar 11 years ago.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Okay! So Yevgenia doesn’t just take an assignment and execute it. She thinks it through: The light bulb is cliche, but the hot air balloon idea is interesting. The hot air balloon is interesting, but the people underneath are weighing the idea down. Oh yeah, and because we have a history together, Yevgenia can tell me that we’ve done something really similar 11 years ago.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Then she offers something completely different, playing off the idea of a storm. But really what she’s doing is asking a question about intent. What mood should the illustration create? Serious? Funny? Can the image change the way the reader experiences the story?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Then she offers something completely different, playing off the idea of a storm. But really what she’s doing is asking a question about intent. What mood should the illustration create? Serious? Funny? Can the image change the way the reader experiences the story?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Yevgenia is much more than a picture-making machine. She has a very finely honed, very unique way of seeing and depicting the world. As much as any technical skills, \u003cem>that’s\u003c/em> what I hired her to bring to the table. And \u003cem>that\u003c/em>, to me, at least – sounds like another bottleneck.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Yevgenia is much more than a picture-making machine. She has a very finely honed, very unique way of seeing and depicting the world. As much as any technical skills, \u003cem>that’s\u003c/em> what I hired her to bring to the table. And \u003cem>that\u003c/em>, to me, at least – sounds like another bottleneck.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So, for established artists like Yegvenia, this should be somewhat reassuring. But there’s still a problem. Nobody begins a career with fully formed artistic taste. That can take years to develop. And often, people develop it while doing smaller, more routine work. Like, maybe, selling their art on a stock image website. And if AI-generated art takes off, even in the most routine, commercial, transactional spaces, it could eventually shape the art we encounter elsewhere too.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So, for established artists like Yegvenia, this should be somewhat reassuring. But there’s still a problem. Nobody begins a career with fully formed artistic taste. That can take years to develop. And often, people develop it while doing smaller, more routine work. Like, maybe, selling their art on a stock image website. And if AI-generated art takes off, even in the most routine, commercial, transactional spaces, it could eventually shape the art we encounter elsewhere too.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>There is a dangerous territory when real humans, real artists will start to imitate AI if there is enough demand for AI art. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>There is a dangerous territory when real humans, real artists will start to imitate AI if there is enough demand for AI art. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia teaches young artists, and she’s been seeing this play out with her students. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia teaches young artists, and she’s been seeing this play out with her students. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>A lot of them are concerned with style and they all talk about style, and I couldn’t really understand what they meant because I thought– I kind of thought of style as voice, not so much as like a stylistic direction. Turns out they’re trying to pick a style and match it from what they see, let’s say, on Instagram. So there is a lot of sameness there already, and this is something that they’re trying to imitate in hopes of finding jobs maybe. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>A lot of them are concerned with style and they all talk about style, and I couldn’t really understand what they meant because I thought– I kind of thought of style as voice, not so much as like a stylistic direction. Turns out they’re trying to pick a style and match it from what they see, let’s say, on Instagram. So there is a lot of sameness there already, and this is something that they’re trying to imitate in hopes of finding jobs maybe. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> She thinks AI could be like Instagram on steroids, sending the same images into every artist’s collective consciousness. Yevgenia says she is \u003cem>all for \u003c/em>her students getting hired to make art. But this trend of homogenization and imitation – is troubling. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> She thinks AI could be like Instagram on steroids, sending the same images into every artist’s collective consciousness. Yevgenia says she is \u003cem>all for \u003c/em>her students getting hired to make art. But this trend of homogenization and imitation – is troubling. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> My primary job is to educate an artist, I want them to work obviously, and I would like to help them as much as possible. But again, I’d like to focus on developing their creativity and their uniqueness more than anything else. I always tell my students, you know, “make something worth stealing.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> My primary job is to educate an artist, I want them to work obviously, and I would like to help them as much as possible. But again, I’d like to focus on developing their creativity and their uniqueness more than anything else. I always tell my students, you know, “make something worth stealing.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>For an individual artist, having a unique voice ‘worth stealing’ can be the difference between mediocrity and greatness.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>For an individual artist, having a unique voice ‘worth stealing’ can be the difference between mediocrity and greatness.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And economist Ben Jones\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>says that everyone benefits from having more, unique, creative perspectives in the mix. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And economist Ben Jones\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>says that everyone benefits from having more, unique, creative perspectives in the mix. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>What we actually want is people reaching for very different types of things based on their different experiences, right? And so what’s interesting, one of the reasons that we think that, you know, a kind of a society with wide-ranging pockets of expertise, interests, cultural backgrounds, et cetera, can be extremely creative, is because people are coming at questions with different sort of perspectives and ideas. They’re even coming at different questions, ’cause the kind of questions that occur to one person might not occur to another, and that’s true in science and invention, it’s true in entrepreneurship. We don’t want everyone trying the same business model. We want people trying wildly different business models, and we’ll see which one the market takes. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>What we actually want is people reaching for very different types of things based on their different experiences, right? And so what’s interesting, one of the reasons that we think that, you know, a kind of a society with wide-ranging pockets of expertise, interests, cultural backgrounds, et cetera, can be extremely creative, is because people are coming at questions with different sort of perspectives and ideas. They’re even coming at different questions, ’cause the kind of questions that occur to one person might not occur to another, and that’s true in science and invention, it’s true in entrepreneurship. We don’t want everyone trying the same business model. We want people trying wildly different business models, and we’ll see which one the market takes. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>There’s real value in difference. In start-ups, in science, and in art. And if everyone begins from the same machine-generated suggestions, we could end up with more of everything—but very little that’s new, special, or unique.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>There’s real value in difference. In start-ups, in science, and in art. And if everyone begins from the same machine-generated suggestions, we could end up with more of everything—but very little that’s new, special, or unique.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So, this is the paradox: AI can generate a staggering number of possibilities, filling countless gaps in the marketplace. And yet, so much of what it produces feels… the same. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So, this is the paradox: AI can generate a staggering number of possibilities, filling countless gaps in the marketplace. And yet, so much of what it produces feels… the same. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>While AI-generated images and videos and books are running rampant in some artistic markets–plenty of people are just fine with elevator music, thank you very much–real novelty, real creativity, seems to be the purview of humans. Leaving human creative workers with an important role to play. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>While AI-generated images and videos and books are running rampant in some artistic markets–plenty of people are just fine with elevator music, thank you very much–real novelty, real creativity, seems to be the purview of humans. Leaving human creative workers with an important role to play. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Whew. That’s a relief.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Whew. That’s a relief.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So… is that the end? Should we play the ending music, roll the credits? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So… is that the end? Should we play the ending music, roll the credits? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Well, not so fast. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Well, not so fast. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This is where we stand on Labor Day 2026 sure, but if we know anything about AI tools, it’s that they can change fast. So what happens next? Where’s this all headed? Well, based on my conversations with scholars and artists, I can see three possible futures.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This is where we stand on Labor Day 2026 sure, but if we know anything about AI tools, it’s that they can change fast. So what happens next? Where’s this all headed? Well, based on my conversations with scholars and artists, I can see three possible futures.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>In the first timeline, things continue along the lines they are now. The machines do get better at generating art. Maybe AI-generated images get even more photorealistic, or maybe AI-generated writing sheds its telltale ticks – you know, those cringy buzzwords that scream, “I’m AI-generated!” \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>In the first timeline, things continue along the lines they are now. The machines do get better at generating art. Maybe AI-generated images get even more photorealistic, or maybe AI-generated writing sheds its telltale ticks – you know, those cringy buzzwords that scream, “I’m AI-generated!” \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But the improvements are really around the margins. And so genuine creativity remains a bottleneck protecting human creatives.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But the improvements are really around the margins. And so genuine creativity remains a bottleneck protecting human creatives.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But there’s a second timeline, and in this timeline, AI learns to be \u003cem>very\u003c/em> creative.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But there’s a second timeline, and in this timeline, AI learns to be \u003cem>very\u003c/em> creative.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Ben sees this possible future as pretty likely. Because new ideas rarely emerge out of the blue. They are often composed of existing ingredients, just combined in new ways. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Ben sees this possible future as pretty likely. Because new ideas rarely emerge out of the blue. They are often composed of existing ingredients, just combined in new ways. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>In many, many fields, people have separately discovered that creativity often looks like a new combination of things that already existed. So, for example, Thomas Edison did not call the light bulb, at first, the light bulb. He called it the electric candle because he was taking the candle, which was an old technology, and electricity, which was a new technology, and combining them.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>In many, many fields, people have separately discovered that creativity often looks like a new combination of things that already existed. So, for example, Thomas Edison did not call the light bulb, at first, the light bulb. He called it the electric candle because he was taking the candle, which was an old technology, and electricity, which was a new technology, and combining them.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And if you look at many, many ideas, it’s very natural to decompose them into distinct components—to unleash a big insight in science, or to produce a new product or process that we can all use. So that idea is very common, you see it in the arts and music and invention and science.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And if you look at many, many ideas, it’s very natural to decompose them into distinct components—to unleash a big insight in science, or to produce a new product or process that we can all use. So that idea is very common, you see it in the arts and music and invention and science.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> By this definition, AI should actually have a creative advantage. A single person can only encounter and understand so many possible ingredients in a lifetime. \u003cem>We\u003c/em> have to specialize. AI has a much more vast palette to draw from.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> By this definition, AI should actually have a creative advantage. A single person can only encounter and understand so many possible ingredients in a lifetime. \u003cem>We\u003c/em> have to specialize. AI has a much more vast palette to draw from.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>What’s been interesting about AI, of course, is that AI reads everything. So anyone who’s been interacting with AI sort of sees like, “Wow, I can talk to this AI about just about anything, and right around the edges of my understanding about things I kind of understand, about things I know nothing about, and it seems to know a lot about a lot of stuff.” So in some sense, at that core level of being able to access ingredients that you can combine with seemingly some sophisticated understanding of those ingredients, AI is pretty impressive. And so in that sense, I think it has in some sense, beyond human creative potential. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>What’s been interesting about AI, of course, is that AI reads everything. So anyone who’s been interacting with AI sort of sees like, “Wow, I can talk to this AI about just about anything, and right around the edges of my understanding about things I kind of understand, about things I know nothing about, and it seems to know a lot about a lot of stuff.” So in some sense, at that core level of being able to access ingredients that you can combine with seemingly some sophisticated understanding of those ingredients, AI is pretty impressive. And so in that sense, I think it has in some sense, beyond human creative potential. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Given the vast range of ingredients AI can draw from, you might expect it to already produce endlessly surprising combinations. And Ben says theoretically, it one day could. If it were trained completely differently from how most chatbots are trained today.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Given the vast range of ingredients AI can draw from, you might expect it to already produce endlessly surprising combinations. And Ben says theoretically, it one day could. If it were trained completely differently from how most chatbots are trained today.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>When you talk like a general purpose, chatbot or whatever, say ChatGPT, it’s sort of trained to produce the right answer, predicting the next token in some probabilistic way that it thinks is most likely to be right. And by predicting the thing that’s sort of most likely to be right all the time, that sounds like you’re homogenizing. It’s not going for the strange answer, right? It’s trying typically to please you by giving you what you want, and what most people want is not some wildly creative answer. They want the right answer. But that’s of course very much about how they were trained. I mean, those chatbots are optimized to do exactly that. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>When you talk like a general purpose, chatbot or whatever, say ChatGPT, it’s sort of trained to produce the right answer, predicting the next token in some probabilistic way that it thinks is most likely to be right. And by predicting the thing that’s sort of most likely to be right all the time, that sounds like you’re homogenizing. It’s not going for the strange answer, right? It’s trying typically to please you by giving you what you want, and what most people want is not some wildly creative answer. They want the right answer. But that’s of course very much about how they were trained. I mean, those chatbots are optimized to do exactly that. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But there could be other algorithms that we could use to train AI. It’s like, let’s say we’re training an AI, and we’re having people rate whether it was really interesting scientifically. Not whether it was right, but whether it was novel. Or novel and right. So I think that there is a world in which AI, and it may come quickly, or not, where AI can be quite creative.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But there could be other algorithms that we could use to train AI. It’s like, let’s say we’re training an AI, and we’re having people rate whether it was really interesting scientifically. Not whether it was right, but whether it was novel. Or novel and right. So I think that there is a world in which AI, and it may come quickly, or not, where AI can be quite creative.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>In this world, this second possible future, where the AI companies spend millions, billions, to train up AI that’s really, really creative. In this future, the creativity bottleneck protecting human artists disappears.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>In this world, this second possible future, where the AI companies spend millions, billions, to train up AI that’s really, really creative. In this future, the creativity bottleneck protecting human artists disappears.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Some kinds of creative work, live performances, personal memoir, handmade furniture, are probably still safe. But this timeline does leave many other artists really vulnerable, particularly those who distribute their work on digital marketplaces.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Some kinds of creative work, live performances, personal memoir, handmade furniture, are probably still safe. But this timeline does leave many other artists really vulnerable, particularly those who distribute their work on digital marketplaces.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But even here, there is a bottleneck that could come into play.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But even here, there is a bottleneck that could come into play.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Not a technical bottleneck—something the machine is incapable of doing—or even a legal one, like copyright protection or human likeness permission.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Not a technical bottleneck—something the machine is incapable of doing—or even a legal one, like copyright protection or human likeness permission.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>A normative bottleneck: a limit people try to impose collectively, by deciding what kinds of creative work they are willing to accept and reward, often for ethical or even almost spiritual reasons.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>A normative bottleneck: a limit people try to impose collectively, by deciding what kinds of creative work they are willing to accept and reward, often for ethical or even almost spiritual reasons.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>We’re already seeing this now. Many of my artist friends have adopted a kind of “hold the line” mentality against generative AI, in part because they sense that using AI is a betrayal to the artistic community.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>We’re already seeing this now. Many of my artist friends have adopted a kind of “hold the line” mentality against generative AI, in part because they sense that using AI is a betrayal to the artistic community.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> Well, there is an ethical component, because AI is being trained on real artists. It’s basically being trained on us. And, of course, none of us enjoys that. None of us gave permission to have our art used by AI.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> Well, there is an ethical component, because AI is being trained on real artists. It’s basically being trained on us. And, of course, none of us enjoys that. None of us gave permission to have our art used by AI.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: To the extent that science writing can be considered art – I feel this. It’s pretty likely that a decade of my own science writing was scraped from the web and used to train AI models. Nobody asked me for permission, and I certainly didn’t give it. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: To the extent that science writing can be considered art – I feel this. It’s pretty likely that a decade of my own science writing was scraped from the web and used to train AI models. Nobody asked me for permission, and I certainly didn’t give it. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> I would rather have this be at the discretion of every artist—if they want their work to be released into the AI world. I would not want AI to be trained on my work, honestly. Because all of us have our own little tricks and secrets, and I would like to keep them to myself.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> I would rather have this be at the discretion of every artist—if they want their work to be released into the AI world. I would not want AI to be trained on my work, honestly. Because all of us have our own little tricks and secrets, and I would like to keep them to myself.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Some artists believe that the best way to fight back against a technology they didn’t ask for is to reject it altogether, in all forms.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Some artists believe that the best way to fight back against a technology they didn’t ask for is to reject it altogether, in all forms.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Other creatives draw the line differently. Maybe AI can be used for research, but not execution. Or maybe it can be used for execution, but only in a specific way, as part of a rigorous, intentional process.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Other creatives draw the line differently. Maybe AI can be used for research, but not execution. Or maybe it can be used for execution, but only in a specific way, as part of a rigorous, intentional process.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Wherever this line is drawn – and I expect this to be vehemently contested over the next several years, the normative bottleneck is about \u003cem>process\u003c/em>. Not just \u003cem>what\u003c/em> is made, but \u003cem>how\u003c/em> something is made.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Wherever this line is drawn – and I expect this to be vehemently contested over the next several years, the normative bottleneck is about \u003cem>process\u003c/em>. Not just \u003cem>what\u003c/em> is made, but \u003cem>how\u003c/em> something is made.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Earlier this year, the fantasy novelist Brandon Sanderson made this argument explicit in a keynote address called “We Are the Art.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Earlier this year, the fantasy novelist Brandon Sanderson made this argument explicit in a keynote address called “We Are the Art.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Brandon Sanderson]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Brandon Sanderson]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem> The machines can spit out manuscript after manuscript after manuscript. They can pile them to the pillars of heaven itself, but all we have to do is say no. If we do, they lose. Why do we make art? Well, remember, art is not just the story. It is not just the painting or the sculpture or whatever else you love to create. It’s also the process of creation and what that process did to you. We are the art. Thank you.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem> The machines can spit out manuscript after manuscript after manuscript. They can pile them to the pillars of heaven itself, but all we have to do is say no. If we do, they lose. Why do we make art? Well, remember, art is not just the story. It is not just the painting or the sculpture or whatever else you love to create. It’s also the process of creation and what that process did to you. We are the art. Thank you.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Whether this kind of resistance, this \u003cem>normative\u003c/em> bottleneck can hold will depend on getting others on board. Getting others to agree that part of the value of human art is that it was created by another human being. Someone who felt something, or saw the world in a certain way, and labored to share it with us. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Whether this kind of resistance, this \u003cem>normative\u003c/em> bottleneck can hold will depend on getting others on board. Getting others to agree that part of the value of human art is that it was created by another human being. Someone who felt something, or saw the world in a certain way, and labored to share it with us. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But there’s a third possible future here, one that doesn’t solely rely on social norms around creativity. In this possible future, whether AI becomes more creative or not, people using AI become capable of doing new things that neither humans nor AI could have done alone. Maybe AI becomes yet another tool for human artists. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But there’s a third possible future here, one that doesn’t solely rely on social norms around creativity. In this possible future, whether AI becomes more creative or not, people using AI become capable of doing new things that neither humans nor AI could have done alone. Maybe AI becomes yet another tool for human artists. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You’ve seen this before: the camera. Photoshop. The electric synthesizer. All these were controversial in their time, often for devaluing certain hard-won skills, like painting in a painstaking, hyper-realistic style, or learning to play the french horn. But today most artists would probably agree that the new tools created new possibilities. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You’ve seen this before: the camera. Photoshop. The electric synthesizer. All these were controversial in their time, often for devaluing certain hard-won skills, like painting in a painstaking, hyper-realistic style, or learning to play the french horn. But today most artists would probably agree that the new tools created new possibilities. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Or maybe AI really is different. Maybe it becomes a kind of thought partner. The machine proposes new ingredients we might never have produced on our own. Not unlike a colleague emailing us an article we might find interesting. Here’s Ben again.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Or maybe AI really is different. Maybe it becomes a kind of thought partner. The machine proposes new ingredients we might never have produced on our own. Not unlike a colleague emailing us an article we might find interesting. Here’s Ben again.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>Maybe when you’re writing, it’s, it’s a collaborator, right? I mean, maybe it’s not a replacement, it’s like another voice on your team. And suddenly you’re getting a higher quality product. And it could be that you’re making a screenplay, you’re writing an article, you’re writing a song, and suddenly it’s better for your collaboration with the AI, but they’re not actually taking full control.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>Maybe when you’re writing, it’s, it’s a collaborator, right? I mean, maybe it’s not a replacement, it’s like another voice on your team. And suddenly you’re getting a higher quality product. And it could be that you’re making a screenplay, you’re writing an article, you’re writing a song, and suddenly it’s better for your collaboration with the AI, but they’re not actually taking full control.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>In this scenario, we humans use our own creative judgment to run with whichever combination of ingredients seems like it has the most potential. Here, you could even think of “creative judgment” as its own bottleneck.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>In this scenario, we humans use our own creative judgment to run with whichever combination of ingredients seems like it has the most potential. Here, you could even think of “creative judgment” as its own bottleneck.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>You need true expertise around the set of ingredients to understand which combinations are likely or not to be useful. You don’t just randomly put ingredients together in the kitchen. It’s not gonna taste very good. There’s some milk here, and there’s some orange juice, and how about this banana? And look, it’s all spice in the spice rack, you know? And then, oh, and is that chicken? You know, that’s not gonna go very well, right? And pretty much everyone sort of knows that. There’s many, many, many, many possible combinations. But we kind of know instinctually not to try many of them because we know they’re probably not gonna be good.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>You need true expertise around the set of ingredients to understand which combinations are likely or not to be useful. You don’t just randomly put ingredients together in the kitchen. It’s not gonna taste very good. There’s some milk here, and there’s some orange juice, and how about this banana? And look, it’s all spice in the spice rack, you know? And then, oh, and is that chicken? You know, that’s not gonna go very well, right? And pretty much everyone sort of knows that. There’s many, many, many, many possible combinations. But we kind of know instinctually not to try many of them because we know they’re probably not gonna be good.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Even Yevgenia, who I should stress continues to do all of her art by hand, can see the value in this kind of collaboration–if done right, if used as more of a jumping off point than the ultimate destination. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Even Yevgenia, who I should stress continues to do all of her art by hand, can see the value in this kind of collaboration–if done right, if used as more of a jumping off point than the ultimate destination. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> You can give AI prompts and say, “Okay, give me all these variations of the light bulb in the field and in the pool.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> You can give AI prompts and say, “Okay, give me all these variations of the light bulb in the field and in the pool.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And once it does it, you can say, “No, this is a really stupid idea. Why don’t you try something else?” And you can see what it tries, and you can maybe find something there? So I can see using AI as this little, average-minded, ordinary partner—and then that can spark something in you, in your imagination. It can generate more ideas from us, in a way, because we are competing intellectually with something.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And once it does it, you can say, “No, this is a really stupid idea. Why don’t you try something else?” And you can see what it tries, and you can maybe find something there? So I can see using AI as this little, average-minded, ordinary partner—and then that can spark something in you, in your imagination. It can generate more ideas from us, in a way, because we are competing intellectually with something.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So those are our three scenarios. AI kind of stalls out creatively or AI actually can do everything humans can do, but cheaper and better. And then we have to decide whether we \u003cem>want\u003c/em> to preserve a role for human creativity. Or, AI and humans collaborate to \u003cem>do \u003c/em>entirely new things.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So those are our three scenarios. AI kind of stalls out creatively or AI actually can do everything humans can do, but cheaper and better. And then we have to decide whether we \u003cem>want\u003c/em> to preserve a role for human creativity. Or, AI and humans collaborate to \u003cem>do \u003c/em>entirely new things.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Let’s all level-set for a second by noting that lots of people want to be artists, and it’s really, really hard. Already. It’s very hard to make a living as an actor, a musician, an artist, even without computers. Right? And there’s something deeply human about wanting to create and be an artist. And I would say, to be an economist for a second, the demand for their services is lower than the supply of people who would like to do it. So there are many long-suffering artists out there. Does AI make long-suffering artists even more suffering?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Let’s all level-set for a second by noting that lots of people want to be artists, and it’s really, really hard. Already. It’s very hard to make a living as an actor, a musician, an artist, even without computers. Right? And there’s something deeply human about wanting to create and be an artist. And I would say, to be an economist for a second, the demand for their services is lower than the supply of people who would like to do it. So there are many long-suffering artists out there. Does AI make long-suffering artists even more suffering?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Even long-suffering-er.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Even long-suffering-er.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Long-suffering-er. That’s a word. And I think it could. And it could be because it replaces their output. It’s a cheaper way to produce something people want. On the other hand, maybe AI makes artists more able to do things at lower cost themselves. Maybe it’s a tool, it’s an augmentation, not a replacement. So I think it’s an open question which way it goes. It probably does quite a bit of both. And we’ll have to see. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Long-suffering-er. That’s a word. And I think it could. And it could be because it replaces their output. It’s a cheaper way to produce something people want. On the other hand, maybe AI makes artists more able to do things at lower cost themselves. Maybe it’s a tool, it’s an augmentation, not a replacement. So I think it’s an open question which way it goes. It probably does quite a bit of both. And we’ll have to see. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>A bit of both. Maybe this is the most likely possible future of all. Maybe we get all these timelines happening at once, in different parts of the creative economy. AI replacing artists, AI assisting artists, and AI just getting out of the way, to let artists do their very \u003cem>human\u003c/em> thing.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>A bit of both. Maybe this is the most likely possible future of all. Maybe we get all these timelines happening at once, in different parts of the creative economy. AI replacing artists, AI assisting artists, and AI just getting out of the way, to let artists do their very \u003cem>human\u003c/em> thing.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity, at the Kellogg School of Management, at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity, at the Kellogg School of Management, at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Today’s show was produced by Steven Jackson and Jesse Dukes. Music by Steven Jackson and Neutral Propulsion Laboratory. Recording help from Will Feeney, George Christensen, Laura Pavin and Big Lake Recording Company. Administrative support, recording, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger, who we’re going to miss very much.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Today’s show was produced by Steven Jackson and Jesse Dukes. Music by Steven Jackson and Neutral Propulsion Laboratory. Recording help from Will Feeney, George Christensen, Laura Pavin and Big Lake Recording Company. Administrative support, recording, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger, who we’re going to miss very much.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
}
],
"excerpt": "AI can quickly generate new images, stories, and songs. We explore what this means for human creators.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1788300863,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 166,
"wordCount": 7917
},
"headData": {
"title": "AI, Artists, and the Future of Creative Work | KQED",
"description": "Generative AI is able to conjure new images, stories, and songs at lightning speed. So what does this mean for humans artists, storytellers, and musicians? In this special Labor Day episode, we speak with economists Ben Jones and Sam Goldberg, as well as artist Yevgenia Nayberg, to find out what happens when AI enters creative markets. We learn that, at least today, key bottlenecks prevent AI from replicating some aspects of creativity. But there’s no guarantee those bottlenecks will exist tomorrow, raising vital questions about what we value in human labor.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"socialDescription": "Generative AI is able to conjure new images, stories, and songs at lightning speed. So what does this mean for humans artists, storytellers, and musicians? In this special Labor Day episode, we speak with economists Ben Jones and Sam Goldberg, as well as artist Yevgenia Nayberg, to find out what happens when AI enters creative markets. We learn that, at least today, key bottlenecks prevent AI from replicating some aspects of creativity. But there’s no guarantee those bottlenecks will exist tomorrow, raising vital questions about what we value in human labor.",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "AI, Artists, and the Future of Creative Work",
"datePublished": "2026-09-02T03:00:00-07:00",
"dateModified": "2026-09-01T15:14:23-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 33520,
"slug": "podcast",
"name": "Podcast"
},
"audioUrl": "https://traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC8945882772.mp3",
"sticky": false,
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "1",
"path": "/news/12097687/ai-artists-and-the-future-of-creative-work",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#Transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Generative AI is able to conjure new images, stories, and songs at lightning speed. So what does this mean for humans artists, storytellers, and musicians? In this special Labor Day episode, we speak with economists \u003ca href=\"https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/academics-research/faculty/jones_benjamin_f/\">Ben Jones\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/faculty/samuel-goldberg\">Sam Goldberg\u003c/a>, as well as artist \u003ca href=\"https://nayberg.org/\">Yevgenia Nayberg\u003c/a>, to find out what happens when AI enters creative markets. We learn that, at least today, key bottlenecks prevent AI from replicating some aspects of creativity. But there’s no guarantee those bottlenecks will exist tomorrow, raising vital questions about what we value in human labor.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Further Reading\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Research cited: \u003ca href=\"https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5152649\">Generative AI & Creative Goods: Market Expansion, Crowd-out, and Copyright\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The image discussed in our brainstorm with Yevgenia can be found illustrating this article: \u003ca href=\"https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/creating-urgency-around-corporate-innovation\">Creating Urgency around Corporate Innovation\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore all the ways technology is changing how we live, work, and make decisions.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Think about the tractor… The washing machine, The calculator. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>For a long time, the promise of machines that automate labor was that they would take over the repetitive, dangerous or tedious work; and leave people free to do the things humans are supposed to be best at. You know, to imagine. Communicate. Invent. Make art or music. But it seems like AI might be coming for creative work as well.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>One sector on notice is the entertainment industry. The Writers guild recently bargained for contract language limiting the use of AI writing in screenplays. The Animation Guild recently projected losses of about 20% of animation and visual effects jobs. And SAG-AFTRA, a big actors and writers union, has been in ongoing negotiations to try to prevent human actors from being replaced by AI: \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Fran Drescher]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>I don’t subscribe to putting people out of work. I think what’s happening in the entertainment industry is a microcosm of what happening throughout the United States of America whereby workers are being replaced by artificial intelligence, and what is that about actually\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But it’s not just Hollywood. Writers, illustrators, journalists, composers, architects — even scientists who design experiments, they’re all on alert, wondering whether and how AI will impact the work they \u003cem>love\u003c/em> to do. It’s a question I’ve been wrestling with myself, as a science writer and self described “creative worker” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So today, we’ll be tackling that question, and instead of hearing from just one guest, we have a few: including an economist who studied what happened when generative AI entered one particular creative market.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>All of this generative AI production is entering, it’s filling up those markets, and the non-generative AI artists end up having to exit the market because they’re no longer profitable.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> As well as a working artist\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> I think we will adapt. I’m not sure how yet. I can’t predict the future, but I know it’s your personal voice that will set you apart always.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>But first, if you listened to our kickoff episode — back in July, you’ll remember Economist Ben Jones. Ben is my colleague at the Ryan Institute on Complexity where he studies innovation. And, I’m going to start with a short flashback to that conversation, because something he said is really helpful for thinking about the future of creative work. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>See, Ben has been thinking about automation and its impact on jobs for a long time. He says that instead of obsessing over all the things AI can suddenly do really well, we should spend more time focusing on what it can’t do, at least not yet. Ben calls these things – bottlenecks. I’m Jess Love, this is Life, Automated. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Okay, so can you talk to us about what a bottleneck is and why it’s so important?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong> Well, of course it’s a metaphor from a bottle and what do we know about bottles? We know that the speed at which water or wine will flow from the bottle, depends on the width of the neck. Doesn’t really depend on how big the bottle is otherwise, how much wine there is in it, or how big the base is. It really just depends on the neck and in many processes in the economy and in the economy overall, it looks like there are certain things that have to happen that act as bottlenecks. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Much of the economy has that flavor where it’s not how good you are at a lot of things. What’s really sort of determining the rate of the economy is the things we’re quite slow at, the things we’re not very good at. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: In other words, even if some parts of a system get really, really fast and easy, it’s the slowest parts of the system, the parts most difficult to automate, that will determine just how much the system overall changes. As an example from his own job, Ben points to statistical regressions, which computers do incredibly well much better than humans.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>. If I were to run a regression by hand, with a large number of observations, it would take me literally my entire life. And I would make mistakes. You know, my computer can do a regression with a million data points in a-minute.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong> Yeah. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong> And so we have these technologies that basically are infinitely better than us to do these tasks that are really important to what we do. And then you can ask, okay, well, has our understanding of economics or astronomy or physics multiplied by a similar factor? And you’d say ‘no’, because although we can do certain things really, really, really incredibly well, other things are holding us back. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> For scientific researchers, these ‘other things’ might be collecting the right data, or building the instruments to collect the right data, or even waiting for the perfect set of circumstances to emerge that would let us interpret that data. Like the collapse of an economy, or the collision of two stars in a particular spot in the sky. Until scientists can push past these bottlenecks, all the statistical regressions in the world will only teach them so much.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I find Ben’s framework a useful way to think about AI’s impact on any kind of work, creative or otherwise. Most people’s jobs involve a bunch of different tasks. AI might get really good at some of them, but tasks it still struggles with – the bottlenecks, really determine the overall pace of change, as well as where humans can still contribute. And get paid to do so. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So, the big takeaway for creative workers: Find the stuff AI can’t do. But what do these bottlenecks look like in creative markets in particular? And would they actually allow writers, artists, and other creative workers to still do that work? Well, it turns out that there’s somebody who has been studying this very thing. Specifically, how AI has impacted stock image websites. Those sell ready-made photos and illustrations that appear in ads, presentations, websites, and articles. Say you’re making an ad for productivity software. Maybe you purchase a stock image of people shaking hands in a conference room, or a woman smiling at her computer screen, or a well-dressed man gazing thoughtfully into the distance, perhaps wondering. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>Stock images, why do we care about these things, right? It’s not a particularly large market. It’s definitely sort of a niche commoditized good. Why is this somewhere where we wanna study AI? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>This is Sam Goldberg. He teaches marketing at Stanford, where he also studies how technology changes markets and consumer behavior. And he says the stock-image market offers an unusually crisp view of what happens when AI-generated work begins competing directly with work made by people.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>So back, you know, a few years ago, they were one of the first markets where we saw really capable AI come to artists, and be able to be used to produce really high-quality images.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>For years, human artists made stock images and uploaded them to online marketplaces. Then those marketplaces began accepting AI-generated work. Suddenly, images made by people were sitting beside images that could be generated by machines, almost instantly, at enormous scale. And because the platform Sam studied required artists to clearly label which images were AI-generated, he could watch the transition in really fine detail.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>And so what that means in practice is that after the platform allows generative AI to enter the market, I can see both how non-generative AI artists respond, as well as how generative AI enters the market and what types of images it produces. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So here’s how it used to work. Customers would comb through these websites, going through image after image, until they find one that is “close enough”. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>I guess the right way to think about it is each individual might have a very specific taste for something, and so when they were trying to find a stock image, they would make some sort of compromise, right? So they would say, “Oh, I’m looking for an image of a tennis ball, and I want an image of a tennis ball in motion,” right? They could go to the stock image website, they’d look up that keyword, and they’d find, you know, maybe pre-generative AI, a couple hundred different versions of that image, right? Maybe none of them are perfect, but one of them’s good enough, and they took it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Right\u003cstrong>. \u003c/strong>So maybe your article is about playing tennis in the rain, and so you would love to have a tennis ball that’s kind of covered in water. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Penetrating water droplets.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Right. And then that is the kind of thing that just doesn’t exist, so maybe you just get a tennis ball in isolation, and that’s good enough. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Exactly. And so in the pre-generative AI world, you know, you were making some compromises with respect to that, oftentimes at least. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> But along comes generative AI, with free or cheap image generators where you can literally tell it: I want a wet tennis ball, resting on a bench, with water beading on it. And it will give you a pretty good version of that exact image. So what happens when a stock image market starts accepting these hyper-specific AI-generated images?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>What actually happens in this market is, generative AI enters, the market expands greatly, so there’s a lot more images on the platform. That should probably be pretty intuitive. But not only do more images enter the market, more customers do as well. More images are being purchased and they like the generative AI images because it turns out they’re actually pretty high quality.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So I can see how this is good for me as a consumer. I finally have the perfect raindrop-covered tennis ball for my editorial feature. And I can see how this is good for the platform itself, at least in the short term. What happens to the artists? And I guess I would ask both the artists using generative AI and those who are not. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah, it’s a good question, and I think you are correct in your intuition here that it does seem like it’s probably pretty good for consumers. It does seem like it’s probably pretty good for the platform, at least in the short run. The artist side I think is a little bit more complicated right? Let me walk you through what happens after generative AI enters the platform, and then we can talk about the implications for artists.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. So what happens is production goes way up. All right? By over 100% more production, so enormous increases in production here. Second, more artists participate in the market. So we see a lot of new artists enter the stock image market. Of course, that overflow of new artists hides a different fact, which is non-generative AI artists exit. Okay? So they stop producing. So we see a reduction in non-generative AI production, as well as a reduction in the number of non-generative AI artists who are participating on the platform.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>What we call that in the paper is sort of a little bit of a crowding out effect. So what’s happening is all of this generative AI production is entering, it’s filling up demand, it’s filling up those markets, and the non-generative AI artists end up having to exit the market because they’re no longer profitable.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So, pretty bad news for a lot of artists who choose to keep making images the old way. But, Sam also found a bottleneck. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong> What the stock image market sells is not quite images. What the stock image market sells is indemnification, which is to say if the buyer of the image uses it and gets in trouble, so someone says, “Hey, you can’t use that image. That’s copyrighted,” and tries to sue the buyer, the platform says, “You can’t sue the buyer. We’re responsible.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh, fascinating. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay, and so that’s really important here because if you were to produce that image yourself using a generative model, you could be subject to some sorts of liability for using, for example, copyrighted work in the training of those models.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Got that? AI-generated images are a bit of a legal gray area right now. For one, most of the biggest AI models were trained on data that included copyrighted works. And it’s also unclear which new AI-generated works can get copyright protection.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Anyway, given this uncertainty, you might choose to purchase an AI-generated image from this market rather than just whip up one yourself because you want the legal protection that this affords you.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And, it turns out that getting this legal protection works a little differently for images that have a human in them. When artists submit images with humans in them, they also need to fill out paperwork showing that they have permission to use those people’s likenesses. This paperwork is \u003cem>not\u003c/em> something the AI can easily produce. And so voila! We have less crowding-out for images containing people than for images of, say, tennis balls. And there it is! Our bottleneck!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Unfortunately, it’s pretty uninspiring: paperwork. Still, in Sam’s study, it was something the machines couldn’t easily replace, and that did allow human creators to survive in that particular corner of the “stock image” market. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Stepping back, Sam’s findings are stark. AI gave customers a ton more image choices. It helped the market grow. And, it pushed a lot of human artists out. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So one read of your study is that AI-generated art is great for everybody but many of the artists. And I just wanna ask, is a world without artists really great for consumers? Is that really what consumers want? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah. So I definitely do not take a strong opinion about if generative AI art is good or bad, right? I think the data suggests that consumers like the generative AI art. They purchase it, and they are willing to purchase it. And so to the extent that they are willing to purchase it, that seems an improvement basically. Now, in the long run, does that mean that we want a world with no human creativity? I don’t think so, and I don’t have, you know, good data to speak to that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I mean, certainly anecdotally, we hear people saying they don’t like AI content. Intuitively, I think you might expect more of that backlash in creative goods markets that are a little bit more emotional or sincere. So for example, you see a lot more of this when people listen to AI-generated music. Or like YouTube even, like creative shorts. Stock images are, are a product being used for a purpose, in a way that, I think is a little different. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: So the pressure on human artists that Sam saw in the stock image market… we don’t really know how much they’ll translate to other creative markets.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Particularly those where people could be looking for something harder to just generate on demand: a unique interpretation, emotional resonance, a point of view, maybe even a relationship with the person making the work.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So to learn more, I spoke with an artist who has spent much of her career making these \u003cem>other\u003c/em> kinds of images.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>There are people who are absolutely happy with elevator music and people that go to concerts. And, I think for the elevator music art lovers type, I’m sure AI could be satisfactory. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>That’s coming up. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is Life, Automated, I’m Jess Love. And I’m talking to the artist Yevgenia Nayberg.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Can you talk about the different lanes of art that you make?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I started as a fine artist, so to speak. I’m a painter and so I paint large scale pieces. But also I crossed over pretty early into theater design, set and costume design, and illustration. And about 10 years ago, I also started writing my own books, picture books mostly. And so right now I’m focusing on being an author and picture book illustrator, and a graphic novel illustrator and writer.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, so I really should have asked that question differently. I should have said, “What kinds of art do you \u003cem>not\u003c/em> make?” And then maybe we would’ve gotten through that answer more quickly. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia is also someone I’ve worked with. Years ago, when I was working as a magazine editor, I hired her to illustrate some articles. Her work is way more distinctive and conceptually ambitious than anything you’d find on a stock-image website. But it is still commercial art: made for a client, on a deadline, to serve a particular purpose. So I wanted to know whether she saw her own corner of the creative economy as vulnerable to the same forces Sam observed.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>What do you think about generative AI making art?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I’m not afraid of AI. I know there is a lot of worry amongst artists about it, and I just think it’s probably eventually going to be another tool. I don’t necessarily think that right now AI has the capabilities real, non-artificial artists have. So not afraid at this point.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>What about the idea that whether or not this work is as good as what a human could do, it might nonetheless be good enough to somehow compete with human art or human work, either because of discoverability, so with a, flood of lower quality AI images out in the world, it becomes harder to actually find the good ones done by humans or because some of the people who might want to hire artists are pretty comfortable, just generating something for themselves for free?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, I’m sure there are going to be people like that. There are people who are absolutely happy with elevator music and people that go to concerts. And, I think for the elevator music art lovers type, I’m sure AI could be satisfactory. But I don’t know if you remember in the ’90s when all of this, you know, flood of stock art happened, everyone was using this image of a little light bulb above a person’s head when they wanted to describe an idea.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>If you have an idea, all you draw that bulb, and I think that’s the kind of thinking that I see from AI at this point. So it does create some metaphors, but those metaphors are very trite. If my students do this kind of work, I stop them and I tell them, “Look how many people have already done this hypothetical light bulb.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I think because AI sort of collects all these similar ideas and then generates as a result, it’s a very banal result, and I’m not interested in that, and I don’t think my clients, the kind of clients that I work with, are interested in those very typical, ordinary ideas. So I can do better than that at this point, for now.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia sees a real difference between the illustration work she does, for specific clients, and the broad, commercial stock image market.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>I think what illustration, conceptual illustration does is that it creates a second track to the story. So instead of illustrating something literally, it adds to the story. It can take the story and it can create this interesting creative tension between the illustration and the story, heightening the story in a certain way. So I think with stocks, you often lack that. It’s very hard to prompt an image bank to generate something like this. Even if you search for an image that will fit the story. Fitting the story is one thing. Elevating the story is a completely different thing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voicover]\u003c/strong>: Well yeah, an image that elevates a story does seem a lot better than one that merely “fits” a story. But Yevgenia’s not exactly an unbiased third-party here. So now I was curious what Sam Goldberg would make of this claim—that AI art can spray down the market with lots of images that might \u003cem>fit\u003c/em> a particular need really, really well, leading to plenty of satisfied customers. But those images are nonetheless probably not going to be novel enough to \u003cem>elevate\u003c/em> a story. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>“Is this a bottleneck?” I asked Sam.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong> So you are not expecting this question. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I actually ran some of your results past an illustrator friend of mine. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Okay. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And what she said was basically, “Look, you can use generative AI to come up with thousands of images of light bulbs, light bulbs in this environment, in this you know, room, in front of this person. But what you can’t do is get AI to go that one step beyond and think through, well, what is another way of getting across creativity or innovation? So it will give you a billion light bulbs, but it’s not necessarily really going to give you variety at the concept level. And I’m curious what you would make of that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Yeah. So I’m hesitant to disagree with the artist here, but-\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Never disagree with an artist. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>Never disagree with the artist. Yeah, so I actually don’t think that’s incongruent with what we see happen in these markets. So one analysis we do in the paper… \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Sam’s team actually found a way to represent the images mathematically. This let them analyze the novelty of this flood of new AI-generated images.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>And so we actually – I sort of agree with her, right? Which is to say, one thing we don’t see is – we don’t see a huge increase in novelty in the market. But essentially, what we see happen is we don’t see a lot of sort of images enter the market that look very different than the images that already exist there.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Interesting. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>What we \u003cem>do\u003c/em> see is that anywhere there’s a gap in the market, so where there’s two images on either side, but there’s not an image in between, generative AI is very good at filling those gaps.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> So…at least for now, AI can generate lots and lots of variations on a theme. But what Yevgenia’s describing is the ability to think \u003cem>beyond\u003c/em> that theme. And Sam says, “yeah, AI doesn’t seem to be as good at that.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sam Goldberg: \u003c/strong>I think it’s totally reasonable to say that your illustrator friend may be correct that that is something that these models struggle with.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong> I’m surprised. I was ready to fight the economist!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh no! I actually don’t think you guys would fight that much, but we won’t put you in a cage match together.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> This idea of bringing true novelty to an assignment: that new metaphor, that “second track.” This may be an important source of value that human artists bring to a project. So…what does that look like?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Let’s do something fun. Obviously we have worked together in the past. I have hired you to do beautiful custom illustrations for articles, on Kellogg Insight, where I was the editor-in-chief for many years. And so it’s not even hypothetical to say I would often come to you with a story on innovation, entrepreneurship, you know, how to brainstorm. And so let’s say I bring you this article, it’s about “Better Ways of Brainstorming”, and I’m like, “And also, I think I got a pretty good idea for you. It’s a group of people brainstorming, and above them, they’re, like, collectively building a big light bulb. And it’s like a hot air balloon light bulb, and it’s just, wow, you can just see this is going places. “What do you think?”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>Well, Jess, I think actually an air balloon light bulb is already a beautiful idea. If I’m not mistaken, I think I did an illustration like this for you years ago. So, maybe we should try doing something different this time. We don’t wanna repeat ourselves. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: Yes, Yevgenia was right about this. I tracked down \u003ca href=\"https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/creating-urgency-around-corporate-innovation\">the illustration\u003c/a> from the Kellogg Insight archives. It appeared alongside a 2015 article on corporate innovation. And it featured someone riding through the sky in a lightbulb-shaped hot-air-balloon. Which is almost certainly why the idea formed instantly in my own mind.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>But what it did not have is the group of people underneath it, because this, I think, is something that would spoil this illustration. Because you really shouldn’t try to stuff all your ideas into a single illustration. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But we can go in a completely direction as well. You mentioned brainstorming, so I think maybe using those words and turning them into something visual could work, like creating an actual brainstorm where, you know, that your brain is being blown away by the wind. And, that can actually push a story into kind of a funny territory instead of keeping it very serious, because normally when we say a brainstorm, we associate it with really serious, earnest scientists developing something.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But maybe I want to make a little joke and say, you know, “Hey, you can also brainstorm. You don’t have to be so serious about that.” So it also can change the mood of your article, the mood of your story a little bit.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And maybe we don’t, maybe you want to be super serious, and then you would reject this idea. But maybe you would say, “Hey, I really like it because we’ve done so many super serious articles. Let’s lighten up.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Love it. That’s great. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> Okay! So Yevgenia doesn’t just take an assignment and execute it. She thinks it through: The light bulb is cliche, but the hot air balloon idea is interesting. The hot air balloon is interesting, but the people underneath are weighing the idea down. Oh yeah, and because we have a history together, Yevgenia can tell me that we’ve done something really similar 11 years ago.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Then she offers something completely different, playing off the idea of a storm. But really what she’s doing is asking a question about intent. What mood should the illustration create? Serious? Funny? Can the image change the way the reader experiences the story?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Yevgenia is much more than a picture-making machine. She has a very finely honed, very unique way of seeing and depicting the world. As much as any technical skills, \u003cem>that’s\u003c/em> what I hired her to bring to the table. And \u003cem>that\u003c/em>, to me, at least – sounds like another bottleneck.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, for established artists like Yegvenia, this should be somewhat reassuring. But there’s still a problem. Nobody begins a career with fully formed artistic taste. That can take years to develop. And often, people develop it while doing smaller, more routine work. Like, maybe, selling their art on a stock image website. And if AI-generated art takes off, even in the most routine, commercial, transactional spaces, it could eventually shape the art we encounter elsewhere too.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>There is a dangerous territory when real humans, real artists will start to imitate AI if there is enough demand for AI art. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Yevgenia teaches young artists, and she’s been seeing this play out with her students. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg: \u003c/strong>A lot of them are concerned with style and they all talk about style, and I couldn’t really understand what they meant because I thought– I kind of thought of style as voice, not so much as like a stylistic direction. Turns out they’re trying to pick a style and match it from what they see, let’s say, on Instagram. So there is a lot of sameness there already, and this is something that they’re trying to imitate in hopes of finding jobs maybe. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> She thinks AI could be like Instagram on steroids, sending the same images into every artist’s collective consciousness. Yevgenia says she is \u003cem>all for \u003c/em>her students getting hired to make art. But this trend of homogenization and imitation – is troubling. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> My primary job is to educate an artist, I want them to work obviously, and I would like to help them as much as possible. But again, I’d like to focus on developing their creativity and their uniqueness more than anything else. I always tell my students, you know, “make something worth stealing.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>For an individual artist, having a unique voice ‘worth stealing’ can be the difference between mediocrity and greatness.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And economist Ben Jones\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>says that everyone benefits from having more, unique, creative perspectives in the mix. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>What we actually want is people reaching for very different types of things based on their different experiences, right? And so what’s interesting, one of the reasons that we think that, you know, a kind of a society with wide-ranging pockets of expertise, interests, cultural backgrounds, et cetera, can be extremely creative, is because people are coming at questions with different sort of perspectives and ideas. They’re even coming at different questions, ’cause the kind of questions that occur to one person might not occur to another, and that’s true in science and invention, it’s true in entrepreneurship. We don’t want everyone trying the same business model. We want people trying wildly different business models, and we’ll see which one the market takes. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>There’s real value in difference. In start-ups, in science, and in art. And if everyone begins from the same machine-generated suggestions, we could end up with more of everything—but very little that’s new, special, or unique.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, this is the paradox: AI can generate a staggering number of possibilities, filling countless gaps in the marketplace. And yet, so much of what it produces feels… the same. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>While AI-generated images and videos and books are running rampant in some artistic markets–plenty of people are just fine with elevator music, thank you very much–real novelty, real creativity, seems to be the purview of humans. Leaving human creative workers with an important role to play. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Whew. That’s a relief.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So… is that the end? Should we play the ending music, roll the credits? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Well, not so fast. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is where we stand on Labor Day 2026 sure, but if we know anything about AI tools, it’s that they can change fast. So what happens next? Where’s this all headed? Well, based on my conversations with scholars and artists, I can see three possible futures.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>In the first timeline, things continue along the lines they are now. The machines do get better at generating art. Maybe AI-generated images get even more photorealistic, or maybe AI-generated writing sheds its telltale ticks – you know, those cringy buzzwords that scream, “I’m AI-generated!” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But the improvements are really around the margins. And so genuine creativity remains a bottleneck protecting human creatives.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But there’s a second timeline, and in this timeline, AI learns to be \u003cem>very\u003c/em> creative.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Ben sees this possible future as pretty likely. Because new ideas rarely emerge out of the blue. They are often composed of existing ingredients, just combined in new ways. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>In many, many fields, people have separately discovered that creativity often looks like a new combination of things that already existed. So, for example, Thomas Edison did not call the light bulb, at first, the light bulb. He called it the electric candle because he was taking the candle, which was an old technology, and electricity, which was a new technology, and combining them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And if you look at many, many ideas, it’s very natural to decompose them into distinct components—to unleash a big insight in science, or to produce a new product or process that we can all use. So that idea is very common, you see it in the arts and music and invention and science.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> By this definition, AI should actually have a creative advantage. A single person can only encounter and understand so many possible ingredients in a lifetime. \u003cem>We\u003c/em> have to specialize. AI has a much more vast palette to draw from.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>What’s been interesting about AI, of course, is that AI reads everything. So anyone who’s been interacting with AI sort of sees like, “Wow, I can talk to this AI about just about anything, and right around the edges of my understanding about things I kind of understand, about things I know nothing about, and it seems to know a lot about a lot of stuff.” So in some sense, at that core level of being able to access ingredients that you can combine with seemingly some sophisticated understanding of those ingredients, AI is pretty impressive. And so in that sense, I think it has in some sense, beyond human creative potential. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Given the vast range of ingredients AI can draw from, you might expect it to already produce endlessly surprising combinations. And Ben says theoretically, it one day could. If it were trained completely differently from how most chatbots are trained today.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>When you talk like a general purpose, chatbot or whatever, say ChatGPT, it’s sort of trained to produce the right answer, predicting the next token in some probabilistic way that it thinks is most likely to be right. And by predicting the thing that’s sort of most likely to be right all the time, that sounds like you’re homogenizing. It’s not going for the strange answer, right? It’s trying typically to please you by giving you what you want, and what most people want is not some wildly creative answer. They want the right answer. But that’s of course very much about how they were trained. I mean, those chatbots are optimized to do exactly that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But there could be other algorithms that we could use to train AI. It’s like, let’s say we’re training an AI, and we’re having people rate whether it was really interesting scientifically. Not whether it was right, but whether it was novel. Or novel and right. So I think that there is a world in which AI, and it may come quickly, or not, where AI can be quite creative.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>In this world, this second possible future, where the AI companies spend millions, billions, to train up AI that’s really, really creative. In this future, the creativity bottleneck protecting human artists disappears.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Some kinds of creative work, live performances, personal memoir, handmade furniture, are probably still safe. But this timeline does leave many other artists really vulnerable, particularly those who distribute their work on digital marketplaces.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But even here, there is a bottleneck that could come into play.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Not a technical bottleneck—something the machine is incapable of doing—or even a legal one, like copyright protection or human likeness permission.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>A normative bottleneck: a limit people try to impose collectively, by deciding what kinds of creative work they are willing to accept and reward, often for ethical or even almost spiritual reasons.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We’re already seeing this now. Many of my artist friends have adopted a kind of “hold the line” mentality against generative AI, in part because they sense that using AI is a betrayal to the artistic community.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> Well, there is an ethical component, because AI is being trained on real artists. It’s basically being trained on us. And, of course, none of us enjoys that. None of us gave permission to have our art used by AI.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: To the extent that science writing can be considered art – I feel this. It’s pretty likely that a decade of my own science writing was scraped from the web and used to train AI models. Nobody asked me for permission, and I certainly didn’t give it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> I would rather have this be at the discretion of every artist—if they want their work to be released into the AI world. I would not want AI to be trained on my work, honestly. Because all of us have our own little tricks and secrets, and I would like to keep them to myself.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Some artists believe that the best way to fight back against a technology they didn’t ask for is to reject it altogether, in all forms.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Other creatives draw the line differently. Maybe AI can be used for research, but not execution. Or maybe it can be used for execution, but only in a specific way, as part of a rigorous, intentional process.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Wherever this line is drawn – and I expect this to be vehemently contested over the next several years, the normative bottleneck is about \u003cem>process\u003c/em>. Not just \u003cem>what\u003c/em> is made, but \u003cem>how\u003c/em> something is made.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Earlier this year, the fantasy novelist Brandon Sanderson made this argument explicit in a keynote address called “We Are the Art.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Brandon Sanderson]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem> The machines can spit out manuscript after manuscript after manuscript. They can pile them to the pillars of heaven itself, but all we have to do is say no. If we do, they lose. Why do we make art? Well, remember, art is not just the story. It is not just the painting or the sculpture or whatever else you love to create. It’s also the process of creation and what that process did to you. We are the art. Thank you.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Whether this kind of resistance, this \u003cem>normative\u003c/em> bottleneck can hold will depend on getting others on board. Getting others to agree that part of the value of human art is that it was created by another human being. Someone who felt something, or saw the world in a certain way, and labored to share it with us. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But there’s a third possible future here, one that doesn’t solely rely on social norms around creativity. In this possible future, whether AI becomes more creative or not, people using AI become capable of doing new things that neither humans nor AI could have done alone. Maybe AI becomes yet another tool for human artists. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You’ve seen this before: the camera. Photoshop. The electric synthesizer. All these were controversial in their time, often for devaluing certain hard-won skills, like painting in a painstaking, hyper-realistic style, or learning to play the french horn. But today most artists would probably agree that the new tools created new possibilities. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Or maybe AI really is different. Maybe it becomes a kind of thought partner. The machine proposes new ingredients we might never have produced on our own. Not unlike a colleague emailing us an article we might find interesting. Here’s Ben again.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>Maybe when you’re writing, it’s, it’s a collaborator, right? I mean, maybe it’s not a replacement, it’s like another voice on your team. And suddenly you’re getting a higher quality product. And it could be that you’re making a screenplay, you’re writing an article, you’re writing a song, and suddenly it’s better for your collaboration with the AI, but they’re not actually taking full control.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>In this scenario, we humans use our own creative judgment to run with whichever combination of ingredients seems like it has the most potential. Here, you could even think of “creative judgment” as its own bottleneck.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>You need true expertise around the set of ingredients to understand which combinations are likely or not to be useful. You don’t just randomly put ingredients together in the kitchen. It’s not gonna taste very good. There’s some milk here, and there’s some orange juice, and how about this banana? And look, it’s all spice in the spice rack, you know? And then, oh, and is that chicken? You know, that’s not gonna go very well, right? And pretty much everyone sort of knows that. There’s many, many, many, many possible combinations. But we kind of know instinctually not to try many of them because we know they’re probably not gonna be good.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Even Yevgenia, who I should stress continues to do all of her art by hand, can see the value in this kind of collaboration–if done right, if used as more of a jumping off point than the ultimate destination. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yevgenia Nayberg:\u003c/strong> You can give AI prompts and say, “Okay, give me all these variations of the light bulb in the field and in the pool.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And once it does it, you can say, “No, this is a really stupid idea. Why don’t you try something else?” And you can see what it tries, and you can maybe find something there? So I can see using AI as this little, average-minded, ordinary partner—and then that can spark something in you, in your imagination. It can generate more ideas from us, in a way, because we are competing intellectually with something.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So those are our three scenarios. AI kind of stalls out creatively or AI actually can do everything humans can do, but cheaper and better. And then we have to decide whether we \u003cem>want\u003c/em> to preserve a role for human creativity. Or, AI and humans collaborate to \u003cem>do \u003c/em>entirely new things.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Let’s all level-set for a second by noting that lots of people want to be artists, and it’s really, really hard. Already. It’s very hard to make a living as an actor, a musician, an artist, even without computers. Right? And there’s something deeply human about wanting to create and be an artist. And I would say, to be an economist for a second, the demand for their services is lower than the supply of people who would like to do it. So there are many long-suffering artists out there. Does AI make long-suffering artists even more suffering?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Even long-suffering-er.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Long-suffering-er. That’s a word. And I think it could. And it could be because it replaces their output. It’s a cheaper way to produce something people want. On the other hand, maybe AI makes artists more able to do things at lower cost themselves. Maybe it’s a tool, it’s an augmentation, not a replacement. So I think it’s an open question which way it goes. It probably does quite a bit of both. And we’ll have to see. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>A bit of both. Maybe this is the most likely possible future of all. Maybe we get all these timelines happening at once, in different parts of the creative economy. AI replacing artists, AI assisting artists, and AI just getting out of the way, to let artists do their very \u003cem>human\u003c/em> thing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity, at the Kellogg School of Management, at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Today’s show was produced by Steven Jackson and Jesse Dukes. Music by Steven Jackson and Neutral Propulsion Laboratory. Recording help from Will Feeney, George Christensen, Laura Pavin and Big Lake Recording Company. Administrative support, recording, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger, who we’re going to miss very much.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12097687/ai-artists-and-the-future-of-creative-work",
"authors": [
"12009"
],
"programs": [
"news_37188"
],
"categories": [
"news_29992",
"news_33520",
"news_248"
],
"tags": [
"news_25184",
"news_20257",
"news_37387",
"news_1761",
"news_37386"
],
"featImg": "news_12097693",
"label": "news_37188"
},
"news_12095781": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12095781",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12095781",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1787133600000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "why-ai-might-not-change-education-much-at-all-with-justin-reich",
"title": "Why AI Might Not Change Education Much at All (With Justin Reich)",
"publishDate": 1787133600,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "Why AI Might Not Change Education Much at All (With Justin Reich) | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 37188,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#Transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>AI will revolutionize education! No, it will destroy it! Which is it? If history is any guide, the impact will be limited in either direction. In this episode, MIT education researcher \u003ca href=\"https://tsl.mit.edu/team/justin-reich/\">Justin Reich\u003c/a> walks through a century of hype cycles — from filmstrips and radio to MOOCs and smartphones — to show what actually changed in classrooms, and what didn’t. Drawing on\u003ca href=\"https://www.teachlabpodcast.com/the-homework-machine-ep-1-buckle-up-here-it-comes/\"> interviews with 120 teachers and students\u003c/a> across the U.S., he explains why new tools tend to extend old habits, why gains from new technology are usually modest, and why they tend to benefit affluent schools most. (Part 2/2 in our back-to-school series.)\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Further Listening and Reading:\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.teachlabpodcast.com/the-homework-machine-ep-1-buckle-up-here-it-comes/\">The Homework Machine\u003c/a> (Audio)\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674089049?lv=shuf&channelId=500&plpRedirect=mhFallback\">Failure to Disrupt: Why Technology Alone Can’t Transform Education\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Welcome to Life, Automated, the show where we explore how to live, work, and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. I’ll admit it, I’m the kind of person who hears something about the incredible capabilities of AI and then immediately tries to project all the ways those capabilities might transform the world.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>That’s actually one of the goals of this podcast, to try to determine how many of these mental leaps are grounded in evidence. And sometimes I talk to someone and I’m like, “Yeah, this is a really big deal.” Today’s conversation, not that. I’ll be talking to Justin Reich, a researcher and director of the Teaching Systems Lab at MIT, about AI’s likely impact on K-12 education.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is not my first conversation about AI and education. I recently spoke with one of my colleagues here at Kellogg, Sébastien Martin, who has entirely reimagined many aspects of how he teaches his MBA students in ways I find pretty inspiring. But he’s admittedly an edge case, like if you accidentally ended up having Beethoven as your piano instructor and he gave you a warped sense of what piano lessons typically look like.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Justin Reich, on the other hand, does have a sense of what lessons typically look like, not those designed by tech-savvy professors at top-ranked business schools, but in the rest of the world where budgets are limited, professional development is scarce, and time and time again, technology has entered the classroom only to fail to live up to its promise.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Justin recently interviewed 120 K-12 teachers and students across America about AI for his podcast, “The Homework Machine.” His verdict? AI might modestly help some students learn some things. AI certainly is causing a lot of headaches. But somewhat surprisingly, given we’re talking about a technology that can pretty convincingly mimic human intelligence, he does not view it as transformational in the least.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love, and this is Life, Automated, a project from Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, distributed by KQED. And here is my very grounded conversation with Justin. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You have been described as a healthy skeptic when it comes to bringing technology into classrooms. Do you agree with that characterization?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> Yeah, healthy skeptic. I was recently at DeepMind in London where one of the Google engineers said that I was the token skeptic. I don’t know. I’m not ideologically skeptical. Like, I’ve used technology, computers in my teaching for more than 20 years now, and I still do it. What I aspire to be is evidence-based.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>To me, maybe that’s skeptical, but it’s not skeptical as like, “I don’t know if I trust this technology stuff.” It’s more skeptical in the sense of like, what does a century of evidence tell us, and based on that century, what would we expect to happen next? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Well, it seems like you’re kind of in a position to interview yourself, so I’m just gonna ask you the question you asked yourself. What does a century of experience with technology tell us about this current moment? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>The first things that happen when teachers get access to new technologies is they use them to extend existing practices. So they do whatever they were doing before but with the new technology. So we used to write our notes on chalkboards, and then we wrote our notes on whiteboards, and then we put them on acetate sheets, and then they got projected onto SMART Boards, into LCD projectors. It’s the same notes. We just reproduce them in all these different formats. If you give teachers enough time and support and coaching, they will invent new kinds of practices. Unfortunately, the second pattern that we see is that, where there are benefits to new technologies, they tend to disproportionately benefit the affluent.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>They benefit people with the financial, social, and technical capital to take advantage of new innovations. So for instance, in 2012, we invented these giant, these massive open online courses, and the main thing that we found is that they were pretty good for helping people earn their second master’s degree.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So if you were already educated, already affluent person, there are these great new opportunities for you, and it turned out that they really weren’t very good at helping onboard new kinds of students into the higher education system. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The third pattern that we see over and over again is that technologies are only as powerful as the communities that guide their use. So we’re constantly hoping that we can invent the software or these machines. You just sort of download things onto a bunch of people’s computers, and all of a sudden, learning gets better. And that essentially never happens. What can happen, where you can see improvements in learning, is when teachers have time to experiment and to try new things and to collaborate with their colleagues.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Principals come up with new disciplinary standards. Students learn new routines. Families learn new ways of helping people. When whole communities have a chance to make improvements, you know, across the curriculum and lesson planning with technologies, that’s when we can sometimes see some benefits. And, we should typically expect that benefits are modest, because the benefits of anything that we do in educational settings are typically modest.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>If you want to make education better, what you’re usually doing is, like, putting your shoulder to the wheel for a long time and being like, “Oh, it’s one percent better this year. That’s great. Let’s see if we can make it one percent better again next year.” Which is, of course, not at all what techno-utopians want to have happen or describing what happened, where there’s this giant disjunction with the past, and everything is better afterwards.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I mean, it’s kind of fun to think that way. There’s not a lot of historical evidence for it, and, I mean, I think the reason why I critique that approach the most is that it tends to be where you see people wasting a lot of time and money. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So let’s do a couple of examples here. So can you give us a couple of examples of times when techno-utopians came in and said, “This is it. This is going to change everything,” and then what actually happened? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>Well, you got to start with the OG, Thomas Edison. Wow, so my man, a century ago, Thomas Edison, went in front of Congress, I think it was in 1913, and said, “In 10 years, textbooks will be gone, that they’ll be completely replaced by film strips, and this is gonna be a good thing as computers have been introduced” – I mean, radio went through this phase. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There’s a Larry Cuban has a great book called Teachers and Machines with a photograph in it, of a big, like, an armour-sized radio set. And it says, “With radio, the underprivileged school becomes a privileged one.” And so the idea that, like, we’re gonna have the best experts in the world broadcast radio lectures, radio lessons into homes all across the country, and it’s gonna be totally transformative of how students learn. Massive open online courses are probably the one that most recently went through higher education.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And, I don’t know, Sebastian Thrun, who was a Google employee, a founder of Udacity, said that, “In 10 years, there will be fifty universities left, and Udacity might be one of them.” And as it turns out, today, sitting here in 2026, there are more than fifty universities that are left. People were really enthusiastic about the web, online courses.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There was a book called Disrupting Class, which Clay Christensen wrote. He’s the developer of the theory of disruptive innovation. In 2009, he said that in 10 years, by 2019, half of all secondary school courses would be mediated online, that they would cost a third as much to deliver, and they would have better outcomes.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And my hunch is, if any of your listeners wander to their local public high school, they will not find that half of the classes are delivered online, that they will not find that the costs of running educational institutions have gone down by sixty-six percent, and they will not find, that the educational outcomes of the online learning experiences are substantially better than the ones that are being mediated by teachers. So there’s a pile of them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Now, this does not mean that these previous technologies haven’t changed anything about the classroom experience, or that they didn’t feel, in small ways, kind of magical. Here’s a story Justin likes to tell, one from before he became a researcher, back when he was a teacher.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> So when I went to go get my first teaching job, the department head was interviewing me the summer before and he said, “Can you teach world history?”And I said, “No, but I promise that if you hire me by September, I’ll figure out how to teach world history.” And he said, “Well, maybe.” And he said, “All right, one more thing, you’re gonna be teaching in this kind of trial classroom where there’s a cart of laptops in the corner. There are these blue and orange clamshell MacBooks”, this sort of iconic form factor.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And he said, you know, “And we’ve used ninth grade world history as sort of a testing bed to,” this was in 2003, “to see how these new computers could affect teaching and learning.” I said, “You can put a cart of bananas in the back corner of the classroom and I’ll teach with them. I just really need this job.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And he went ahead and hired me, and it was really fun teaching in that classroom. It was a moment where the world’s government and archives and museums were rapidly digitizing primary sources. And so as a history teacher, with those computers, I could really do some things that were quite different from my own high school education where, you know, maybe I had a book of primary source documents with 20 documents in it or something like that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Now I can, you know, you just sort of imagine like, oh, what was, you know, I wanna teach my students about the Harlem Renaissance. Oh, the Smithsonian has 20,000 song sheets from the Harlem Renaissance. They can each study their own document, which maybe nobody has looked at, in the last hundred years or something like that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Now, Justin says this was great. His students got a taste of what real historians do, find their own sources and documents and interpret them. But it also came with some hidden costs, in many ways, much greater than those of the computers themselves. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>I was working in a private school, and I also recognized that the kinds of resources that were required to keep those computers running, to keep them charged, to keep our networks running, to find the productive things that students were doing and to highlight them, to find the malicious things that students were doing and stop them, was an enormous amount of resources.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so the sort of incredible possibility of what students and me as a teacher could do with new computers was always balanced against the challenges and realities of turning those new affordances into everyday routines of learning that really helped students. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So fun, genuinely interesting, but not necessarily a game changer, and very resource intensive. I could see where this was going, and I wanted to know, is ChatGPT really just computers in classrooms all over again? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Yeah. Well, what is different, if anything, about generative AI? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>Well, I think we will by and large see those same kinds of patterns, I mean, people get really enthusiastic about the new technology that are in front of them to the point of dismissing the magic of previous technologies. There’s sort of an argument that emerges, which is kind of like… I’m calling it the web was met. Like you hear people say, like, “Well, you know, this AI thing is just totally different. I mean, we-\u003cs> \u003c/s>like, what could the web have possibly done?” I was like, “My guy, we took a handheld supercomputer, and we put it in the pocket of every child 13 years older in the networked world. We connected them to basically the world’s corpus of information, to every person they know, to every expert you can possibly imagine, and the effects on education range from not that much to maybe actually not that good.” You know, to the point where schools across the country are banning those mobile devices from people’s classrooms.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Justin says that like previous technologies, there will be some things that AI is really good at. They just won’t be, in his words, “transformative.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> They seem to be pretty good at translation. Like, maybe that will become less expensive, and that will be sort of helpful, but we actually… It’s gonna find that it’s not transformative to schools because, like, just translating materials is not, like, the only thing you need to unlock educating, you know, students that come from all over the world and speak all kinds of different languages.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m kind of enthusiastic about writing feedback, maybe. You know, one of the things we know is that, like, you need a lot of feedback to improve at things, and the machines seem to be able to generate reasonable writing feedback, but then you get other kinds of reports from classrooms that are like, “Yeah, my students really just want feedback from me, the human being teacher in the room,” because it turns out that most of what motivates us to learn is our social relationships with one another, and it doesn’t seem like social relationships with chatbots is a very promising direction for humanity to go.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, there is at least one kind of disruption that absolutely is happening in schools right now. So this very deep intel comes from my husband. He is a Chicago public school teacher. He teaches at high school.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>Excellent!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And so I asked him, I was like, “All right, I’m gonna talk to this ed tech expert.” Like, “Give me the lowdown. Like, what is happening in your high school?” And so he had a number of things to say, and so I’m gonna share these with you. I think we’ll do it, like, one at a time, and you can tell me if you are in any way surprised by this. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, to prevent students from using these chatbots to just do entire homework assignments, there’s been a big shift toward in-class assignments done on paper, which does seem to help with that cheating problem, but it introduces another challenge, which is that you’re then not spending that class time actually doing instruction.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Happening all over the place, happening in universities, happening in lots of different contexts. If, like definitely, one potential thing to be sad about is that, like, if you believed it could be possible that five years ago you could send students home to write stuff and be reasonably likely that they would write stuff, and then you could use class for the time of being together and engaging with one another.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And now it sounds like your husband, like many other teachers, believes, “If I want to read something that my students have actually written, I pretty much have to put them in a room and watch them write it themselves.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Yeah, I think it’s quite possible that there are millions of fewer minutes of homework being assigned than in previous years. And if you believe that homework gives students practice that’s valuable for their learning, then that could be a massive drawdown in the amount of learning time that students are doing. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So he and his colleagues have not entirely given up on the idea of homework, but what they’ve done is try to use technology to fight technology.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So he and his colleagues pay out of pocket, mind you, for a Google Doc extension that shows them a detailed history of the revisions made to a document. So the idea is you can actually see a video of an essay being constructed in real time, kind of sped up. And the downside is that it is still possible for students to cheat.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>They just, they ask ChatGPT to write the essay, and then they’re literally sitting there, like, typing the essay from ChatGPT into Google Docs at, like, roughly a pace that they think it would look like you know, a 17-year-old comes up with thoughts in a unique manner and things like that. It’s kind of an interesting learning experience for the students, but obviously they’re not learning the thing that they’re supposed to be doing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Yeah, like, the best possible use of your husband’s expertise is not surveilling students’ writing. I think we could find that as we ramp up the level of surveillance in schools, that that’s really not good for a democratic society, that you know, that a certain amount of privacy, a certain amount of freedom from surveillance is actually necessary for the Republic to continue as a Republic.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>In the context that he’s in, what he’s doing is sensible, but if you aggregate that context across a lot of classrooms, you’re like, “Oh, that could be really bad, actually.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah. And I’ll share one more with you. So the last thing he mentioned is building, he calls it “layers of resistance.” So for an essay, this might mean breaking down an assignment into a bunch of different pieces. Then students do each piece separately, and then once they’ve already done that work, they then combine it into a longer piece. So, you are making it easier to do the eventual assignment yourself since you’ve had to do earlier parts yourself before.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But you’re also making it harder to cheat because that would be, you know, just a lot more difficult to cheat at each of those steps and then combine them into cheating. And again, he says it’s fairly effective, and that’s kinda like his favorite strategy right now. And I asked him, I said, “Well, is this having the effect of requiring your students to kind of use training wheels to think longer than they would otherwise?”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> So training wheels to think is oftentimes better than we imagine it is. There’s a group of educational researchers that are interested in this set of ideas called cognitive load theory, and an idea that we often have is that people become experts by behaving like experts. And they sort of argue, “No, no, no when people develop expertise, it looks quite different than being an expert.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I mean, you do, I think, Jess, have a good intuition there, which is like, “man, at some point, the kids, like, before they leave high school, probably just need to be able to write the essay.” Like, that it seems like that would be a pretty good thing, that we would want young people to be able to independently generate an argument in prose.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>At least for the last, like, 30 years, we’ve thought that’s a pretty good idea to do, you know, with computers in particular. And boy, is generative AI making it hard for teachers to assign that task that we think is pretty good. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>But after going into these specifics, like, wouldn’t you agree that this is pretty transformative in terms of what students are actually doing during the school day?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>I mean, definitely not transformative in the sense of, “Boy, this is great.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Justin really wouldn’t take the bait here. He was adamant. No, we don’t have any great evidence that how teachers and students actually spend their days, think lectures, group work, has really changed that much over the past couple of years, or for that matter, the past few decades, even if take-home essays are basically off the table now. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I kept at him. That’s after the break.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>It does seem like one really big difference right now is that there’s a lot of discussions about how AI is or isn’t going to change the kind of future and work that we’re preparing students for. I’m curious if you’re seeing, you know, is that impacting students’ motivation to learn, which would obviously have a very big impact in the classrooms.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I guess it also could start to change the question of what school should be for. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>Yes. New technologies are a great catalyst to provoke conversations about what schools are for. In the last few decades, we’ve been particularly interested in the question, like, how do you prepare individuals for work in the labor market?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Although if you go through the history of schooling, you know, in the United States, we have public schools as a bulwark of our democracy. When Thomas Jefferson wrote about public schooling in the notes of the State of Virginia, and proposed the system of public schooling, it would be so that our nascent democracy would continue to exist and have citizens who are prepared to take on their roles as citizens.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But, you know, citizenship is gonna change with generative AI, too, and so we should be thinking about some of those kinds of changes. My hunch is if you went to all of the K-12 schools in the United States, you would not see huge changes in student motivation because like, students are not that great at thinking about their long-term futures.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, students primarily, like, they do not care that much about the subjects that we teach, for the most part. They care a ton about their teacher and their peers. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Well, whether the students feel it or not, I guess my question would be to you, do you think that schools should be rethinking what education is for in this moment?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> I don’t know – I think we should start by saying we don’t know. Not only do we not know, but historically, when we’ve made some of these guesses in the past, we’ve been wrong. So you could look at things like, you know, the sort of computer science industry telling people that it’s enormously important to learn to code in order to get good jobs, and now there’s a possibility that computer programming won’t actually be a very viable field in the near future.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And, and these things go back histor- You know, in the 19th century, there were a group of educators who passionately believed that you really had to teach sentence diagramming – that if you didn’t teach sentence diagramming, like, Western civilization would fall. And we’ve mostly stopped teaching sentence diagramming, and maybe Western civilization will fall apart, but it’s probably not gonna be for the lack of sentence diagramming.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Cursive. The great cursive debate. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>The great cursive debate continues. Here, here, here are two stories you could tell about AI. One story you could tell about AI is that there is a lot to learn to figure out how to use AI, and that students should begin the process of learning that as soon as possible, that there should be a set of scaffold experiences, that we should change our curriculum, so that as people get older and older, there are more and more tasks that they do in partnership with AI, ’cause partnering with AI is hard to learn how to do, and if they do it with the supervision of teachers, they’ll be better.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>A second story that you could tell is that getting generative AI to spit stuff out is actually super easy, that there really is not that much to learn, and that what really differentiates people who are proficient and less proficient with using generative AI is whether or not they can evaluate output. Since the output is highly uneven, what you really need are people who can say, “Oh, this is a good idea, this is a good practice, and this one is not.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>It could be that there’s actually very little general expertise that you can develop to distinguish good output from bad output. What you probably primarily need is domain knowledge. Like, if you ask ChatGPT a question about plumbing, there’s nothing about AI which is gonna tell you whether or not it gave you a good plumbing answer.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>What you need to know about is plumbing. If that was the case, if domain expertise was sort of the key differentiator in people skills in using AI, then that would be pretty good news for schools and universities, ’cause the main thing they’ve done for however many hundreds of years is try to help people develop domain expertise.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> But I don’t- as a civilization, science does not know the answer to those two stories. Science cannot tell you today which of those two stories is correct. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, it’s interesting. So I’m guessing you’re not a big fan of some of these moves more recently by school districts, university systems, states, even potentially the federal government, to implement various AI competency or AI literacy requirements.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I will point out some of these seem more, you know, pro-technology, like giving the students the skills they need to succeed with these technologies. Others actually take a bit more of a defensive crouch, like let’s teach students the critical thinking skills so they can discriminate between the good and the bad. But there is nonetheless a lot of overlap, which is that these requirements purport to prepare students to live in a world alongside AI. And I’m curious what you make of those. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> Well, one thing that we’ve tried over the last twenty years in the United States is a strategy they might call, like, the ‘tech literacy’ strategy, where every time a new technology comes along, you define a set of skills that correlate with that technology.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You write some policy documents that say schools should be teaching those things, and then you, like, bake it for a while and watch and see what happens. And, like, if you were to pick a sort of education reform strategy that we could be almost certain does not work, it would be that one.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>It works really well for pundits and policymakers. Like, it’s a great way for policymakers to be like, “Look, we did a thing. We passed a bill which says you have to learn some stuff.” But what you actually have to do to make a difference in schools is you have to translate those policy guidance into curriculum documents.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There are 3.5 million teachers in the United States. Like your husband, one in every one hundred living Americans has to raise their hand and say, “I will be a teacher this year,” in order for our system to function. To improve the capacity of 3.5 million people is mind-bogglingly complex.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You could probably tell me the number of minutes or hours that your husband has gotten for, you know, AI-related professional development, and I bet the number is not super high. What I’m sure of is the number is not commensurate to some kind of transformational change. And so, I mean, I’m not opposed to that strategy on any kind of ideological or philosophical… Like, sounds kind of great to me. Just historically, it has not worked at all. Go ask young people – “have people, have young people describe their social media practices to you?”, and you’ll be like, “Oh, that sounds pretty bad and not good for your health, actually.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But there has been ten or fifteen years of, like, social media literacy in schools. Like, ask one of your students to, like, save a file to a folder, and watch their head explode. And you’ll be like, “Oh, maybe, like, we’re not that good at teaching digital literacy in schools.” So one is just, like, an efficacy approach – But even if you believe that that, like, general approach would work, you have to sort of ask the question, like, what kinds of things are we gonna stuff into that AI fluency and AI literacy?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, what should that be? And I think we really, to this day, don’t know. So I mentioned before that I went to DeepMind the other day in London, and I cornered every engineer I could find, and I said, “Do you know how to train a junior engineer to code with a copilot?” I asked in big groups, in small groups, one-on-one. There was not an engineer or program manager there who told me yes. Every single one of them told me, “We do not know how to do that.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> DeepMind, Google’s elite AI laboratory. Justin went to a conference there about AI and education. And when he says that software engineers told him that they don’t know how to train a junior engineer to code with a copilot, what he means is that they may have protocols and practices, but they’re not yet confident that they work.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is a major concern in the software industry. Many big companies are adopting coding assistants like Claude Code, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, and Codex. Senior engineers can thrive in this kind of environment. They can prompt the AI with exactly what they’re looking for, and then they can manually check the outputs and write their own code when something goes wrong.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>A much more junior engineer can also use these code assistants to generate code that seems like it works, but if it has a bug or a vulnerability, they may not notice or be able to fix it. And worse, they may never get a chance to develop their skills further. So we could end up with a generation of software engineers who don’t understand how the software works, can’t fix it if it goes wrong, and have shaky ideas of what is technologically possible. Not ideal. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Companies know this could be a problem, so they’re experimenting with protocols for junior engineers, but this is all so new that nobody knows yet if these protocols will work. And they were frank about this with Justin. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>If Google, which has billions and billions of dollars at stake to answer this question, does not know how to teach a junior engineer how to code with a copilot, like, what is a seventh grade middle school’s computer science teacher supposed to do?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, what would AI literacy in that class look like until Google can figure it out? That is an excellent point. So you mentioned earlier this idea that, in general, previous educational technologies have – if they’ve had a positive impact, it’s been toward the students who are already either high-performing or come from very high-resourced schools.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I wanna ask you a little bit about special education, and in particular, kind of the extreme edges of special education. So this is kind of personal for me. My 11-year-old now, she has a rare genetic disorder, and I would say she does fall in that sort of extreme end of the continuum. Like, she literally will not look at a piece of paper if it hasn’t been, like, personalized with things that, you know, her teachers and aides and therapists know will draw her attention.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so there’s certainly this kind of low-hanging fruit that I could see being very easy helping, you know, busy professionals in the classroom. But I do see the possibility of something a little bit more transformative in a positive way – for kids whose brains just work so differently that the professionals involved don’t always have a ton of intuition about what will work.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So we talk a lot about AI having these jagged skills that are hard to understand from the outside, so being amazing at one skill and, like, hilariously bad at another. But there is a population of students for whom this is also true. I think a very concrete example here is severe language disabilities.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So right now, the vast majority of educational instruction is done via language. If you have a kid whose language skills are significantly more impaired than their other skills, how do you teach them? How do you assess them? Non-verbal assessments do exist, but guess how the instructions are given? They’re given in language.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And it just seems like this place where a tool that can radically personalize, that’s completely agnostic to how a student chooses to answer a question, that has zero preconceived ideas about what will or won’t be an effective learning tool, could be transformative. And I know this is very hand-wavy, it’s very in the distance, but is there something here?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> Oh well, for sure. So first, I’m definitely rooting for these people – I mean, I’m always rooting for the people who are making education much, much better. My, like, very boring, sometimes sad job is to, like, hop into these conversations and be like, “That would totally be great. Just, we should remember that people have been working on this for decades, and progress tends to be more measured.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>That’s why they call you the skeptic. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>There’s this whole field called universal design for learning, which, you know, has observed for a long time, sometimes better to think of curriculum as disabled than people as disabled. The curriculum is just not presenting information in ways and in mechanisms that people with different kinds of ability can access. And so we should do a better job of reinventing our curriculum and, you know, in fact, as we start bringing generative AI into the application of these kinds of things in special education, we don’t have to start from scratch. We can start from decades of effort of people using computers to do these same kinds of things.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, translation is one thing that we mentioned, putting learning resources into different kinds of modalities. So if there are people who don’t read text well, then we can just have the machine speak the text. You know, a strategy that we’ve tried a lot is to build just-in-time learning supports for people into resources, saying like, “Okay, if this learning resource in its current form isn’t working for you, like, push this button and it will talk. Push this button and the reading level will change. Push this button and this other kind of feature of it can be modified to suit your needs.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>What we found historically is that the kids that we most want to push those buttons are not the ones who push the button. The like high-performing kids push the ‘Help Me’ button and the kids who we most wish would push the, like, ‘Give Me Some Extra Resources’ or ‘Change This to Support Me’ button would.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, when we talk to teachers across the country, adapting resources to folks with different kinds of abilities is one of the things that they’re most enthusiastic. The you know, generative AI technologies might be able to help them do, and I’m rooting for them, and I hope that there are companies that figure out ways of doing this more sustainably and at scale. And I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw some potential benefits from that. And those benefits are most likely to emerge not in the places where people download the, you know, the software that personalizes things for students with different learning capacities and things like that. It’s gonna be where whole communities are able to, like, rethink the way that they do special education in the context of that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And, you know, and it’s probably gonna be that students who live in more affluent places are gonna have the kinds of systemic resources that allow for all that training and adoption to occur.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>This idea of resources, it’s an important one, and not just for special education because every dollar, every hour of an educator’s time, it comes at the expense of money or time spent elsewhere, including on things that we do know work. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>And the worst case scenario, which I think we’ve seen a lot of places, is that we make substantial additional investments, both in technology platforms and then in a bunch of extra humans to manage those technology platforms.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so the cost of schooling goes up, but because at best, the gains of those technology platforms is pretty moderate, you’re like adding a whole bunch of additional expense. Like, you know, you’re basically like in the Chicago Public Schools, like you bought all these Google Docs, and you bought all of these computers so that all the students can use them, and you bought all these IT professionals because the computers break all the time, and your husband like, is like, “Well, actually, the best thing to do is to have them write essays on pencils and paper.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Well, that’s an awful lot of money that we’re spending on all of this infrastructure to sit in a closet while your students are writing in composition notebooks. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Will AI transform K-12 education? Justin really doesn’t think so. And frankly, I’m not sure whether to be disappointed or relieved by that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, there is something reassuring about a world where students continue to learn the same kinds of things that I learned when I was in school. It’s certainly preferable to one where the whole educational system grinds to a panicked halt because they’ve decided students don’t need to learn anything anymore.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But on the other hand, it seems my dreams of some automated tool that can magically help my daughter learn in a way no human has yet managed to is probably not right around the corner either. And I still think that experiments will be important, including the kind of ambitious, dare I say transformative experiments that folks like my colleague Sébastien Martin are pursuing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We have to know what’s possible, and then we’ll need to roll up our sleeves. Test, learn, make sure that whatever gains we see in one classroom with one teacher can eventually benefit a much larger group of students. Because, and I’ll end with this, even our resident skeptic Justin agrees. At the end of the day, alongside all the headaches, new technologies do bring new capabilities. And little by little, these capabilities can tangibly improve the status quo. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>I mean, the things that do work, it’s probably going to be more like 10 or 20 years of development rather than sort of stumbling across something which works super well in a year or two. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So it could be transformative for the better, but it’s just going to take a ton of work and dedication and probably resources to get there.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> My colleague Ken Kaedinger says that step change is what 25 years of incremental change looks like from a distance.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED. Special thanks to today’s guest, Justin Reich. Jesse Dukes is our producer. Music by Steven Jackson. Recording help from Will Feeney and George Christensen. Marketing support from Ananya Mallapragada. Administrative support, recording, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#Transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#Transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>AI will revolutionize education! No, it will destroy it! Which is it? If history is any guide, the impact will be limited in either direction. In this episode, MIT education researcher \u003ca href=\"https://tsl.mit.edu/team/justin-reich/\">Justin Reich\u003c/a> walks through a century of hype cycles — from filmstrips and radio to MOOCs and smartphones — to show what actually changed in classrooms, and what didn’t. Drawing on\u003ca href=\"https://www.teachlabpodcast.com/the-homework-machine-ep-1-buckle-up-here-it-comes/\"> interviews with 120 teachers and students\u003c/a> across the U.S., he explains why new tools tend to extend old habits, why gains from new technology are usually modest, and why they tend to benefit affluent schools most. (Part 2/2 in our back-to-school series.)\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>AI will revolutionize education! No, it will destroy it! Which is it? If history is any guide, the impact will be limited in either direction. In this episode, MIT education researcher \u003ca href=\"https://tsl.mit.edu/team/justin-reich/\">Justin Reich\u003c/a> walks through a century of hype cycles — from filmstrips and radio to MOOCs and smartphones — to show what actually changed in classrooms, and what didn’t. Drawing on\u003ca href=\"https://www.teachlabpodcast.com/the-homework-machine-ep-1-buckle-up-here-it-comes/\"> interviews with 120 teachers and students\u003c/a> across the U.S., he explains why new tools tend to extend old habits, why gains from new technology are usually modest, and why they tend to benefit affluent schools most. (Part 2/2 in our back-to-school series.)\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Further Listening and Reading:",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Further Listening and Reading:\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Further Listening and Reading:\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.teachlabpodcast.com/the-homework-machine-ep-1-buckle-up-here-it-comes/\">The Homework Machine\u003c/a> (Audio)\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.teachlabpodcast.com/the-homework-machine-ep-1-buckle-up-here-it-comes/\">The Homework Machine\u003c/a> (Audio)\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674089049?lv=shuf&channelId=500&plpRedirect=mhFallback\">Failure to Disrupt: Why Technology Alone Can’t Transform Education\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674089049?lv=shuf&channelId=500&plpRedirect=mhFallback\">Failure to Disrupt: Why Technology Alone Can’t Transform Education\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Episode Transcript",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad",
"attrs": {
"format": "fullwidth"
},
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "",
"innerContent": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Welcome to Life, Automated, the show where we explore how to live, work, and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. I’ll admit it, I’m the kind of person who hears something about the incredible capabilities of AI and then immediately tries to project all the ways those capabilities might transform the world.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Welcome to Life, Automated, the show where we explore how to live, work, and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. I’ll admit it, I’m the kind of person who hears something about the incredible capabilities of AI and then immediately tries to project all the ways those capabilities might transform the world.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>That’s actually one of the goals of this podcast, to try to determine how many of these mental leaps are grounded in evidence. And sometimes I talk to someone and I’m like, “Yeah, this is a really big deal.” Today’s conversation, not that. I’ll be talking to Justin Reich, a researcher and director of the Teaching Systems Lab at MIT, about AI’s likely impact on K-12 education.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>That’s actually one of the goals of this podcast, to try to determine how many of these mental leaps are grounded in evidence. And sometimes I talk to someone and I’m like, “Yeah, this is a really big deal.” Today’s conversation, not that. I’ll be talking to Justin Reich, a researcher and director of the Teaching Systems Lab at MIT, about AI’s likely impact on K-12 education.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This is not my first conversation about AI and education. I recently spoke with one of my colleagues here at Kellogg, Sébastien Martin, who has entirely reimagined many aspects of how he teaches his MBA students in ways I find pretty inspiring. But he’s admittedly an edge case, like if you accidentally ended up having Beethoven as your piano instructor and he gave you a warped sense of what piano lessons typically look like.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This is not my first conversation about AI and education. I recently spoke with one of my colleagues here at Kellogg, Sébastien Martin, who has entirely reimagined many aspects of how he teaches his MBA students in ways I find pretty inspiring. But he’s admittedly an edge case, like if you accidentally ended up having Beethoven as your piano instructor and he gave you a warped sense of what piano lessons typically look like.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Justin Reich, on the other hand, does have a sense of what lessons typically look like, not those designed by tech-savvy professors at top-ranked business schools, but in the rest of the world where budgets are limited, professional development is scarce, and time and time again, technology has entered the classroom only to fail to live up to its promise.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Justin Reich, on the other hand, does have a sense of what lessons typically look like, not those designed by tech-savvy professors at top-ranked business schools, but in the rest of the world where budgets are limited, professional development is scarce, and time and time again, technology has entered the classroom only to fail to live up to its promise.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Justin recently interviewed 120 K-12 teachers and students across America about AI for his podcast, “The Homework Machine.” His verdict? AI might modestly help some students learn some things. AI certainly is causing a lot of headaches. But somewhat surprisingly, given we’re talking about a technology that can pretty convincingly mimic human intelligence, he does not view it as transformational in the least.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Justin recently interviewed 120 K-12 teachers and students across America about AI for his podcast, “The Homework Machine.” His verdict? AI might modestly help some students learn some things. AI certainly is causing a lot of headaches. But somewhat surprisingly, given we’re talking about a technology that can pretty convincingly mimic human intelligence, he does not view it as transformational in the least.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love, and this is Life, Automated, a project from Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, distributed by KQED. And here is my very grounded conversation with Justin. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love, and this is Life, Automated, a project from Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, distributed by KQED. And here is my very grounded conversation with Justin. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You have been described as a healthy skeptic when it comes to bringing technology into classrooms. Do you agree with that characterization?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You have been described as a healthy skeptic when it comes to bringing technology into classrooms. Do you agree with that characterization?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> Yeah, healthy skeptic. I was recently at DeepMind in London where one of the Google engineers said that I was the token skeptic. I don’t know. I’m not ideologically skeptical. Like, I’ve used technology, computers in my teaching for more than 20 years now, and I still do it. What I aspire to be is evidence-based.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> Yeah, healthy skeptic. I was recently at DeepMind in London where one of the Google engineers said that I was the token skeptic. I don’t know. I’m not ideologically skeptical. Like, I’ve used technology, computers in my teaching for more than 20 years now, and I still do it. What I aspire to be is evidence-based.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>To me, maybe that’s skeptical, but it’s not skeptical as like, “I don’t know if I trust this technology stuff.” It’s more skeptical in the sense of like, what does a century of evidence tell us, and based on that century, what would we expect to happen next? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>To me, maybe that’s skeptical, but it’s not skeptical as like, “I don’t know if I trust this technology stuff.” It’s more skeptical in the sense of like, what does a century of evidence tell us, and based on that century, what would we expect to happen next? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Well, it seems like you’re kind of in a position to interview yourself, so I’m just gonna ask you the question you asked yourself. What does a century of experience with technology tell us about this current moment? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Well, it seems like you’re kind of in a position to interview yourself, so I’m just gonna ask you the question you asked yourself. What does a century of experience with technology tell us about this current moment? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>The first things that happen when teachers get access to new technologies is they use them to extend existing practices. So they do whatever they were doing before but with the new technology. So we used to write our notes on chalkboards, and then we wrote our notes on whiteboards, and then we put them on acetate sheets, and then they got projected onto SMART Boards, into LCD projectors. It’s the same notes. We just reproduce them in all these different formats. If you give teachers enough time and support and coaching, they will invent new kinds of practices. Unfortunately, the second pattern that we see is that, where there are benefits to new technologies, they tend to disproportionately benefit the affluent.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>The first things that happen when teachers get access to new technologies is they use them to extend existing practices. So they do whatever they were doing before but with the new technology. So we used to write our notes on chalkboards, and then we wrote our notes on whiteboards, and then we put them on acetate sheets, and then they got projected onto SMART Boards, into LCD projectors. It’s the same notes. We just reproduce them in all these different formats. If you give teachers enough time and support and coaching, they will invent new kinds of practices. Unfortunately, the second pattern that we see is that, where there are benefits to new technologies, they tend to disproportionately benefit the affluent.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>They benefit people with the financial, social, and technical capital to take advantage of new innovations. So for instance, in 2012, we invented these giant, these massive open online courses, and the main thing that we found is that they were pretty good for helping people earn their second master’s degree.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>They benefit people with the financial, social, and technical capital to take advantage of new innovations. So for instance, in 2012, we invented these giant, these massive open online courses, and the main thing that we found is that they were pretty good for helping people earn their second master’s degree.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So if you were already educated, already affluent person, there are these great new opportunities for you, and it turned out that they really weren’t very good at helping onboard new kinds of students into the higher education system. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So if you were already educated, already affluent person, there are these great new opportunities for you, and it turned out that they really weren’t very good at helping onboard new kinds of students into the higher education system. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>The third pattern that we see over and over again is that technologies are only as powerful as the communities that guide their use. So we’re constantly hoping that we can invent the software or these machines. You just sort of download things onto a bunch of people’s computers, and all of a sudden, learning gets better. And that essentially never happens. What can happen, where you can see improvements in learning, is when teachers have time to experiment and to try new things and to collaborate with their colleagues.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>The third pattern that we see over and over again is that technologies are only as powerful as the communities that guide their use. So we’re constantly hoping that we can invent the software or these machines. You just sort of download things onto a bunch of people’s computers, and all of a sudden, learning gets better. And that essentially never happens. What can happen, where you can see improvements in learning, is when teachers have time to experiment and to try new things and to collaborate with their colleagues.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Principals come up with new disciplinary standards. Students learn new routines. Families learn new ways of helping people. When whole communities have a chance to make improvements, you know, across the curriculum and lesson planning with technologies, that’s when we can sometimes see some benefits. And, we should typically expect that benefits are modest, because the benefits of anything that we do in educational settings are typically modest.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Principals come up with new disciplinary standards. Students learn new routines. Families learn new ways of helping people. When whole communities have a chance to make improvements, you know, across the curriculum and lesson planning with technologies, that’s when we can sometimes see some benefits. And, we should typically expect that benefits are modest, because the benefits of anything that we do in educational settings are typically modest.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>If you want to make education better, what you’re usually doing is, like, putting your shoulder to the wheel for a long time and being like, “Oh, it’s one percent better this year. That’s great. Let’s see if we can make it one percent better again next year.” Which is, of course, not at all what techno-utopians want to have happen or describing what happened, where there’s this giant disjunction with the past, and everything is better afterwards.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>If you want to make education better, what you’re usually doing is, like, putting your shoulder to the wheel for a long time and being like, “Oh, it’s one percent better this year. That’s great. Let’s see if we can make it one percent better again next year.” Which is, of course, not at all what techno-utopians want to have happen or describing what happened, where there’s this giant disjunction with the past, and everything is better afterwards.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I mean, it’s kind of fun to think that way. There’s not a lot of historical evidence for it, and, I mean, I think the reason why I critique that approach the most is that it tends to be where you see people wasting a lot of time and money. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I mean, it’s kind of fun to think that way. There’s not a lot of historical evidence for it, and, I mean, I think the reason why I critique that approach the most is that it tends to be where you see people wasting a lot of time and money. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So let’s do a couple of examples here. So can you give us a couple of examples of times when techno-utopians came in and said, “This is it. This is going to change everything,” and then what actually happened? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So let’s do a couple of examples here. So can you give us a couple of examples of times when techno-utopians came in and said, “This is it. This is going to change everything,” and then what actually happened? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>Well, you got to start with the OG, Thomas Edison. Wow, so my man, a century ago, Thomas Edison, went in front of Congress, I think it was in 1913, and said, “In 10 years, textbooks will be gone, that they’ll be completely replaced by film strips, and this is gonna be a good thing as computers have been introduced” – I mean, radio went through this phase. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>Well, you got to start with the OG, Thomas Edison. Wow, so my man, a century ago, Thomas Edison, went in front of Congress, I think it was in 1913, and said, “In 10 years, textbooks will be gone, that they’ll be completely replaced by film strips, and this is gonna be a good thing as computers have been introduced” – I mean, radio went through this phase. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>There’s a Larry Cuban has a great book called Teachers and Machines with a photograph in it, of a big, like, an armour-sized radio set. And it says, “With radio, the underprivileged school becomes a privileged one.” And so the idea that, like, we’re gonna have the best experts in the world broadcast radio lectures, radio lessons into homes all across the country, and it’s gonna be totally transformative of how students learn. Massive open online courses are probably the one that most recently went through higher education.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>There’s a Larry Cuban has a great book called Teachers and Machines with a photograph in it, of a big, like, an armour-sized radio set. And it says, “With radio, the underprivileged school becomes a privileged one.” And so the idea that, like, we’re gonna have the best experts in the world broadcast radio lectures, radio lessons into homes all across the country, and it’s gonna be totally transformative of how students learn. Massive open online courses are probably the one that most recently went through higher education.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And, I don’t know, Sebastian Thrun, who was a Google employee, a founder of Udacity, said that, “In 10 years, there will be fifty universities left, and Udacity might be one of them.” And as it turns out, today, sitting here in 2026, there are more than fifty universities that are left. People were really enthusiastic about the web, online courses.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And, I don’t know, Sebastian Thrun, who was a Google employee, a founder of Udacity, said that, “In 10 years, there will be fifty universities left, and Udacity might be one of them.” And as it turns out, today, sitting here in 2026, there are more than fifty universities that are left. People were really enthusiastic about the web, online courses.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>There was a book called Disrupting Class, which Clay Christensen wrote. He’s the developer of the theory of disruptive innovation. In 2009, he said that in 10 years, by 2019, half of all secondary school courses would be mediated online, that they would cost a third as much to deliver, and they would have better outcomes.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>There was a book called Disrupting Class, which Clay Christensen wrote. He’s the developer of the theory of disruptive innovation. In 2009, he said that in 10 years, by 2019, half of all secondary school courses would be mediated online, that they would cost a third as much to deliver, and they would have better outcomes.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And my hunch is, if any of your listeners wander to their local public high school, they will not find that half of the classes are delivered online, that they will not find that the costs of running educational institutions have gone down by sixty-six percent, and they will not find, that the educational outcomes of the online learning experiences are substantially better than the ones that are being mediated by teachers. So there’s a pile of them.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And my hunch is, if any of your listeners wander to their local public high school, they will not find that half of the classes are delivered online, that they will not find that the costs of running educational institutions have gone down by sixty-six percent, and they will not find, that the educational outcomes of the online learning experiences are substantially better than the ones that are being mediated by teachers. So there’s a pile of them.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Now, this does not mean that these previous technologies haven’t changed anything about the classroom experience, or that they didn’t feel, in small ways, kind of magical. Here’s a story Justin likes to tell, one from before he became a researcher, back when he was a teacher.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Now, this does not mean that these previous technologies haven’t changed anything about the classroom experience, or that they didn’t feel, in small ways, kind of magical. Here’s a story Justin likes to tell, one from before he became a researcher, back when he was a teacher.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> So when I went to go get my first teaching job, the department head was interviewing me the summer before and he said, “Can you teach world history?”And I said, “No, but I promise that if you hire me by September, I’ll figure out how to teach world history.” And he said, “Well, maybe.” And he said, “All right, one more thing, you’re gonna be teaching in this kind of trial classroom where there’s a cart of laptops in the corner. There are these blue and orange clamshell MacBooks”, this sort of iconic form factor.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> So when I went to go get my first teaching job, the department head was interviewing me the summer before and he said, “Can you teach world history?”And I said, “No, but I promise that if you hire me by September, I’ll figure out how to teach world history.” And he said, “Well, maybe.” And he said, “All right, one more thing, you’re gonna be teaching in this kind of trial classroom where there’s a cart of laptops in the corner. There are these blue and orange clamshell MacBooks”, this sort of iconic form factor.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And he said, you know, “And we’ve used ninth grade world history as sort of a testing bed to,” this was in 2003, “to see how these new computers could affect teaching and learning.” I said, “You can put a cart of bananas in the back corner of the classroom and I’ll teach with them. I just really need this job.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And he said, you know, “And we’ve used ninth grade world history as sort of a testing bed to,” this was in 2003, “to see how these new computers could affect teaching and learning.” I said, “You can put a cart of bananas in the back corner of the classroom and I’ll teach with them. I just really need this job.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And he went ahead and hired me, and it was really fun teaching in that classroom. It was a moment where the world’s government and archives and museums were rapidly digitizing primary sources. And so as a history teacher, with those computers, I could really do some things that were quite different from my own high school education where, you know, maybe I had a book of primary source documents with 20 documents in it or something like that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And he went ahead and hired me, and it was really fun teaching in that classroom. It was a moment where the world’s government and archives and museums were rapidly digitizing primary sources. And so as a history teacher, with those computers, I could really do some things that were quite different from my own high school education where, you know, maybe I had a book of primary source documents with 20 documents in it or something like that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Now I can, you know, you just sort of imagine like, oh, what was, you know, I wanna teach my students about the Harlem Renaissance. Oh, the Smithsonian has 20,000 song sheets from the Harlem Renaissance. They can each study their own document, which maybe nobody has looked at, in the last hundred years or something like that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Now I can, you know, you just sort of imagine like, oh, what was, you know, I wanna teach my students about the Harlem Renaissance. Oh, the Smithsonian has 20,000 song sheets from the Harlem Renaissance. They can each study their own document, which maybe nobody has looked at, in the last hundred years or something like that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Now, Justin says this was great. His students got a taste of what real historians do, find their own sources and documents and interpret them. But it also came with some hidden costs, in many ways, much greater than those of the computers themselves. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Now, Justin says this was great. His students got a taste of what real historians do, find their own sources and documents and interpret them. But it also came with some hidden costs, in many ways, much greater than those of the computers themselves. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>I was working in a private school, and I also recognized that the kinds of resources that were required to keep those computers running, to keep them charged, to keep our networks running, to find the productive things that students were doing and to highlight them, to find the malicious things that students were doing and stop them, was an enormous amount of resources.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>I was working in a private school, and I also recognized that the kinds of resources that were required to keep those computers running, to keep them charged, to keep our networks running, to find the productive things that students were doing and to highlight them, to find the malicious things that students were doing and stop them, was an enormous amount of resources.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And so the sort of incredible possibility of what students and me as a teacher could do with new computers was always balanced against the challenges and realities of turning those new affordances into everyday routines of learning that really helped students. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And so the sort of incredible possibility of what students and me as a teacher could do with new computers was always balanced against the challenges and realities of turning those new affordances into everyday routines of learning that really helped students. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So fun, genuinely interesting, but not necessarily a game changer, and very resource intensive. I could see where this was going, and I wanted to know, is ChatGPT really just computers in classrooms all over again? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So fun, genuinely interesting, but not necessarily a game changer, and very resource intensive. I could see where this was going, and I wanted to know, is ChatGPT really just computers in classrooms all over again? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Yeah. Well, what is different, if anything, about generative AI? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Yeah. Well, what is different, if anything, about generative AI? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>Well, I think we will by and large see those same kinds of patterns, I mean, people get really enthusiastic about the new technology that are in front of them to the point of dismissing the magic of previous technologies. There’s sort of an argument that emerges, which is kind of like… I’m calling it the web was met. Like you hear people say, like, “Well, you know, this AI thing is just totally different. I mean, we-\u003cs> \u003c/s>like, what could the web have possibly done?” I was like, “My guy, we took a handheld supercomputer, and we put it in the pocket of every child 13 years older in the networked world. We connected them to basically the world’s corpus of information, to every person they know, to every expert you can possibly imagine, and the effects on education range from not that much to maybe actually not that good.” You know, to the point where schools across the country are banning those mobile devices from people’s classrooms.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>Well, I think we will by and large see those same kinds of patterns, I mean, people get really enthusiastic about the new technology that are in front of them to the point of dismissing the magic of previous technologies. There’s sort of an argument that emerges, which is kind of like… I’m calling it the web was met. Like you hear people say, like, “Well, you know, this AI thing is just totally different. I mean, we-\u003cs> \u003c/s>like, what could the web have possibly done?” I was like, “My guy, we took a handheld supercomputer, and we put it in the pocket of every child 13 years older in the networked world. We connected them to basically the world’s corpus of information, to every person they know, to every expert you can possibly imagine, and the effects on education range from not that much to maybe actually not that good.” You know, to the point where schools across the country are banning those mobile devices from people’s classrooms.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Justin says that like previous technologies, there will be some things that AI is really good at. They just won’t be, in his words, “transformative.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Justin says that like previous technologies, there will be some things that AI is really good at. They just won’t be, in his words, “transformative.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> They seem to be pretty good at translation. Like, maybe that will become less expensive, and that will be sort of helpful, but we actually… It’s gonna find that it’s not transformative to schools because, like, just translating materials is not, like, the only thing you need to unlock educating, you know, students that come from all over the world and speak all kinds of different languages.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> They seem to be pretty good at translation. Like, maybe that will become less expensive, and that will be sort of helpful, but we actually… It’s gonna find that it’s not transformative to schools because, like, just translating materials is not, like, the only thing you need to unlock educating, you know, students that come from all over the world and speak all kinds of different languages.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I’m kind of enthusiastic about writing feedback, maybe. You know, one of the things we know is that, like, you need a lot of feedback to improve at things, and the machines seem to be able to generate reasonable writing feedback, but then you get other kinds of reports from classrooms that are like, “Yeah, my students really just want feedback from me, the human being teacher in the room,” because it turns out that most of what motivates us to learn is our social relationships with one another, and it doesn’t seem like social relationships with chatbots is a very promising direction for humanity to go.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I’m kind of enthusiastic about writing feedback, maybe. You know, one of the things we know is that, like, you need a lot of feedback to improve at things, and the machines seem to be able to generate reasonable writing feedback, but then you get other kinds of reports from classrooms that are like, “Yeah, my students really just want feedback from me, the human being teacher in the room,” because it turns out that most of what motivates us to learn is our social relationships with one another, and it doesn’t seem like social relationships with chatbots is a very promising direction for humanity to go.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, there is at least one kind of disruption that absolutely is happening in schools right now. So this very deep intel comes from my husband. He is a Chicago public school teacher. He teaches at high school.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, there is at least one kind of disruption that absolutely is happening in schools right now. So this very deep intel comes from my husband. He is a Chicago public school teacher. He teaches at high school.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>Excellent!\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>Excellent!\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And so I asked him, I was like, “All right, I’m gonna talk to this ed tech expert.” Like, “Give me the lowdown. Like, what is happening in your high school?” And so he had a number of things to say, and so I’m gonna share these with you. I think we’ll do it, like, one at a time, and you can tell me if you are in any way surprised by this. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And so I asked him, I was like, “All right, I’m gonna talk to this ed tech expert.” Like, “Give me the lowdown. Like, what is happening in your high school?” And so he had a number of things to say, and so I’m gonna share these with you. I think we’ll do it, like, one at a time, and you can tell me if you are in any way surprised by this. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So, to prevent students from using these chatbots to just do entire homework assignments, there’s been a big shift toward in-class assignments done on paper, which does seem to help with that cheating problem, but it introduces another challenge, which is that you’re then not spending that class time actually doing instruction.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So, to prevent students from using these chatbots to just do entire homework assignments, there’s been a big shift toward in-class assignments done on paper, which does seem to help with that cheating problem, but it introduces another challenge, which is that you’re then not spending that class time actually doing instruction.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Happening all over the place, happening in universities, happening in lots of different contexts. If, like definitely, one potential thing to be sad about is that, like, if you believed it could be possible that five years ago you could send students home to write stuff and be reasonably likely that they would write stuff, and then you could use class for the time of being together and engaging with one another.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Happening all over the place, happening in universities, happening in lots of different contexts. If, like definitely, one potential thing to be sad about is that, like, if you believed it could be possible that five years ago you could send students home to write stuff and be reasonably likely that they would write stuff, and then you could use class for the time of being together and engaging with one another.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And now it sounds like your husband, like many other teachers, believes, “If I want to read something that my students have actually written, I pretty much have to put them in a room and watch them write it themselves.” \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And now it sounds like your husband, like many other teachers, believes, “If I want to read something that my students have actually written, I pretty much have to put them in a room and watch them write it themselves.” \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Yeah, I think it’s quite possible that there are millions of fewer minutes of homework being assigned than in previous years. And if you believe that homework gives students practice that’s valuable for their learning, then that could be a massive drawdown in the amount of learning time that students are doing. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Yeah, I think it’s quite possible that there are millions of fewer minutes of homework being assigned than in previous years. And if you believe that homework gives students practice that’s valuable for their learning, then that could be a massive drawdown in the amount of learning time that students are doing. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So he and his colleagues have not entirely given up on the idea of homework, but what they’ve done is try to use technology to fight technology.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So he and his colleagues have not entirely given up on the idea of homework, but what they’ve done is try to use technology to fight technology.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So he and his colleagues pay out of pocket, mind you, for a Google Doc extension that shows them a detailed history of the revisions made to a document. So the idea is you can actually see a video of an essay being constructed in real time, kind of sped up. And the downside is that it is still possible for students to cheat.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So he and his colleagues pay out of pocket, mind you, for a Google Doc extension that shows them a detailed history of the revisions made to a document. So the idea is you can actually see a video of an essay being constructed in real time, kind of sped up. And the downside is that it is still possible for students to cheat.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>They just, they ask ChatGPT to write the essay, and then they’re literally sitting there, like, typing the essay from ChatGPT into Google Docs at, like, roughly a pace that they think it would look like you know, a 17-year-old comes up with thoughts in a unique manner and things like that. It’s kind of an interesting learning experience for the students, but obviously they’re not learning the thing that they’re supposed to be doing.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>They just, they ask ChatGPT to write the essay, and then they’re literally sitting there, like, typing the essay from ChatGPT into Google Docs at, like, roughly a pace that they think it would look like you know, a 17-year-old comes up with thoughts in a unique manner and things like that. It’s kind of an interesting learning experience for the students, but obviously they’re not learning the thing that they’re supposed to be doing.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Yeah, like, the best possible use of your husband’s expertise is not surveilling students’ writing. I think we could find that as we ramp up the level of surveillance in schools, that that’s really not good for a democratic society, that you know, that a certain amount of privacy, a certain amount of freedom from surveillance is actually necessary for the Republic to continue as a Republic.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Yeah, like, the best possible use of your husband’s expertise is not surveilling students’ writing. I think we could find that as we ramp up the level of surveillance in schools, that that’s really not good for a democratic society, that you know, that a certain amount of privacy, a certain amount of freedom from surveillance is actually necessary for the Republic to continue as a Republic.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>In the context that he’s in, what he’s doing is sensible, but if you aggregate that context across a lot of classrooms, you’re like, “Oh, that could be really bad, actually.” \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>In the context that he’s in, what he’s doing is sensible, but if you aggregate that context across a lot of classrooms, you’re like, “Oh, that could be really bad, actually.” \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah. And I’ll share one more with you. So the last thing he mentioned is building, he calls it “layers of resistance.” So for an essay, this might mean breaking down an assignment into a bunch of different pieces. Then students do each piece separately, and then once they’ve already done that work, they then combine it into a longer piece. So, you are making it easier to do the eventual assignment yourself since you’ve had to do earlier parts yourself before.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah. And I’ll share one more with you. So the last thing he mentioned is building, he calls it “layers of resistance.” So for an essay, this might mean breaking down an assignment into a bunch of different pieces. Then students do each piece separately, and then once they’ve already done that work, they then combine it into a longer piece. So, you are making it easier to do the eventual assignment yourself since you’ve had to do earlier parts yourself before.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But you’re also making it harder to cheat because that would be, you know, just a lot more difficult to cheat at each of those steps and then combine them into cheating. And again, he says it’s fairly effective, and that’s kinda like his favorite strategy right now. And I asked him, I said, “Well, is this having the effect of requiring your students to kind of use training wheels to think longer than they would otherwise?”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But you’re also making it harder to cheat because that would be, you know, just a lot more difficult to cheat at each of those steps and then combine them into cheating. And again, he says it’s fairly effective, and that’s kinda like his favorite strategy right now. And I asked him, I said, “Well, is this having the effect of requiring your students to kind of use training wheels to think longer than they would otherwise?”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> So training wheels to think is oftentimes better than we imagine it is. There’s a group of educational researchers that are interested in this set of ideas called cognitive load theory, and an idea that we often have is that people become experts by behaving like experts. And they sort of argue, “No, no, no when people develop expertise, it looks quite different than being an expert.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> So training wheels to think is oftentimes better than we imagine it is. There’s a group of educational researchers that are interested in this set of ideas called cognitive load theory, and an idea that we often have is that people become experts by behaving like experts. And they sort of argue, “No, no, no when people develop expertise, it looks quite different than being an expert.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But I mean, you do, I think, Jess, have a good intuition there, which is like, “man, at some point, the kids, like, before they leave high school, probably just need to be able to write the essay.” Like, that it seems like that would be a pretty good thing, that we would want young people to be able to independently generate an argument in prose.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But I mean, you do, I think, Jess, have a good intuition there, which is like, “man, at some point, the kids, like, before they leave high school, probably just need to be able to write the essay.” Like, that it seems like that would be a pretty good thing, that we would want young people to be able to independently generate an argument in prose.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>At least for the last, like, 30 years, we’ve thought that’s a pretty good idea to do, you know, with computers in particular. And boy, is generative AI making it hard for teachers to assign that task that we think is pretty good. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>At least for the last, like, 30 years, we’ve thought that’s a pretty good idea to do, you know, with computers in particular. And boy, is generative AI making it hard for teachers to assign that task that we think is pretty good. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>But after going into these specifics, like, wouldn’t you agree that this is pretty transformative in terms of what students are actually doing during the school day?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>But after going into these specifics, like, wouldn’t you agree that this is pretty transformative in terms of what students are actually doing during the school day?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>I mean, definitely not transformative in the sense of, “Boy, this is great.” \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>I mean, definitely not transformative in the sense of, “Boy, this is great.” \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Justin really wouldn’t take the bait here. He was adamant. No, we don’t have any great evidence that how teachers and students actually spend their days, think lectures, group work, has really changed that much over the past couple of years, or for that matter, the past few decades, even if take-home essays are basically off the table now. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Justin really wouldn’t take the bait here. He was adamant. No, we don’t have any great evidence that how teachers and students actually spend their days, think lectures, group work, has really changed that much over the past couple of years, or for that matter, the past few decades, even if take-home essays are basically off the table now. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But I kept at him. That’s after the break.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But I kept at him. That’s after the break.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>It does seem like one really big difference right now is that there’s a lot of discussions about how AI is or isn’t going to change the kind of future and work that we’re preparing students for. I’m curious if you’re seeing, you know, is that impacting students’ motivation to learn, which would obviously have a very big impact in the classrooms.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>It does seem like one really big difference right now is that there’s a lot of discussions about how AI is or isn’t going to change the kind of future and work that we’re preparing students for. I’m curious if you’re seeing, you know, is that impacting students’ motivation to learn, which would obviously have a very big impact in the classrooms.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I guess it also could start to change the question of what school should be for. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I guess it also could start to change the question of what school should be for. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>Yes. New technologies are a great catalyst to provoke conversations about what schools are for. In the last few decades, we’ve been particularly interested in the question, like, how do you prepare individuals for work in the labor market?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>Yes. New technologies are a great catalyst to provoke conversations about what schools are for. In the last few decades, we’ve been particularly interested in the question, like, how do you prepare individuals for work in the labor market?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Although if you go through the history of schooling, you know, in the United States, we have public schools as a bulwark of our democracy. When Thomas Jefferson wrote about public schooling in the notes of the State of Virginia, and proposed the system of public schooling, it would be so that our nascent democracy would continue to exist and have citizens who are prepared to take on their roles as citizens.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Although if you go through the history of schooling, you know, in the United States, we have public schools as a bulwark of our democracy. When Thomas Jefferson wrote about public schooling in the notes of the State of Virginia, and proposed the system of public schooling, it would be so that our nascent democracy would continue to exist and have citizens who are prepared to take on their roles as citizens.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But, you know, citizenship is gonna change with generative AI, too, and so we should be thinking about some of those kinds of changes. My hunch is if you went to all of the K-12 schools in the United States, you would not see huge changes in student motivation because like, students are not that great at thinking about their long-term futures.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But, you know, citizenship is gonna change with generative AI, too, and so we should be thinking about some of those kinds of changes. My hunch is if you went to all of the K-12 schools in the United States, you would not see huge changes in student motivation because like, students are not that great at thinking about their long-term futures.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Like, students primarily, like, they do not care that much about the subjects that we teach, for the most part. They care a ton about their teacher and their peers. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Like, students primarily, like, they do not care that much about the subjects that we teach, for the most part. They care a ton about their teacher and their peers. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Well, whether the students feel it or not, I guess my question would be to you, do you think that schools should be rethinking what education is for in this moment?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Well, whether the students feel it or not, I guess my question would be to you, do you think that schools should be rethinking what education is for in this moment?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> I don’t know – I think we should start by saying we don’t know. Not only do we not know, but historically, when we’ve made some of these guesses in the past, we’ve been wrong. So you could look at things like, you know, the sort of computer science industry telling people that it’s enormously important to learn to code in order to get good jobs, and now there’s a possibility that computer programming won’t actually be a very viable field in the near future.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> I don’t know – I think we should start by saying we don’t know. Not only do we not know, but historically, when we’ve made some of these guesses in the past, we’ve been wrong. So you could look at things like, you know, the sort of computer science industry telling people that it’s enormously important to learn to code in order to get good jobs, and now there’s a possibility that computer programming won’t actually be a very viable field in the near future.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And, and these things go back histor- You know, in the 19th century, there were a group of educators who passionately believed that you really had to teach sentence diagramming – that if you didn’t teach sentence diagramming, like, Western civilization would fall. And we’ve mostly stopped teaching sentence diagramming, and maybe Western civilization will fall apart, but it’s probably not gonna be for the lack of sentence diagramming.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And, and these things go back histor- You know, in the 19th century, there were a group of educators who passionately believed that you really had to teach sentence diagramming – that if you didn’t teach sentence diagramming, like, Western civilization would fall. And we’ve mostly stopped teaching sentence diagramming, and maybe Western civilization will fall apart, but it’s probably not gonna be for the lack of sentence diagramming.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Cursive. The great cursive debate. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Cursive. The great cursive debate. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>The great cursive debate continues. Here, here, here are two stories you could tell about AI. One story you could tell about AI is that there is a lot to learn to figure out how to use AI, and that students should begin the process of learning that as soon as possible, that there should be a set of scaffold experiences, that we should change our curriculum, so that as people get older and older, there are more and more tasks that they do in partnership with AI, ’cause partnering with AI is hard to learn how to do, and if they do it with the supervision of teachers, they’ll be better.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>The great cursive debate continues. Here, here, here are two stories you could tell about AI. One story you could tell about AI is that there is a lot to learn to figure out how to use AI, and that students should begin the process of learning that as soon as possible, that there should be a set of scaffold experiences, that we should change our curriculum, so that as people get older and older, there are more and more tasks that they do in partnership with AI, ’cause partnering with AI is hard to learn how to do, and if they do it with the supervision of teachers, they’ll be better.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>A second story that you could tell is that getting generative AI to spit stuff out is actually super easy, that there really is not that much to learn, and that what really differentiates people who are proficient and less proficient with using generative AI is whether or not they can evaluate output. Since the output is highly uneven, what you really need are people who can say, “Oh, this is a good idea, this is a good practice, and this one is not.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>A second story that you could tell is that getting generative AI to spit stuff out is actually super easy, that there really is not that much to learn, and that what really differentiates people who are proficient and less proficient with using generative AI is whether or not they can evaluate output. Since the output is highly uneven, what you really need are people who can say, “Oh, this is a good idea, this is a good practice, and this one is not.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>It could be that there’s actually very little general expertise that you can develop to distinguish good output from bad output. What you probably primarily need is domain knowledge. Like, if you ask ChatGPT a question about plumbing, there’s nothing about AI which is gonna tell you whether or not it gave you a good plumbing answer.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>It could be that there’s actually very little general expertise that you can develop to distinguish good output from bad output. What you probably primarily need is domain knowledge. Like, if you ask ChatGPT a question about plumbing, there’s nothing about AI which is gonna tell you whether or not it gave you a good plumbing answer.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>What you need to know about is plumbing. If that was the case, if domain expertise was sort of the key differentiator in people skills in using AI, then that would be pretty good news for schools and universities, ’cause the main thing they’ve done for however many hundreds of years is try to help people develop domain expertise.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>What you need to know about is plumbing. If that was the case, if domain expertise was sort of the key differentiator in people skills in using AI, then that would be pretty good news for schools and universities, ’cause the main thing they’ve done for however many hundreds of years is try to help people develop domain expertise.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> But I don’t- as a civilization, science does not know the answer to those two stories. Science cannot tell you today which of those two stories is correct. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> But I don’t- as a civilization, science does not know the answer to those two stories. Science cannot tell you today which of those two stories is correct. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, it’s interesting. So I’m guessing you’re not a big fan of some of these moves more recently by school districts, university systems, states, even potentially the federal government, to implement various AI competency or AI literacy requirements.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, it’s interesting. So I’m guessing you’re not a big fan of some of these moves more recently by school districts, university systems, states, even potentially the federal government, to implement various AI competency or AI literacy requirements.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I will point out some of these seem more, you know, pro-technology, like giving the students the skills they need to succeed with these technologies. Others actually take a bit more of a defensive crouch, like let’s teach students the critical thinking skills so they can discriminate between the good and the bad. But there is nonetheless a lot of overlap, which is that these requirements purport to prepare students to live in a world alongside AI. And I’m curious what you make of those. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I will point out some of these seem more, you know, pro-technology, like giving the students the skills they need to succeed with these technologies. Others actually take a bit more of a defensive crouch, like let’s teach students the critical thinking skills so they can discriminate between the good and the bad. But there is nonetheless a lot of overlap, which is that these requirements purport to prepare students to live in a world alongside AI. And I’m curious what you make of those. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> Well, one thing that we’ve tried over the last twenty years in the United States is a strategy they might call, like, the ‘tech literacy’ strategy, where every time a new technology comes along, you define a set of skills that correlate with that technology.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> Well, one thing that we’ve tried over the last twenty years in the United States is a strategy they might call, like, the ‘tech literacy’ strategy, where every time a new technology comes along, you define a set of skills that correlate with that technology.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You write some policy documents that say schools should be teaching those things, and then you, like, bake it for a while and watch and see what happens. And, like, if you were to pick a sort of education reform strategy that we could be almost certain does not work, it would be that one.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You write some policy documents that say schools should be teaching those things, and then you, like, bake it for a while and watch and see what happens. And, like, if you were to pick a sort of education reform strategy that we could be almost certain does not work, it would be that one.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>It works really well for pundits and policymakers. Like, it’s a great way for policymakers to be like, “Look, we did a thing. We passed a bill which says you have to learn some stuff.” But what you actually have to do to make a difference in schools is you have to translate those policy guidance into curriculum documents.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>It works really well for pundits and policymakers. Like, it’s a great way for policymakers to be like, “Look, we did a thing. We passed a bill which says you have to learn some stuff.” But what you actually have to do to make a difference in schools is you have to translate those policy guidance into curriculum documents.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>There are 3.5 million teachers in the United States. Like your husband, one in every one hundred living Americans has to raise their hand and say, “I will be a teacher this year,” in order for our system to function. To improve the capacity of 3.5 million people is mind-bogglingly complex.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>There are 3.5 million teachers in the United States. Like your husband, one in every one hundred living Americans has to raise their hand and say, “I will be a teacher this year,” in order for our system to function. To improve the capacity of 3.5 million people is mind-bogglingly complex.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You could probably tell me the number of minutes or hours that your husband has gotten for, you know, AI-related professional development, and I bet the number is not super high. What I’m sure of is the number is not commensurate to some kind of transformational change. And so, I mean, I’m not opposed to that strategy on any kind of ideological or philosophical… Like, sounds kind of great to me. Just historically, it has not worked at all. Go ask young people – “have people, have young people describe their social media practices to you?”, and you’ll be like, “Oh, that sounds pretty bad and not good for your health, actually.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You could probably tell me the number of minutes or hours that your husband has gotten for, you know, AI-related professional development, and I bet the number is not super high. What I’m sure of is the number is not commensurate to some kind of transformational change. And so, I mean, I’m not opposed to that strategy on any kind of ideological or philosophical… Like, sounds kind of great to me. Just historically, it has not worked at all. Go ask young people – “have people, have young people describe their social media practices to you?”, and you’ll be like, “Oh, that sounds pretty bad and not good for your health, actually.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But there has been ten or fifteen years of, like, social media literacy in schools. Like, ask one of your students to, like, save a file to a folder, and watch their head explode. And you’ll be like, “Oh, maybe, like, we’re not that good at teaching digital literacy in schools.” So one is just, like, an efficacy approach – But even if you believe that that, like, general approach would work, you have to sort of ask the question, like, what kinds of things are we gonna stuff into that AI fluency and AI literacy?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But there has been ten or fifteen years of, like, social media literacy in schools. Like, ask one of your students to, like, save a file to a folder, and watch their head explode. And you’ll be like, “Oh, maybe, like, we’re not that good at teaching digital literacy in schools.” So one is just, like, an efficacy approach – But even if you believe that that, like, general approach would work, you have to sort of ask the question, like, what kinds of things are we gonna stuff into that AI fluency and AI literacy?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Like, what should that be? And I think we really, to this day, don’t know. So I mentioned before that I went to DeepMind the other day in London, and I cornered every engineer I could find, and I said, “Do you know how to train a junior engineer to code with a copilot?” I asked in big groups, in small groups, one-on-one. There was not an engineer or program manager there who told me yes. Every single one of them told me, “We do not know how to do that.” \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Like, what should that be? And I think we really, to this day, don’t know. So I mentioned before that I went to DeepMind the other day in London, and I cornered every engineer I could find, and I said, “Do you know how to train a junior engineer to code with a copilot?” I asked in big groups, in small groups, one-on-one. There was not an engineer or program manager there who told me yes. Every single one of them told me, “We do not know how to do that.” \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> DeepMind, Google’s elite AI laboratory. Justin went to a conference there about AI and education. And when he says that software engineers told him that they don’t know how to train a junior engineer to code with a copilot, what he means is that they may have protocols and practices, but they’re not yet confident that they work.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> DeepMind, Google’s elite AI laboratory. Justin went to a conference there about AI and education. And when he says that software engineers told him that they don’t know how to train a junior engineer to code with a copilot, what he means is that they may have protocols and practices, but they’re not yet confident that they work.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This is a major concern in the software industry. Many big companies are adopting coding assistants like Claude Code, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, and Codex. Senior engineers can thrive in this kind of environment. They can prompt the AI with exactly what they’re looking for, and then they can manually check the outputs and write their own code when something goes wrong.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This is a major concern in the software industry. Many big companies are adopting coding assistants like Claude Code, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, and Codex. Senior engineers can thrive in this kind of environment. They can prompt the AI with exactly what they’re looking for, and then they can manually check the outputs and write their own code when something goes wrong.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>A much more junior engineer can also use these code assistants to generate code that seems like it works, but if it has a bug or a vulnerability, they may not notice or be able to fix it. And worse, they may never get a chance to develop their skills further. So we could end up with a generation of software engineers who don’t understand how the software works, can’t fix it if it goes wrong, and have shaky ideas of what is technologically possible. Not ideal. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>A much more junior engineer can also use these code assistants to generate code that seems like it works, but if it has a bug or a vulnerability, they may not notice or be able to fix it. And worse, they may never get a chance to develop their skills further. So we could end up with a generation of software engineers who don’t understand how the software works, can’t fix it if it goes wrong, and have shaky ideas of what is technologically possible. Not ideal. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Companies know this could be a problem, so they’re experimenting with protocols for junior engineers, but this is all so new that nobody knows yet if these protocols will work. And they were frank about this with Justin. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Companies know this could be a problem, so they’re experimenting with protocols for junior engineers, but this is all so new that nobody knows yet if these protocols will work. And they were frank about this with Justin. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>If Google, which has billions and billions of dollars at stake to answer this question, does not know how to teach a junior engineer how to code with a copilot, like, what is a seventh grade middle school’s computer science teacher supposed to do?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>If Google, which has billions and billions of dollars at stake to answer this question, does not know how to teach a junior engineer how to code with a copilot, like, what is a seventh grade middle school’s computer science teacher supposed to do?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Like, what would AI literacy in that class look like until Google can figure it out? That is an excellent point. So you mentioned earlier this idea that, in general, previous educational technologies have – if they’ve had a positive impact, it’s been toward the students who are already either high-performing or come from very high-resourced schools.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Like, what would AI literacy in that class look like until Google can figure it out? That is an excellent point. So you mentioned earlier this idea that, in general, previous educational technologies have – if they’ve had a positive impact, it’s been toward the students who are already either high-performing or come from very high-resourced schools.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I wanna ask you a little bit about special education, and in particular, kind of the extreme edges of special education. So this is kind of personal for me. My 11-year-old now, she has a rare genetic disorder, and I would say she does fall in that sort of extreme end of the continuum. Like, she literally will not look at a piece of paper if it hasn’t been, like, personalized with things that, you know, her teachers and aides and therapists know will draw her attention.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I wanna ask you a little bit about special education, and in particular, kind of the extreme edges of special education. So this is kind of personal for me. My 11-year-old now, she has a rare genetic disorder, and I would say she does fall in that sort of extreme end of the continuum. Like, she literally will not look at a piece of paper if it hasn’t been, like, personalized with things that, you know, her teachers and aides and therapists know will draw her attention.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And so there’s certainly this kind of low-hanging fruit that I could see being very easy helping, you know, busy professionals in the classroom. But I do see the possibility of something a little bit more transformative in a positive way – for kids whose brains just work so differently that the professionals involved don’t always have a ton of intuition about what will work.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And so there’s certainly this kind of low-hanging fruit that I could see being very easy helping, you know, busy professionals in the classroom. But I do see the possibility of something a little bit more transformative in a positive way – for kids whose brains just work so differently that the professionals involved don’t always have a ton of intuition about what will work.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So we talk a lot about AI having these jagged skills that are hard to understand from the outside, so being amazing at one skill and, like, hilariously bad at another. But there is a population of students for whom this is also true. I think a very concrete example here is severe language disabilities.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So we talk a lot about AI having these jagged skills that are hard to understand from the outside, so being amazing at one skill and, like, hilariously bad at another. But there is a population of students for whom this is also true. I think a very concrete example here is severe language disabilities.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So right now, the vast majority of educational instruction is done via language. If you have a kid whose language skills are significantly more impaired than their other skills, how do you teach them? How do you assess them? Non-verbal assessments do exist, but guess how the instructions are given? They’re given in language.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So right now, the vast majority of educational instruction is done via language. If you have a kid whose language skills are significantly more impaired than their other skills, how do you teach them? How do you assess them? Non-verbal assessments do exist, but guess how the instructions are given? They’re given in language.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And it just seems like this place where a tool that can radically personalize, that’s completely agnostic to how a student chooses to answer a question, that has zero preconceived ideas about what will or won’t be an effective learning tool, could be transformative. And I know this is very hand-wavy, it’s very in the distance, but is there something here?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And it just seems like this place where a tool that can radically personalize, that’s completely agnostic to how a student chooses to answer a question, that has zero preconceived ideas about what will or won’t be an effective learning tool, could be transformative. And I know this is very hand-wavy, it’s very in the distance, but is there something here?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> Oh well, for sure. So first, I’m definitely rooting for these people – I mean, I’m always rooting for the people who are making education much, much better. My, like, very boring, sometimes sad job is to, like, hop into these conversations and be like, “That would totally be great. Just, we should remember that people have been working on this for decades, and progress tends to be more measured.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> Oh well, for sure. So first, I’m definitely rooting for these people – I mean, I’m always rooting for the people who are making education much, much better. My, like, very boring, sometimes sad job is to, like, hop into these conversations and be like, “That would totally be great. Just, we should remember that people have been working on this for decades, and progress tends to be more measured.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>That’s why they call you the skeptic. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>That’s why they call you the skeptic. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>There’s this whole field called universal design for learning, which, you know, has observed for a long time, sometimes better to think of curriculum as disabled than people as disabled. The curriculum is just not presenting information in ways and in mechanisms that people with different kinds of ability can access. And so we should do a better job of reinventing our curriculum and, you know, in fact, as we start bringing generative AI into the application of these kinds of things in special education, we don’t have to start from scratch. We can start from decades of effort of people using computers to do these same kinds of things.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>There’s this whole field called universal design for learning, which, you know, has observed for a long time, sometimes better to think of curriculum as disabled than people as disabled. The curriculum is just not presenting information in ways and in mechanisms that people with different kinds of ability can access. And so we should do a better job of reinventing our curriculum and, you know, in fact, as we start bringing generative AI into the application of these kinds of things in special education, we don’t have to start from scratch. We can start from decades of effort of people using computers to do these same kinds of things.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You know, translation is one thing that we mentioned, putting learning resources into different kinds of modalities. So if there are people who don’t read text well, then we can just have the machine speak the text. You know, a strategy that we’ve tried a lot is to build just-in-time learning supports for people into resources, saying like, “Okay, if this learning resource in its current form isn’t working for you, like, push this button and it will talk. Push this button and the reading level will change. Push this button and this other kind of feature of it can be modified to suit your needs.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You know, translation is one thing that we mentioned, putting learning resources into different kinds of modalities. So if there are people who don’t read text well, then we can just have the machine speak the text. You know, a strategy that we’ve tried a lot is to build just-in-time learning supports for people into resources, saying like, “Okay, if this learning resource in its current form isn’t working for you, like, push this button and it will talk. Push this button and the reading level will change. Push this button and this other kind of feature of it can be modified to suit your needs.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>What we found historically is that the kids that we most want to push those buttons are not the ones who push the button. The like high-performing kids push the ‘Help Me’ button and the kids who we most wish would push the, like, ‘Give Me Some Extra Resources’ or ‘Change This to Support Me’ button would.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>What we found historically is that the kids that we most want to push those buttons are not the ones who push the button. The like high-performing kids push the ‘Help Me’ button and the kids who we most wish would push the, like, ‘Give Me Some Extra Resources’ or ‘Change This to Support Me’ button would.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You know, when we talk to teachers across the country, adapting resources to folks with different kinds of abilities is one of the things that they’re most enthusiastic. The you know, generative AI technologies might be able to help them do, and I’m rooting for them, and I hope that there are companies that figure out ways of doing this more sustainably and at scale. And I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw some potential benefits from that. And those benefits are most likely to emerge not in the places where people download the, you know, the software that personalizes things for students with different learning capacities and things like that. It’s gonna be where whole communities are able to, like, rethink the way that they do special education in the context of that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You know, when we talk to teachers across the country, adapting resources to folks with different kinds of abilities is one of the things that they’re most enthusiastic. The you know, generative AI technologies might be able to help them do, and I’m rooting for them, and I hope that there are companies that figure out ways of doing this more sustainably and at scale. And I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw some potential benefits from that. And those benefits are most likely to emerge not in the places where people download the, you know, the software that personalizes things for students with different learning capacities and things like that. It’s gonna be where whole communities are able to, like, rethink the way that they do special education in the context of that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And, you know, and it’s probably gonna be that students who live in more affluent places are gonna have the kinds of systemic resources that allow for all that training and adoption to occur.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And, you know, and it’s probably gonna be that students who live in more affluent places are gonna have the kinds of systemic resources that allow for all that training and adoption to occur.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>This idea of resources, it’s an important one, and not just for special education because every dollar, every hour of an educator’s time, it comes at the expense of money or time spent elsewhere, including on things that we do know work. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>This idea of resources, it’s an important one, and not just for special education because every dollar, every hour of an educator’s time, it comes at the expense of money or time spent elsewhere, including on things that we do know work. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>And the worst case scenario, which I think we’ve seen a lot of places, is that we make substantial additional investments, both in technology platforms and then in a bunch of extra humans to manage those technology platforms.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>And the worst case scenario, which I think we’ve seen a lot of places, is that we make substantial additional investments, both in technology platforms and then in a bunch of extra humans to manage those technology platforms.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And so the cost of schooling goes up, but because at best, the gains of those technology platforms is pretty moderate, you’re like adding a whole bunch of additional expense. Like, you know, you’re basically like in the Chicago Public Schools, like you bought all these Google Docs, and you bought all of these computers so that all the students can use them, and you bought all these IT professionals because the computers break all the time, and your husband like, is like, “Well, actually, the best thing to do is to have them write essays on pencils and paper.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And so the cost of schooling goes up, but because at best, the gains of those technology platforms is pretty moderate, you’re like adding a whole bunch of additional expense. Like, you know, you’re basically like in the Chicago Public Schools, like you bought all these Google Docs, and you bought all of these computers so that all the students can use them, and you bought all these IT professionals because the computers break all the time, and your husband like, is like, “Well, actually, the best thing to do is to have them write essays on pencils and paper.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Well, that’s an awful lot of money that we’re spending on all of this infrastructure to sit in a closet while your students are writing in composition notebooks. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Well, that’s an awful lot of money that we’re spending on all of this infrastructure to sit in a closet while your students are writing in composition notebooks. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Will AI transform K-12 education? Justin really doesn’t think so. And frankly, I’m not sure whether to be disappointed or relieved by that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Will AI transform K-12 education? Justin really doesn’t think so. And frankly, I’m not sure whether to be disappointed or relieved by that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Like, there is something reassuring about a world where students continue to learn the same kinds of things that I learned when I was in school. It’s certainly preferable to one where the whole educational system grinds to a panicked halt because they’ve decided students don’t need to learn anything anymore.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Like, there is something reassuring about a world where students continue to learn the same kinds of things that I learned when I was in school. It’s certainly preferable to one where the whole educational system grinds to a panicked halt because they’ve decided students don’t need to learn anything anymore.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But on the other hand, it seems my dreams of some automated tool that can magically help my daughter learn in a way no human has yet managed to is probably not right around the corner either. And I still think that experiments will be important, including the kind of ambitious, dare I say transformative experiments that folks like my colleague Sébastien Martin are pursuing.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But on the other hand, it seems my dreams of some automated tool that can magically help my daughter learn in a way no human has yet managed to is probably not right around the corner either. And I still think that experiments will be important, including the kind of ambitious, dare I say transformative experiments that folks like my colleague Sébastien Martin are pursuing.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>We have to know what’s possible, and then we’ll need to roll up our sleeves. Test, learn, make sure that whatever gains we see in one classroom with one teacher can eventually benefit a much larger group of students. Because, and I’ll end with this, even our resident skeptic Justin agrees. At the end of the day, alongside all the headaches, new technologies do bring new capabilities. And little by little, these capabilities can tangibly improve the status quo. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>We have to know what’s possible, and then we’ll need to roll up our sleeves. Test, learn, make sure that whatever gains we see in one classroom with one teacher can eventually benefit a much larger group of students. Because, and I’ll end with this, even our resident skeptic Justin agrees. At the end of the day, alongside all the headaches, new technologies do bring new capabilities. And little by little, these capabilities can tangibly improve the status quo. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>I mean, the things that do work, it’s probably going to be more like 10 or 20 years of development rather than sort of stumbling across something which works super well in a year or two. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>I mean, the things that do work, it’s probably going to be more like 10 or 20 years of development rather than sort of stumbling across something which works super well in a year or two. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So it could be transformative for the better, but it’s just going to take a ton of work and dedication and probably resources to get there.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So it could be transformative for the better, but it’s just going to take a ton of work and dedication and probably resources to get there.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> My colleague Ken Kaedinger says that step change is what 25 years of incremental change looks like from a distance.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> My colleague Ken Kaedinger says that step change is what 25 years of incremental change looks like from a distance.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED. Special thanks to today’s guest, Justin Reich. Jesse Dukes is our producer. Music by Steven Jackson. Recording help from Will Feeney and George Christensen. Marketing support from Ananya Mallapragada. Administrative support, recording, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED. Special thanks to today’s guest, Justin Reich. Jesse Dukes is our producer. Music by Steven Jackson. Recording help from Will Feeney and George Christensen. Marketing support from Ananya Mallapragada. Administrative support, recording, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad",
"attrs": {
"format": "floatright"
},
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "",
"innerContent": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
}
],
"excerpt": "Will AI actually be transformative for K-12 education, or will it fail to live up to the hype?",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1787156742,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 120,
"wordCount": 7299
},
"headData": {
"title": "Why AI Might Not Change Education Much at All (With Justin Reich) | KQED",
"description": "AI will revolutionize education! No, it will destroy it! Which is it? If history is any guide, the impact will be limited in either direction. In this episode, MIT education researcher Justin Reich walks through a century of hype cycles — from filmstrips and radio to MOOCs and smartphones — to show what actually changed in classrooms, and what didn’t. Drawing on interviews with 120 teachers and students across the U.S., he explains why new tools tend to extend old habits, why gains from new technology are usually modest, and why they tend to benefit affluent schools most. (Part 2/2 in our back-to-school series.)",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"socialDescription": "AI will revolutionize education! No, it will destroy it! Which is it? If history is any guide, the impact will be limited in either direction. In this episode, MIT education researcher Justin Reich walks through a century of hype cycles — from filmstrips and radio to MOOCs and smartphones — to show what actually changed in classrooms, and what didn’t. Drawing on interviews with 120 teachers and students across the U.S., he explains why new tools tend to extend old habits, why gains from new technology are usually modest, and why they tend to benefit affluent schools most. (Part 2/2 in our back-to-school series.)",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Why AI Might Not Change Education Much at All (With Justin Reich)",
"datePublished": "2026-08-19T03:00:00-07:00",
"dateModified": "2026-08-19T09:25:42-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 33520,
"slug": "podcast",
"name": "Podcast"
},
"audioUrl": "https://traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC2131125302.mp3",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12095781",
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12095781/why-ai-might-not-change-education-much-at-all-with-justin-reich",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#Transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>AI will revolutionize education! No, it will destroy it! Which is it? If history is any guide, the impact will be limited in either direction. In this episode, MIT education researcher \u003ca href=\"https://tsl.mit.edu/team/justin-reich/\">Justin Reich\u003c/a> walks through a century of hype cycles — from filmstrips and radio to MOOCs and smartphones — to show what actually changed in classrooms, and what didn’t. Drawing on\u003ca href=\"https://www.teachlabpodcast.com/the-homework-machine-ep-1-buckle-up-here-it-comes/\"> interviews with 120 teachers and students\u003c/a> across the U.S., he explains why new tools tend to extend old habits, why gains from new technology are usually modest, and why they tend to benefit affluent schools most. (Part 2/2 in our back-to-school series.)\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Further Listening and Reading:\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.teachlabpodcast.com/the-homework-machine-ep-1-buckle-up-here-it-comes/\">The Homework Machine\u003c/a> (Audio)\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674089049?lv=shuf&channelId=500&plpRedirect=mhFallback\">Failure to Disrupt: Why Technology Alone Can’t Transform Education\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Welcome to Life, Automated, the show where we explore how to live, work, and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. I’ll admit it, I’m the kind of person who hears something about the incredible capabilities of AI and then immediately tries to project all the ways those capabilities might transform the world.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>That’s actually one of the goals of this podcast, to try to determine how many of these mental leaps are grounded in evidence. And sometimes I talk to someone and I’m like, “Yeah, this is a really big deal.” Today’s conversation, not that. I’ll be talking to Justin Reich, a researcher and director of the Teaching Systems Lab at MIT, about AI’s likely impact on K-12 education.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is not my first conversation about AI and education. I recently spoke with one of my colleagues here at Kellogg, Sébastien Martin, who has entirely reimagined many aspects of how he teaches his MBA students in ways I find pretty inspiring. But he’s admittedly an edge case, like if you accidentally ended up having Beethoven as your piano instructor and he gave you a warped sense of what piano lessons typically look like.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Justin Reich, on the other hand, does have a sense of what lessons typically look like, not those designed by tech-savvy professors at top-ranked business schools, but in the rest of the world where budgets are limited, professional development is scarce, and time and time again, technology has entered the classroom only to fail to live up to its promise.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Justin recently interviewed 120 K-12 teachers and students across America about AI for his podcast, “The Homework Machine.” His verdict? AI might modestly help some students learn some things. AI certainly is causing a lot of headaches. But somewhat surprisingly, given we’re talking about a technology that can pretty convincingly mimic human intelligence, he does not view it as transformational in the least.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love, and this is Life, Automated, a project from Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, distributed by KQED. And here is my very grounded conversation with Justin. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You have been described as a healthy skeptic when it comes to bringing technology into classrooms. Do you agree with that characterization?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> Yeah, healthy skeptic. I was recently at DeepMind in London where one of the Google engineers said that I was the token skeptic. I don’t know. I’m not ideologically skeptical. Like, I’ve used technology, computers in my teaching for more than 20 years now, and I still do it. What I aspire to be is evidence-based.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>To me, maybe that’s skeptical, but it’s not skeptical as like, “I don’t know if I trust this technology stuff.” It’s more skeptical in the sense of like, what does a century of evidence tell us, and based on that century, what would we expect to happen next? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Well, it seems like you’re kind of in a position to interview yourself, so I’m just gonna ask you the question you asked yourself. What does a century of experience with technology tell us about this current moment? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>The first things that happen when teachers get access to new technologies is they use them to extend existing practices. So they do whatever they were doing before but with the new technology. So we used to write our notes on chalkboards, and then we wrote our notes on whiteboards, and then we put them on acetate sheets, and then they got projected onto SMART Boards, into LCD projectors. It’s the same notes. We just reproduce them in all these different formats. If you give teachers enough time and support and coaching, they will invent new kinds of practices. Unfortunately, the second pattern that we see is that, where there are benefits to new technologies, they tend to disproportionately benefit the affluent.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>They benefit people with the financial, social, and technical capital to take advantage of new innovations. So for instance, in 2012, we invented these giant, these massive open online courses, and the main thing that we found is that they were pretty good for helping people earn their second master’s degree.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So if you were already educated, already affluent person, there are these great new opportunities for you, and it turned out that they really weren’t very good at helping onboard new kinds of students into the higher education system. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The third pattern that we see over and over again is that technologies are only as powerful as the communities that guide their use. So we’re constantly hoping that we can invent the software or these machines. You just sort of download things onto a bunch of people’s computers, and all of a sudden, learning gets better. And that essentially never happens. What can happen, where you can see improvements in learning, is when teachers have time to experiment and to try new things and to collaborate with their colleagues.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Principals come up with new disciplinary standards. Students learn new routines. Families learn new ways of helping people. When whole communities have a chance to make improvements, you know, across the curriculum and lesson planning with technologies, that’s when we can sometimes see some benefits. And, we should typically expect that benefits are modest, because the benefits of anything that we do in educational settings are typically modest.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>If you want to make education better, what you’re usually doing is, like, putting your shoulder to the wheel for a long time and being like, “Oh, it’s one percent better this year. That’s great. Let’s see if we can make it one percent better again next year.” Which is, of course, not at all what techno-utopians want to have happen or describing what happened, where there’s this giant disjunction with the past, and everything is better afterwards.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I mean, it’s kind of fun to think that way. There’s not a lot of historical evidence for it, and, I mean, I think the reason why I critique that approach the most is that it tends to be where you see people wasting a lot of time and money. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So let’s do a couple of examples here. So can you give us a couple of examples of times when techno-utopians came in and said, “This is it. This is going to change everything,” and then what actually happened? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>Well, you got to start with the OG, Thomas Edison. Wow, so my man, a century ago, Thomas Edison, went in front of Congress, I think it was in 1913, and said, “In 10 years, textbooks will be gone, that they’ll be completely replaced by film strips, and this is gonna be a good thing as computers have been introduced” – I mean, radio went through this phase. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There’s a Larry Cuban has a great book called Teachers and Machines with a photograph in it, of a big, like, an armour-sized radio set. And it says, “With radio, the underprivileged school becomes a privileged one.” And so the idea that, like, we’re gonna have the best experts in the world broadcast radio lectures, radio lessons into homes all across the country, and it’s gonna be totally transformative of how students learn. Massive open online courses are probably the one that most recently went through higher education.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And, I don’t know, Sebastian Thrun, who was a Google employee, a founder of Udacity, said that, “In 10 years, there will be fifty universities left, and Udacity might be one of them.” And as it turns out, today, sitting here in 2026, there are more than fifty universities that are left. People were really enthusiastic about the web, online courses.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There was a book called Disrupting Class, which Clay Christensen wrote. He’s the developer of the theory of disruptive innovation. In 2009, he said that in 10 years, by 2019, half of all secondary school courses would be mediated online, that they would cost a third as much to deliver, and they would have better outcomes.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And my hunch is, if any of your listeners wander to their local public high school, they will not find that half of the classes are delivered online, that they will not find that the costs of running educational institutions have gone down by sixty-six percent, and they will not find, that the educational outcomes of the online learning experiences are substantially better than the ones that are being mediated by teachers. So there’s a pile of them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Now, this does not mean that these previous technologies haven’t changed anything about the classroom experience, or that they didn’t feel, in small ways, kind of magical. Here’s a story Justin likes to tell, one from before he became a researcher, back when he was a teacher.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> So when I went to go get my first teaching job, the department head was interviewing me the summer before and he said, “Can you teach world history?”And I said, “No, but I promise that if you hire me by September, I’ll figure out how to teach world history.” And he said, “Well, maybe.” And he said, “All right, one more thing, you’re gonna be teaching in this kind of trial classroom where there’s a cart of laptops in the corner. There are these blue and orange clamshell MacBooks”, this sort of iconic form factor.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And he said, you know, “And we’ve used ninth grade world history as sort of a testing bed to,” this was in 2003, “to see how these new computers could affect teaching and learning.” I said, “You can put a cart of bananas in the back corner of the classroom and I’ll teach with them. I just really need this job.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And he went ahead and hired me, and it was really fun teaching in that classroom. It was a moment where the world’s government and archives and museums were rapidly digitizing primary sources. And so as a history teacher, with those computers, I could really do some things that were quite different from my own high school education where, you know, maybe I had a book of primary source documents with 20 documents in it or something like that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Now I can, you know, you just sort of imagine like, oh, what was, you know, I wanna teach my students about the Harlem Renaissance. Oh, the Smithsonian has 20,000 song sheets from the Harlem Renaissance. They can each study their own document, which maybe nobody has looked at, in the last hundred years or something like that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Now, Justin says this was great. His students got a taste of what real historians do, find their own sources and documents and interpret them. But it also came with some hidden costs, in many ways, much greater than those of the computers themselves. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>I was working in a private school, and I also recognized that the kinds of resources that were required to keep those computers running, to keep them charged, to keep our networks running, to find the productive things that students were doing and to highlight them, to find the malicious things that students were doing and stop them, was an enormous amount of resources.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so the sort of incredible possibility of what students and me as a teacher could do with new computers was always balanced against the challenges and realities of turning those new affordances into everyday routines of learning that really helped students. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So fun, genuinely interesting, but not necessarily a game changer, and very resource intensive. I could see where this was going, and I wanted to know, is ChatGPT really just computers in classrooms all over again? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Yeah. Well, what is different, if anything, about generative AI? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>Well, I think we will by and large see those same kinds of patterns, I mean, people get really enthusiastic about the new technology that are in front of them to the point of dismissing the magic of previous technologies. There’s sort of an argument that emerges, which is kind of like… I’m calling it the web was met. Like you hear people say, like, “Well, you know, this AI thing is just totally different. I mean, we-\u003cs> \u003c/s>like, what could the web have possibly done?” I was like, “My guy, we took a handheld supercomputer, and we put it in the pocket of every child 13 years older in the networked world. We connected them to basically the world’s corpus of information, to every person they know, to every expert you can possibly imagine, and the effects on education range from not that much to maybe actually not that good.” You know, to the point where schools across the country are banning those mobile devices from people’s classrooms.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Justin says that like previous technologies, there will be some things that AI is really good at. They just won’t be, in his words, “transformative.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> They seem to be pretty good at translation. Like, maybe that will become less expensive, and that will be sort of helpful, but we actually… It’s gonna find that it’s not transformative to schools because, like, just translating materials is not, like, the only thing you need to unlock educating, you know, students that come from all over the world and speak all kinds of different languages.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m kind of enthusiastic about writing feedback, maybe. You know, one of the things we know is that, like, you need a lot of feedback to improve at things, and the machines seem to be able to generate reasonable writing feedback, but then you get other kinds of reports from classrooms that are like, “Yeah, my students really just want feedback from me, the human being teacher in the room,” because it turns out that most of what motivates us to learn is our social relationships with one another, and it doesn’t seem like social relationships with chatbots is a very promising direction for humanity to go.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, there is at least one kind of disruption that absolutely is happening in schools right now. So this very deep intel comes from my husband. He is a Chicago public school teacher. He teaches at high school.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>Excellent!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And so I asked him, I was like, “All right, I’m gonna talk to this ed tech expert.” Like, “Give me the lowdown. Like, what is happening in your high school?” And so he had a number of things to say, and so I’m gonna share these with you. I think we’ll do it, like, one at a time, and you can tell me if you are in any way surprised by this. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, to prevent students from using these chatbots to just do entire homework assignments, there’s been a big shift toward in-class assignments done on paper, which does seem to help with that cheating problem, but it introduces another challenge, which is that you’re then not spending that class time actually doing instruction.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Happening all over the place, happening in universities, happening in lots of different contexts. If, like definitely, one potential thing to be sad about is that, like, if you believed it could be possible that five years ago you could send students home to write stuff and be reasonably likely that they would write stuff, and then you could use class for the time of being together and engaging with one another.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And now it sounds like your husband, like many other teachers, believes, “If I want to read something that my students have actually written, I pretty much have to put them in a room and watch them write it themselves.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Yeah, I think it’s quite possible that there are millions of fewer minutes of homework being assigned than in previous years. And if you believe that homework gives students practice that’s valuable for their learning, then that could be a massive drawdown in the amount of learning time that students are doing. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So he and his colleagues have not entirely given up on the idea of homework, but what they’ve done is try to use technology to fight technology.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So he and his colleagues pay out of pocket, mind you, for a Google Doc extension that shows them a detailed history of the revisions made to a document. So the idea is you can actually see a video of an essay being constructed in real time, kind of sped up. And the downside is that it is still possible for students to cheat.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>They just, they ask ChatGPT to write the essay, and then they’re literally sitting there, like, typing the essay from ChatGPT into Google Docs at, like, roughly a pace that they think it would look like you know, a 17-year-old comes up with thoughts in a unique manner and things like that. It’s kind of an interesting learning experience for the students, but obviously they’re not learning the thing that they’re supposed to be doing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Yeah, like, the best possible use of your husband’s expertise is not surveilling students’ writing. I think we could find that as we ramp up the level of surveillance in schools, that that’s really not good for a democratic society, that you know, that a certain amount of privacy, a certain amount of freedom from surveillance is actually necessary for the Republic to continue as a Republic.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>In the context that he’s in, what he’s doing is sensible, but if you aggregate that context across a lot of classrooms, you’re like, “Oh, that could be really bad, actually.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah. And I’ll share one more with you. So the last thing he mentioned is building, he calls it “layers of resistance.” So for an essay, this might mean breaking down an assignment into a bunch of different pieces. Then students do each piece separately, and then once they’ve already done that work, they then combine it into a longer piece. So, you are making it easier to do the eventual assignment yourself since you’ve had to do earlier parts yourself before.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But you’re also making it harder to cheat because that would be, you know, just a lot more difficult to cheat at each of those steps and then combine them into cheating. And again, he says it’s fairly effective, and that’s kinda like his favorite strategy right now. And I asked him, I said, “Well, is this having the effect of requiring your students to kind of use training wheels to think longer than they would otherwise?”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> So training wheels to think is oftentimes better than we imagine it is. There’s a group of educational researchers that are interested in this set of ideas called cognitive load theory, and an idea that we often have is that people become experts by behaving like experts. And they sort of argue, “No, no, no when people develop expertise, it looks quite different than being an expert.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I mean, you do, I think, Jess, have a good intuition there, which is like, “man, at some point, the kids, like, before they leave high school, probably just need to be able to write the essay.” Like, that it seems like that would be a pretty good thing, that we would want young people to be able to independently generate an argument in prose.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>At least for the last, like, 30 years, we’ve thought that’s a pretty good idea to do, you know, with computers in particular. And boy, is generative AI making it hard for teachers to assign that task that we think is pretty good. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>But after going into these specifics, like, wouldn’t you agree that this is pretty transformative in terms of what students are actually doing during the school day?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>I mean, definitely not transformative in the sense of, “Boy, this is great.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Justin really wouldn’t take the bait here. He was adamant. No, we don’t have any great evidence that how teachers and students actually spend their days, think lectures, group work, has really changed that much over the past couple of years, or for that matter, the past few decades, even if take-home essays are basically off the table now. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I kept at him. That’s after the break.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>It does seem like one really big difference right now is that there’s a lot of discussions about how AI is or isn’t going to change the kind of future and work that we’re preparing students for. I’m curious if you’re seeing, you know, is that impacting students’ motivation to learn, which would obviously have a very big impact in the classrooms.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I guess it also could start to change the question of what school should be for. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>Yes. New technologies are a great catalyst to provoke conversations about what schools are for. In the last few decades, we’ve been particularly interested in the question, like, how do you prepare individuals for work in the labor market?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Although if you go through the history of schooling, you know, in the United States, we have public schools as a bulwark of our democracy. When Thomas Jefferson wrote about public schooling in the notes of the State of Virginia, and proposed the system of public schooling, it would be so that our nascent democracy would continue to exist and have citizens who are prepared to take on their roles as citizens.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But, you know, citizenship is gonna change with generative AI, too, and so we should be thinking about some of those kinds of changes. My hunch is if you went to all of the K-12 schools in the United States, you would not see huge changes in student motivation because like, students are not that great at thinking about their long-term futures.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, students primarily, like, they do not care that much about the subjects that we teach, for the most part. They care a ton about their teacher and their peers. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Well, whether the students feel it or not, I guess my question would be to you, do you think that schools should be rethinking what education is for in this moment?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> I don’t know – I think we should start by saying we don’t know. Not only do we not know, but historically, when we’ve made some of these guesses in the past, we’ve been wrong. So you could look at things like, you know, the sort of computer science industry telling people that it’s enormously important to learn to code in order to get good jobs, and now there’s a possibility that computer programming won’t actually be a very viable field in the near future.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And, and these things go back histor- You know, in the 19th century, there were a group of educators who passionately believed that you really had to teach sentence diagramming – that if you didn’t teach sentence diagramming, like, Western civilization would fall. And we’ve mostly stopped teaching sentence diagramming, and maybe Western civilization will fall apart, but it’s probably not gonna be for the lack of sentence diagramming.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Cursive. The great cursive debate. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>The great cursive debate continues. Here, here, here are two stories you could tell about AI. One story you could tell about AI is that there is a lot to learn to figure out how to use AI, and that students should begin the process of learning that as soon as possible, that there should be a set of scaffold experiences, that we should change our curriculum, so that as people get older and older, there are more and more tasks that they do in partnership with AI, ’cause partnering with AI is hard to learn how to do, and if they do it with the supervision of teachers, they’ll be better.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>A second story that you could tell is that getting generative AI to spit stuff out is actually super easy, that there really is not that much to learn, and that what really differentiates people who are proficient and less proficient with using generative AI is whether or not they can evaluate output. Since the output is highly uneven, what you really need are people who can say, “Oh, this is a good idea, this is a good practice, and this one is not.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>It could be that there’s actually very little general expertise that you can develop to distinguish good output from bad output. What you probably primarily need is domain knowledge. Like, if you ask ChatGPT a question about plumbing, there’s nothing about AI which is gonna tell you whether or not it gave you a good plumbing answer.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>What you need to know about is plumbing. If that was the case, if domain expertise was sort of the key differentiator in people skills in using AI, then that would be pretty good news for schools and universities, ’cause the main thing they’ve done for however many hundreds of years is try to help people develop domain expertise.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> But I don’t- as a civilization, science does not know the answer to those two stories. Science cannot tell you today which of those two stories is correct. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yeah, it’s interesting. So I’m guessing you’re not a big fan of some of these moves more recently by school districts, university systems, states, even potentially the federal government, to implement various AI competency or AI literacy requirements.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I will point out some of these seem more, you know, pro-technology, like giving the students the skills they need to succeed with these technologies. Others actually take a bit more of a defensive crouch, like let’s teach students the critical thinking skills so they can discriminate between the good and the bad. But there is nonetheless a lot of overlap, which is that these requirements purport to prepare students to live in a world alongside AI. And I’m curious what you make of those. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> Well, one thing that we’ve tried over the last twenty years in the United States is a strategy they might call, like, the ‘tech literacy’ strategy, where every time a new technology comes along, you define a set of skills that correlate with that technology.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You write some policy documents that say schools should be teaching those things, and then you, like, bake it for a while and watch and see what happens. And, like, if you were to pick a sort of education reform strategy that we could be almost certain does not work, it would be that one.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>It works really well for pundits and policymakers. Like, it’s a great way for policymakers to be like, “Look, we did a thing. We passed a bill which says you have to learn some stuff.” But what you actually have to do to make a difference in schools is you have to translate those policy guidance into curriculum documents.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There are 3.5 million teachers in the United States. Like your husband, one in every one hundred living Americans has to raise their hand and say, “I will be a teacher this year,” in order for our system to function. To improve the capacity of 3.5 million people is mind-bogglingly complex.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You could probably tell me the number of minutes or hours that your husband has gotten for, you know, AI-related professional development, and I bet the number is not super high. What I’m sure of is the number is not commensurate to some kind of transformational change. And so, I mean, I’m not opposed to that strategy on any kind of ideological or philosophical… Like, sounds kind of great to me. Just historically, it has not worked at all. Go ask young people – “have people, have young people describe their social media practices to you?”, and you’ll be like, “Oh, that sounds pretty bad and not good for your health, actually.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But there has been ten or fifteen years of, like, social media literacy in schools. Like, ask one of your students to, like, save a file to a folder, and watch their head explode. And you’ll be like, “Oh, maybe, like, we’re not that good at teaching digital literacy in schools.” So one is just, like, an efficacy approach – But even if you believe that that, like, general approach would work, you have to sort of ask the question, like, what kinds of things are we gonna stuff into that AI fluency and AI literacy?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, what should that be? And I think we really, to this day, don’t know. So I mentioned before that I went to DeepMind the other day in London, and I cornered every engineer I could find, and I said, “Do you know how to train a junior engineer to code with a copilot?” I asked in big groups, in small groups, one-on-one. There was not an engineer or program manager there who told me yes. Every single one of them told me, “We do not know how to do that.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> DeepMind, Google’s elite AI laboratory. Justin went to a conference there about AI and education. And when he says that software engineers told him that they don’t know how to train a junior engineer to code with a copilot, what he means is that they may have protocols and practices, but they’re not yet confident that they work.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is a major concern in the software industry. Many big companies are adopting coding assistants like Claude Code, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, and Codex. Senior engineers can thrive in this kind of environment. They can prompt the AI with exactly what they’re looking for, and then they can manually check the outputs and write their own code when something goes wrong.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>A much more junior engineer can also use these code assistants to generate code that seems like it works, but if it has a bug or a vulnerability, they may not notice or be able to fix it. And worse, they may never get a chance to develop their skills further. So we could end up with a generation of software engineers who don’t understand how the software works, can’t fix it if it goes wrong, and have shaky ideas of what is technologically possible. Not ideal. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Companies know this could be a problem, so they’re experimenting with protocols for junior engineers, but this is all so new that nobody knows yet if these protocols will work. And they were frank about this with Justin. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>If Google, which has billions and billions of dollars at stake to answer this question, does not know how to teach a junior engineer how to code with a copilot, like, what is a seventh grade middle school’s computer science teacher supposed to do?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, what would AI literacy in that class look like until Google can figure it out? That is an excellent point. So you mentioned earlier this idea that, in general, previous educational technologies have – if they’ve had a positive impact, it’s been toward the students who are already either high-performing or come from very high-resourced schools.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I wanna ask you a little bit about special education, and in particular, kind of the extreme edges of special education. So this is kind of personal for me. My 11-year-old now, she has a rare genetic disorder, and I would say she does fall in that sort of extreme end of the continuum. Like, she literally will not look at a piece of paper if it hasn’t been, like, personalized with things that, you know, her teachers and aides and therapists know will draw her attention.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so there’s certainly this kind of low-hanging fruit that I could see being very easy helping, you know, busy professionals in the classroom. But I do see the possibility of something a little bit more transformative in a positive way – for kids whose brains just work so differently that the professionals involved don’t always have a ton of intuition about what will work.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So we talk a lot about AI having these jagged skills that are hard to understand from the outside, so being amazing at one skill and, like, hilariously bad at another. But there is a population of students for whom this is also true. I think a very concrete example here is severe language disabilities.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So right now, the vast majority of educational instruction is done via language. If you have a kid whose language skills are significantly more impaired than their other skills, how do you teach them? How do you assess them? Non-verbal assessments do exist, but guess how the instructions are given? They’re given in language.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And it just seems like this place where a tool that can radically personalize, that’s completely agnostic to how a student chooses to answer a question, that has zero preconceived ideas about what will or won’t be an effective learning tool, could be transformative. And I know this is very hand-wavy, it’s very in the distance, but is there something here?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> Oh well, for sure. So first, I’m definitely rooting for these people – I mean, I’m always rooting for the people who are making education much, much better. My, like, very boring, sometimes sad job is to, like, hop into these conversations and be like, “That would totally be great. Just, we should remember that people have been working on this for decades, and progress tends to be more measured.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>That’s why they call you the skeptic. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>There’s this whole field called universal design for learning, which, you know, has observed for a long time, sometimes better to think of curriculum as disabled than people as disabled. The curriculum is just not presenting information in ways and in mechanisms that people with different kinds of ability can access. And so we should do a better job of reinventing our curriculum and, you know, in fact, as we start bringing generative AI into the application of these kinds of things in special education, we don’t have to start from scratch. We can start from decades of effort of people using computers to do these same kinds of things.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, translation is one thing that we mentioned, putting learning resources into different kinds of modalities. So if there are people who don’t read text well, then we can just have the machine speak the text. You know, a strategy that we’ve tried a lot is to build just-in-time learning supports for people into resources, saying like, “Okay, if this learning resource in its current form isn’t working for you, like, push this button and it will talk. Push this button and the reading level will change. Push this button and this other kind of feature of it can be modified to suit your needs.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>What we found historically is that the kids that we most want to push those buttons are not the ones who push the button. The like high-performing kids push the ‘Help Me’ button and the kids who we most wish would push the, like, ‘Give Me Some Extra Resources’ or ‘Change This to Support Me’ button would.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, when we talk to teachers across the country, adapting resources to folks with different kinds of abilities is one of the things that they’re most enthusiastic. The you know, generative AI technologies might be able to help them do, and I’m rooting for them, and I hope that there are companies that figure out ways of doing this more sustainably and at scale. And I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw some potential benefits from that. And those benefits are most likely to emerge not in the places where people download the, you know, the software that personalizes things for students with different learning capacities and things like that. It’s gonna be where whole communities are able to, like, rethink the way that they do special education in the context of that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And, you know, and it’s probably gonna be that students who live in more affluent places are gonna have the kinds of systemic resources that allow for all that training and adoption to occur.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>This idea of resources, it’s an important one, and not just for special education because every dollar, every hour of an educator’s time, it comes at the expense of money or time spent elsewhere, including on things that we do know work. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>And the worst case scenario, which I think we’ve seen a lot of places, is that we make substantial additional investments, both in technology platforms and then in a bunch of extra humans to manage those technology platforms.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so the cost of schooling goes up, but because at best, the gains of those technology platforms is pretty moderate, you’re like adding a whole bunch of additional expense. Like, you know, you’re basically like in the Chicago Public Schools, like you bought all these Google Docs, and you bought all of these computers so that all the students can use them, and you bought all these IT professionals because the computers break all the time, and your husband like, is like, “Well, actually, the best thing to do is to have them write essays on pencils and paper.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Well, that’s an awful lot of money that we’re spending on all of this infrastructure to sit in a closet while your students are writing in composition notebooks. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Will AI transform K-12 education? Justin really doesn’t think so. And frankly, I’m not sure whether to be disappointed or relieved by that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, there is something reassuring about a world where students continue to learn the same kinds of things that I learned when I was in school. It’s certainly preferable to one where the whole educational system grinds to a panicked halt because they’ve decided students don’t need to learn anything anymore.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But on the other hand, it seems my dreams of some automated tool that can magically help my daughter learn in a way no human has yet managed to is probably not right around the corner either. And I still think that experiments will be important, including the kind of ambitious, dare I say transformative experiments that folks like my colleague Sébastien Martin are pursuing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We have to know what’s possible, and then we’ll need to roll up our sleeves. Test, learn, make sure that whatever gains we see in one classroom with one teacher can eventually benefit a much larger group of students. Because, and I’ll end with this, even our resident skeptic Justin agrees. At the end of the day, alongside all the headaches, new technologies do bring new capabilities. And little by little, these capabilities can tangibly improve the status quo. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich: \u003c/strong>I mean, the things that do work, it’s probably going to be more like 10 or 20 years of development rather than sort of stumbling across something which works super well in a year or two. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So it could be transformative for the better, but it’s just going to take a ton of work and dedication and probably resources to get there.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Justin Reich:\u003c/strong> My colleague Ken Kaedinger says that step change is what 25 years of incremental change looks like from a distance.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED. Special thanks to today’s guest, Justin Reich. Jesse Dukes is our producer. Music by Steven Jackson. Recording help from Will Feeney and George Christensen. Marketing support from Ananya Mallapragada. Administrative support, recording, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12095781/why-ai-might-not-change-education-much-at-all-with-justin-reich",
"authors": [
"12009"
],
"programs": [
"news_37188"
],
"categories": [
"news_18540",
"news_33520",
"news_248"
],
"tags": [
"news_25184",
"news_37354",
"news_20013",
"news_35401",
"news_1631"
],
"featImg": "news_12095788",
"label": "news_37188"
},
"news_12094640": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12094640",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12094640",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1786528800000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "an-optimists-take-on-ai-and-the-future-of-learning-with-sebastien-martin",
"title": "An Optimist’s Take on AI and the Future of Learning (with Sébastien Martin)",
"publishDate": 1786528800,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "An Optimist’s Take on AI and the Future of Learning (with Sébastien Martin) | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 37188,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://transcript\">View full episode \u003c/a>\u003ca href=\"#transcript\">transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>As AI tools spread through classrooms, many educators see a “cheating factory.” Kellogg Professor \u003ca href=\"https://sebastienmartin.info/\">\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin\u003c/strong>\u003c/a> sees things differently: as a chance to reinvent how and what we teach. In his operations management class, students trade PDFs for lifelike chatbots, log conversations with Socratic AI tutors, and use AI to explore the kinds of social and political dynamics that students normally have to learn on the job. But Martin also grapples with harder questions: What about public schools with fewer resources? When should kids use AI at all? And how can students stay hopeful and true to their own interests in a wildly uncertain future? (Part 1/2 in our back-to-school series.)\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Further Reading: \u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-is-teaching-the-next-generation-of-m-b-a-s-the-classic-case-study-a4eb4227\">AI Is Teaching the Next Generation of M.B.A.s the Classic Case Study\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> This is Life, Automated, the show that explores how to live, work, and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. By now, I’m sure you’re aware education has been hit hard by AI. It’s not exactly a secret why. You remember being a student. Maybe you are still a student. You work, you learn, you get your grade, your degree, and then you leave school better prepared for life.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Or at least that was the deal. Today’s students essentially have the world’s greatest cheating machine right at their fingertips, and that part about needing to learn to prepare for life, says who? If AI can do it, will you ever even need to? So maybe it’s no surprise that students are some of the heaviest adopters of AI, a trend that AI companies are very happy to facilitate, thank you.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And this puts educators in a tough place. I want to be upfront about this. Education is changing in ways we still don’t understand, and educators in universities, high schools, middle schools, are on the front lines. Many are not happy about AI. They didn’t ask for it, and they have real concerns that it will harm their students.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Next episode, we’ll go deep into the challenges they face. But today, something different. Today, we’ll be talking to someone who looks at generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude, and sees mostly opportunities.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Sébastien Martin is a colleague of mine here at Kellogg, an associate professor of operations. He studies AI, he teaches MBA students about AI, and in his operations management classroom, he’s replaced a lot of pen and paper-based activities with AI-powered simulations. In these simulations, rather than AI making it easier for students to finish whatever assignment is on hand, it slows them down, makes them work even harder.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I got to experience this firsthand. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I feel like maybe you’re not doing your part. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>Oh, she’s not happy. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>She says, “I am doing my part. That’s a job. What I’m not gonna do is pretend the existing system works the way headquarters imagines.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Sébastien believes that AI has already made him not just a better instructor, but a happier, more creative, more inspired one, and his students agree.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Kellogg’s graduating class chose him as the winner of the 2026 David Bisenko Outstanding Professor of the Year Award. I’ve come to see Sébastien as a virtuoso of a strange new art form. And amidst the big, even existential challenges facing education, I think it’s important to tell these kinds of stories, too.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love, and this is Life, Automated, a project from Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, distributed by KQED.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>My conversation with Sébastien began with him telling me how, as soon as ChatGPT came on the scene, he got busy experimenting, trying to see if it could help him improve his operations management class. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> In a way, you know, when you have 140 students at the same time, for example, or even more, 200, it’s hard to have individualized conversations with everyone with my time, and I only have this time where it’s me with all the students at the same time.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But if they all talk to an AI that personalize the conversation to their own background, I can task the AI to connect the class content with their background. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>The idea is that a student could feed their CV into an AI chatbot that had been trained on Sébastien’s course materials, and the AI would ask some probing questions, ultimately connecting the dots between a student’s individual work experience and interests and what the course would cover.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And this was kind of, was it to just get the student excited about the class? Was that kind of the point of this exercise? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> So the point was for them to know even before they take it why we think it’s good for them to be there. Which changes everything because if you have the attention of people as you even just get started, then communication just flows a little bit better. And if you think about it, there’s no way for me to do this without AI. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Sébastien was such an early adopter of the technology that he was using it before most of his students to solve problems that had nothing to do with AI at all. But it didn’t take too long for AI to start causing problems, too. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>You know, AI came like a wrecking ball. And, you know, like, what’s even the meaning of a take-home exam anymore? You know, you can trust the students not to use ChatGPT, but we are at the point where you can just take a screenshot of the exam on your phone and get A+ for everything technical. And so it’s just unfair to ask the students to do it this way. And because, like, how do you even grade it, because some students would respect the rule and maybe a few will run out of time and ask the help of AI. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>It’s been well over three years since Sébastien started experimenting with AI in his classroom. And these days, nearly everything about his course looks pretty different. Some of these changes have been spurred by AI making it really, really easy for students to cheat. But Sébastien says that other changes are more about problems with the old ways of doing things. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>Think about our old ways to evaluate, right? I have students coming from so many different backgrounds that care about so many different things, and I have to have one exam that’s graded by people that don’t necessarily understand their background. And so what does it push us to do? It pushes us to standardization, to always asking, like, very abstract questions about things, or to focus on math instead of, like, deeper understanding about the world, because these can be evaluated more easily. I love math, but it becomes just an exercise in itself, like, almost like a Sudoku. At the end of the day, the exam is just asking them to manipulate numbers because this is what I can evaluate. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So let’s get concrete here. With simple problem sets basically out the window, what does Sébastien’s class look like today? Well, for homework, Sébastien might require his students to converse with an AI tutor for maybe 30 minutes, walking through concepts and connecting them to their own experiences. That tutor might be trained in the Socratic method so that rather than giving answers like a standard chatbot, it pushes students to do the thinking themselves. Then, instead of turning in answers, students would upload a log of their chat to be graded pass or fail. Or maybe the tutoring goes the other way. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> The homework I just gave, like, a few weeks ago is the, student has to teach the AI what they learn in the last class. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Ah, interesting. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> You see that we say learning by teaching is, like, one of the best ways to learn. And as a professor, I can say that’s very true because I created a new class on AI and I learned a lot just by teaching it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Of course, this technology is changing fast, and there’s really nothing stopping students from building their own AI agent or autonomous AI tool to interact with Sébastien’s AI, and turning in a log of that conversation. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>That’s one of the main obstacles our instructors want to get into AI, because it just feels it’s constantly evolving, and whatever I do now, I fix a problem, another problem will appear later. So it’s a very, very real concern.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, and this is hard because I’ve done, you know, way back in the day I taught some classes myself, and the first time you teach something, it can be kind of a train wreck, right? And then you kinda get better over time, and you learn what works. So how do you as a professor or a teacher keep up?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> I would turn the question around, and this is why I try to put my students in the loop as much as possible. It’s like, “Here’s the deal,” like, “What is good for you?” You know? “Why are we doing this homework? Why are we doing all of that?” The goal is not just to go for the grade. That would be the mistake.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, the goal is at the end of the day, you know, you learn something. And, you know, if AI is becoming more and more of a commodity that can do anything for us, our deep expertise and our personal thoughts and what makes us unique has even more value, because that’s what differentiates all of it, rather than the things that AI can just automate, you know?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so I think at the end of the day, the answer to this question is also, it’s not only on the professor’s side, it’s also on the students. Like, why are you at Kellogg? What do you wanna get out of all of this? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Some of the changes that Sébastien has made to his class, they aren’t planned. He’ll be in the middle of teaching, he’ll get an idea for how to make something better, and just use AI to make it happen.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>For example, just a week before our interview, his students were in small breakout groups using class time to discuss a case study, that staple of business school education. The time was flying by. Sure, the students were having wonderful discussions in their small groups, but Sébastien was getting frustrated, realizing there would not be enough time for the entire class to reflect on the ideas that the individual groups had generated.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So while the students were still in their breakout groups, Sébastien explained the dilemma to Claude Code, a popular AI coding tool. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> And so Claude Code was like, “No problem. Let’s do it,” and created something, and by the time students had sent their reply, we had a custom-made software, which was kind of like a constellation of ideas that popped up on the board, and we could see quotes from all the students and the ideas that they had in common and not in common, and this enabled a much deeper conversation because I was able to share all this information instead of just, like, talking to, you know, like, three, four students that were willing to share their ideas.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, it’s just a small thing, but it’s changed the way I taught this class, and it did use AI, and at the end of the day, it’s just about your creativity. Like, it’s a tool that is so powerful that, you know, sometimes, you know, as an instructor, you go, “Oh, it’d be so good to have this,” and then you just use it, and it creates a much better experience.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And you see here in that case, it increased the communications between humans. Like, of course, AI can sometimes take away from what we do, but in that case, I think it added to what we do. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Now, there are tools already on the market that can do this kind of thing. But what was unique was that Sébastien was able to create them on the fly, in that moment for that class. And the best example of how AI has changed Sébastien’s course has to do with the experience of reading the case itself. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> So we turned it into, instead of me giving them a PDF, I tell them that they can interview, “People” from the company and ask any question they want. And I give them access to the CEO, to the CFO, to, like, a frontline worker, to anyone, and then they have to understand the company deeply, kind of like consulting. You interview people, and you understand their relationship, and they all have very different point of views, and some of them don’t even wanna talk to you, and so on. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Well, and “people” are, of course, chatbots with, like, personalities and information that you’ve given them. This is the activity that has gotten Sébastien the most attention, including a big write-up in The Wall Street Journal. I wanted to try it, and Sébastien was kind enough to mentor me through his simulation. We pull it up on his desktop. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Okay, so I am a consultant at Proxima Health Systems?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> Yeah, you’re an AI expert, and they called you because they wanna have a big AI project, and they want it to be successful. And your point of contact is Maya Chen. She’s the leader of this After Visit AI program. Like, she has an AI agent she wants you to build. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay, and so I can just start talking to her and say, like, “Hey.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> Yeah, she’s just waiting for you. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> There’s a whole bunch of little avatars representing different people at the company, and I can pick one to have a text chat with. I see the avatar for Maya, my point of contact, and I begin to type. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>‘\u003c/strong>Hi there. I’d love some clarification on what you want me to accomplish.’\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Maya tells me that I, the AI expert consultant, will be building her company an AI tool that helps automate the after-visit forms that sales reps fill out after they visit their customers’ hospitals. And after a bit of back and forth with Maya about some of the players involved, including Marcus, a sales manager, and a bit of help from Sébastien, I start to get a sense of the nitty-gritty details involved in my assignment.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> And so for this, we have a CRM system, a customer relationship management system, which is like this big database where rep have to enter information. But they hate it. It has to be formatted, made in a very specific way. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Ah, I hate it already. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>They spend hours every week. And then so this is why, like, there is this sort of tension because Marcus needs them to enter this information, but they’re like, “Yeah, it doesn’t represent what we see on the ground. Why do you want me to spend all my time on this instead of with the customer?” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Okay, got it. Maya, Marcus, and others in the company want to automate the after-visit forms that the salespeople fill out, apparently to make things easier on the sales team. But then I chat with a member of the sales team, Dana, and Dana doesn’t necessarily think AI will help. She thinks the whole customer relationship system is messed up. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>‘Dana makes a number of points. She says it’s like whiplash. She can spend 30 minutes in a unit with a nurse manager who’s stressed out of her mind. She catches the real issue. They come to a conclusion, and then she’s supposed to translate that into 12 little CRM boxes that don’t fit how hospitals actually talk, and then the managers wonder why the notes are vague.’\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And Dana is a little suspicious of \u003cem>me\u003c/em>, the AI consultant. Here’s how she puts it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>“What exactly are you trying to solve? Time, accuracy, or the manager chasing us for missing fields?”\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Ooh.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> You’re in the middle of it right now. I am in the middle of it. It’s hard to help her without more information, understanding everything.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I decide to try to get Dana in line with some tough talk. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>‘All right, Dana. I hear what you’re saying, but you do realize that you are part of this big organization that has a lot of really important goals? I feel like maybe you’re not doing your part.’\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> Oh, she’s not happy. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>She says, “I am doing my part. That’s the job. What I’m not gonna do is pretend the existing system works the way headquarters imagines.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>How dare you question that I’m doing my job? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: ‘\u003c/strong>Thanks, Dana. I appreciate the straight talk. I love straight talk. What would you like to see?’ \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And now I’m really starting to understand this scenario. It’s not just about coming up with some kind of AI-powered solution to data collection. It’s about understanding the social dynamics in the company. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>‘Cause she’s very afraid. She says, “Not cutting heads.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: Not cutting heads. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>She’s really afraid that you’re coming with AI trying to take over her job. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh, yeah. That’s a good point. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>You know? Because we’re automating a part of the job that she and her teams do. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: Once I understand that there’s anxiety in this company about AI taking jobs, and that this anxiety is driving so many problems, I start having more productive chats with the different characters, and we start making progress.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is what Sebastien says this kind of AI-driven exercise is designed to explore. How to keep asking questions until you understand what’s actually going on, the problems behind the problem, the stuff that only rarely ends up on any official brief. I think there is a risk in education where I’m like, “This is the truth.” This is the answer to this problem.” And, you know, like, for example, if you go on Instagram and you have your newsfeed, you’re not asking for the next thing you wanna see. We’re just so used to just information being provided to us and not to have to think. And then you get into the middle of this and you have a “real person” you talk to, you actually need to decide what’s your next step.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But this is actually where all the thinking happens, right? You’re like, you need to be aware of what you understand and what you don’t understand. You need to, like, plan ahead. You need to also manage your relationship with them. And I think this is where I think the most. Actually, it’s what I feel like it’s the most important thing to think about, in life, you know, in general.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I think we don’t have many tools that are not meant to just, like, provide us with the answer, but are meant for us to ask the right question and for us to learn more. And I think AI is a wonderful tool for that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Here, the AI tool isn’t being used to make things easier on students. It’s not making it faster to read the case or offering up a streamlined summary. It’s slowing students down, making them think more. Or that’s the idea. So are his students learning more using this AI-powered simulation than they would’ve the old way, discussing PDFs or writing short essays? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>It’s hard to answer this question for sure. You can only capture it with exams and stuff like that. But AI cases, in the context of this class, were not something that was graded. They were something meant for conversations in the classroom. So then the second best I can give you is I had the most fun I’ve ever had teaching a case. Like, the participation of the students was through the roof.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>They had so many ideas. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Sébastien acknowledges that it’s hard to know for sure. Just because students enjoy an activity, recognize it with a teaching award, doesn’t always mean that they’re learning more. But the students tell him they’re learning more because the scenarios feel real. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>The students say that it was very useful to them, especially the students who came from consulting. They say it’s exactly the type of thing I had to be good at. It’s great to see it in the context of AI and so on. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>After the break, this strikes me as the dream scenario for AI in the classroom. But just how common is this dream scenario? Is it limited to the classrooms of super AI savvy teachers, or does Sébastien’s optimism extend to other classrooms, too?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I, like a lot of people, think about this technology as having the ability to both empower people and to disempower or overwhelm them. And it seems like for you, the primary experience has been one of empowerment. But I wanna point out, you are kind of a special case. You are somebody who studies AI, is very, very familiar with using algorithms, and was even before ChatGPT came on the scene, and you also teach highly motivated students at a top business school.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And this is not true of most educators. So my husband teaches high school at Chicago Public Schools, and he assures me that the general consensus among public high school teachers is not one of empowerment. I think a lot of schools are strapped for resources. They don’t always have the opportunity to train instructors in how to manage this technology, and a lot of them have just come to see this as a widespread cheating factory. And so I’m just kind of curious how you think about that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>I mean, first, thank you so much for asking this question. Something I think about a lot, and first it’s very important to highlight that I come from a place of privilege in so many dimensions, as you mentioned. And, you know, because I, so I speak more and more publicly, like right now, about this topic, and I’m always like, “What should you say?” Because, you know, as you saw in this conversation, I choose to highlight the positive because I know that people are very aware of the negative. And I think seeing a bit of light at the end of the tunnel can help. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And it is true, you know, that I was lucky to start early and lucky to be in the position I was, and to iterate over time, and I made many, many mistakes. There are things that worked, things that didn’t work. I would say the message, and I really don’t wanna deny at all what public education is going through. I’ve worked a lot also with public education and I know how hard a job it can be, but also how rewarding. What I wanna say is give it a chance.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, this technology, for good or bad reason, is most likely here to stay. And if you iterate a little bit with Claude, ChatGPT, whatever, you’ll quickly realize after you overcome this barrier of, you know, not resentment, but this barrier or, like, this technology is really making my job complicated, you quickly realize that it’s a neutral technology.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, it can do a lot of harm, but it can also allow you as an instructor to create new things and to solve some of the problems. And at first you start very small. You know, you have all of this, like, I forgot how you were saying, like, this cheating factory thing. But then you’re like, “Oh, I can maybe use it that way.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And actually that had a small positive impact. And it looks like a drop in the ocean. But then because you open this door, then curiosity gets in. What if I could do this? And what if I could do that? And all I can say, I know it’s a very minimal point, is there are good things. And yes, they take time, and they take trial and error, and all I can do is show examples. But I think there is value in just knowing that you can use this technology for good. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So, I am a parent. My kids are a little younger than the students we’ve been talking about, two elementary school-aged kids. And I personally do not want them using AI right now, partly because I think they already spend enough of their lives staring at screens. That is the perennial parenting battle of our age. But also because I want them to learn some really core skills about how to go through the world, and think about problems themselves before I provide them with the scaffolding that AI would provide. And so I wanna ask you, do you think there are some skills that people should have before they turn to AI to learn something?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>I mean, of course take everything that I’m about to say with a grain of salt, because I’m not an expert in that. You’re way more of an expert than me. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>We’ll bring in some folks to rebut you point by point. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>But, you know, and also, I wanna highlight that we hear so much about AI these days. I think what’s super, super important to say is we don’t know. You know, like they say, wisdom is to know when you don’t know. Nobody knows where AI is going, okay? Like, but then it’s still good to talk about scenarios, and your analogy with the screens or the smartphone is a great one. You know, there has been a lot of debates, on not allowing screen times and, like, this leading to, children learning more to interact with the world and with each other.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I think it could be great to do this with AI. I mean, that sounds like a great strategy to me. Then, the one caveat I wanna say on this is one pet peeve that I have is I don’t think AI means anything. It’s kind of you saying humans or electricity. Like, is electricity good or bad? Should we forbid kids to access electricity?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I think there are ways to use AI that could be net positives and there are ways to use AI that could be a disaster. So when we say allow kids to access AI, often we think ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, like the basic thing you can ask all your questions. But for example, I was just talking to a parent and they were playing with their children to create their own song for a story that they invented.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And they used AI to like, put their lyrics that they co-created into a nice song and they were singing it together. Is it a bad use of AI or does it increase creativity? I heard another parent has ChatGPT to, you know, create like, these frames of drawing that you can draw into on things that were very personal. Like they just went on vacation somewhere and let’s actually draw what we went through. And you know you cannot buy a book that’s so personalized. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Like a coloring book of their exact vacation. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>Exactly. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh, that’s, that is kind of cool. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>You see? Like another example and maybe more the fringe of what’s acceptable is there’s a lot of, there are ways to turn ChatGPT into something that don’t think for you. So the way AI works is there are hidden instructions, and AI follows these hidden instructions. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>That’s right. If you didn’t know, most chatbots have some version of hidden instructions to guide their use; and as a user, you can change the default settings for these instructions, specify how the AI should respond to prompts, including how much information it should provide.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>In the hidden instructions called a system message, you can ask the AI, “Look, you’re talking to a child. Here’s what we really want to avoid. We want them to feel for, to think for themselves. We want them to learn how to be independent. We don’t want them to learn how to rely on you instead of thinking.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But maybe you can encourage their curiosity. And then you let the children talk to this version of ChatGPT, and the AI will just reply to their questions with other questions, and what do you think about this, and what do you think about that? Maybe it’s better than just staring at an iPad on YouTube, you know? Maybe it actually leads you to, to think a bit deeper. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>For the record, I will not be tasking ChatGPT to chat with my children anytime soon, even in appropriately Socratic only ask questions mode. But that coloring book idea, it’s actually kind of a good one, and I take his point. We really don’t know. We don’t know how helpful or harmful AI will ultimately be as an educational tool. Stepping back a bit though, I wanted to know what advice he would have for students, the people on the other end of the educational process. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>I mean, the first one, which is, you know, the one thing I want us to remember from this podcast is, like, stay hopeful. Because, you know, there are reasons to despair from time to time, and especially as humans, we are really not good at dealing with uncertainty. Like, second, staying hopeful and being aware that we tend to only see the downside instead of all the unexpected upside that can come later.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Everyone is in the same boat. Like, it feels like it’s me that doesn’t know what the next step to choose and so on, like what studies should I go for, how should I learn and so on. But it’s not only me, it’s the whole society that has to adapt at the same time. And I think that at least for me, it helps me feel a bit better about it, like, the idea that it’s not me that doesn’t know what to do next and it’s all of us together.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it’s like we’re all collectively gonna go through this crazy period together. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>Exactly. And so the more we can, you know, like help each other and so on, the better it is. And, finally, what do you do? You have this huge uncertainty. I’m saying, okay, take it with a grain of salt with all the feedback you receive about what you think you should do and so on, and all of us together.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I think a flip side of that is, if you’re, it’s pure uncertainty and we don’t exactly know where things are going, maybe the best thing to do is to follow your heart. I know it sounds a bit cheesy, but you know, at the end of the day, I think it’s better, like, try for all of us to maybe not conform as much as possible and what’s expected of us and follow more, like, our instinct. Maybe there has never been a better time to do that because the uncertainty of the system is the system is gonna change so much that maybe the best path to follow is just what we really like to do.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Thank you so much. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>Thank you. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>AI is forcing students and educators to adapt. And while a lot of attention has been focused on cheating and outsourcing thinking, I think Sébastien makes a compelling case that this adaptation will have some real upsides, that new kinds of learning experiences are now possible, including ones that ask more of students, not less.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But of course, AI is not the first technology to barge into schools. Next episode, we’ll look at how previous technologies have changed education, particularly for younger students, what those technologies delivered, what they failed to deliver, and what this could mean for today’s high schoolers, middle schoolers, elementary school kids growing up alongside AI.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love. This is Life, Automated, a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, distributed by KQED. A special thanks to today’s guest, Sébastien Martin. We’re produced by Jesse Dukes, additional production by Nathan Ray, music by Stephen Jackson, recording by George Christensen and Will Feeney, marketing help from Ananya Mallapragada, administrative support, recording help, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://transcript\">View full episode \u003c/a>\u003ca href=\"#transcript\">transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://transcript\">View full episode \u003c/a>\u003ca href=\"#transcript\">transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>As AI tools spread through classrooms, many educators see a “cheating factory.” Kellogg Professor \u003ca href=\"https://sebastienmartin.info/\">\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin\u003c/strong>\u003c/a> sees things differently: as a chance to reinvent how and what we teach. In his operations management class, students trade PDFs for lifelike chatbots, log conversations with Socratic AI tutors, and use AI to explore the kinds of social and political dynamics that students normally have to learn on the job. But Martin also grapples with harder questions: What about public schools with fewer resources? When should kids use AI at all? And how can students stay hopeful and true to their own interests in a wildly uncertain future? (Part 1/2 in our back-to-school series.)\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>As AI tools spread through classrooms, many educators see a “cheating factory.” Kellogg Professor \u003ca href=\"https://sebastienmartin.info/\">\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin\u003c/strong>\u003c/a> sees things differently: as a chance to reinvent how and what we teach. In his operations management class, students trade PDFs for lifelike chatbots, log conversations with Socratic AI tutors, and use AI to explore the kinds of social and political dynamics that students normally have to learn on the job. But Martin also grapples with harder questions: What about public schools with fewer resources? When should kids use AI at all? And how can students stay hopeful and true to their own interests in a wildly uncertain future? (Part 1/2 in our back-to-school series.)\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Further Reading:",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Further Reading: \u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Further Reading: \u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-is-teaching-the-next-generation-of-m-b-a-s-the-classic-case-study-a4eb4227\">AI Is Teaching the Next Generation of M.B.A.s the Classic Case Study\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-is-teaching-the-next-generation-of-m-b-a-s-the-classic-case-study-a4eb4227\">AI Is Teaching the Next Generation of M.B.A.s the Classic Case Study\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Episode Transcript",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> This is Life, Automated, the show that explores how to live, work, and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. By now, I’m sure you’re aware education has been hit hard by AI. It’s not exactly a secret why. You remember being a student. Maybe you are still a student. You work, you learn, you get your grade, your degree, and then you leave school better prepared for life.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> This is Life, Automated, the show that explores how to live, work, and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. By now, I’m sure you’re aware education has been hit hard by AI. It’s not exactly a secret why. You remember being a student. Maybe you are still a student. You work, you learn, you get your grade, your degree, and then you leave school better prepared for life.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad",
"attrs": {
"format": "fullwidth"
},
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "",
"innerContent": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Or at least that was the deal. Today’s students essentially have the world’s greatest cheating machine right at their fingertips, and that part about needing to learn to prepare for life, says who? If AI can do it, will you ever even need to? So maybe it’s no surprise that students are some of the heaviest adopters of AI, a trend that AI companies are very happy to facilitate, thank you.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Or at least that was the deal. Today’s students essentially have the world’s greatest cheating machine right at their fingertips, and that part about needing to learn to prepare for life, says who? If AI can do it, will you ever even need to? So maybe it’s no surprise that students are some of the heaviest adopters of AI, a trend that AI companies are very happy to facilitate, thank you.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And this puts educators in a tough place. I want to be upfront about this. Education is changing in ways we still don’t understand, and educators in universities, high schools, middle schools, are on the front lines. Many are not happy about AI. They didn’t ask for it, and they have real concerns that it will harm their students.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And this puts educators in a tough place. I want to be upfront about this. Education is changing in ways we still don’t understand, and educators in universities, high schools, middle schools, are on the front lines. Many are not happy about AI. They didn’t ask for it, and they have real concerns that it will harm their students.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Next episode, we’ll go deep into the challenges they face. But today, something different. Today, we’ll be talking to someone who looks at generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude, and sees mostly opportunities.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Next episode, we’ll go deep into the challenges they face. But today, something different. Today, we’ll be talking to someone who looks at generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude, and sees mostly opportunities.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Sébastien Martin is a colleague of mine here at Kellogg, an associate professor of operations. He studies AI, he teaches MBA students about AI, and in his operations management classroom, he’s replaced a lot of pen and paper-based activities with AI-powered simulations. In these simulations, rather than AI making it easier for students to finish whatever assignment is on hand, it slows them down, makes them work even harder.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Sébastien Martin is a colleague of mine here at Kellogg, an associate professor of operations. He studies AI, he teaches MBA students about AI, and in his operations management classroom, he’s replaced a lot of pen and paper-based activities with AI-powered simulations. In these simulations, rather than AI making it easier for students to finish whatever assignment is on hand, it slows them down, makes them work even harder.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I got to experience this firsthand. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I got to experience this firsthand. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I feel like maybe you’re not doing your part. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I feel like maybe you’re not doing your part. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>Oh, she’s not happy. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>Oh, she’s not happy. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>She says, “I am doing my part. That’s a job. What I’m not gonna do is pretend the existing system works the way headquarters imagines.” \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>She says, “I am doing my part. That’s a job. What I’m not gonna do is pretend the existing system works the way headquarters imagines.” \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Sébastien believes that AI has already made him not just a better instructor, but a happier, more creative, more inspired one, and his students agree.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Sébastien believes that AI has already made him not just a better instructor, but a happier, more creative, more inspired one, and his students agree.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Kellogg’s graduating class chose him as the winner of the 2026 David Bisenko Outstanding Professor of the Year Award. I’ve come to see Sébastien as a virtuoso of a strange new art form. And amidst the big, even existential challenges facing education, I think it’s important to tell these kinds of stories, too.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Kellogg’s graduating class chose him as the winner of the 2026 David Bisenko Outstanding Professor of the Year Award. I’ve come to see Sébastien as a virtuoso of a strange new art form. And amidst the big, even existential challenges facing education, I think it’s important to tell these kinds of stories, too.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love, and this is Life, Automated, a project from Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, distributed by KQED.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love, and this is Life, Automated, a project from Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, distributed by KQED.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>My conversation with Sébastien began with him telling me how, as soon as ChatGPT came on the scene, he got busy experimenting, trying to see if it could help him improve his operations management class. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>My conversation with Sébastien began with him telling me how, as soon as ChatGPT came on the scene, he got busy experimenting, trying to see if it could help him improve his operations management class. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> In a way, you know, when you have 140 students at the same time, for example, or even more, 200, it’s hard to have individualized conversations with everyone with my time, and I only have this time where it’s me with all the students at the same time.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> In a way, you know, when you have 140 students at the same time, for example, or even more, 200, it’s hard to have individualized conversations with everyone with my time, and I only have this time where it’s me with all the students at the same time.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But if they all talk to an AI that personalize the conversation to their own background, I can task the AI to connect the class content with their background. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But if they all talk to an AI that personalize the conversation to their own background, I can task the AI to connect the class content with their background. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>The idea is that a student could feed their CV into an AI chatbot that had been trained on Sébastien’s course materials, and the AI would ask some probing questions, ultimately connecting the dots between a student’s individual work experience and interests and what the course would cover.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>The idea is that a student could feed their CV into an AI chatbot that had been trained on Sébastien’s course materials, and the AI would ask some probing questions, ultimately connecting the dots between a student’s individual work experience and interests and what the course would cover.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And this was kind of, was it to just get the student excited about the class? Was that kind of the point of this exercise? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And this was kind of, was it to just get the student excited about the class? Was that kind of the point of this exercise? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> So the point was for them to know even before they take it why we think it’s good for them to be there. Which changes everything because if you have the attention of people as you even just get started, then communication just flows a little bit better. And if you think about it, there’s no way for me to do this without AI. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> So the point was for them to know even before they take it why we think it’s good for them to be there. Which changes everything because if you have the attention of people as you even just get started, then communication just flows a little bit better. And if you think about it, there’s no way for me to do this without AI. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Sébastien was such an early adopter of the technology that he was using it before most of his students to solve problems that had nothing to do with AI at all. But it didn’t take too long for AI to start causing problems, too. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Sébastien was such an early adopter of the technology that he was using it before most of his students to solve problems that had nothing to do with AI at all. But it didn’t take too long for AI to start causing problems, too. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>You know, AI came like a wrecking ball. And, you know, like, what’s even the meaning of a take-home exam anymore? You know, you can trust the students not to use ChatGPT, but we are at the point where you can just take a screenshot of the exam on your phone and get A+ for everything technical. And so it’s just unfair to ask the students to do it this way. And because, like, how do you even grade it, because some students would respect the rule and maybe a few will run out of time and ask the help of AI. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>You know, AI came like a wrecking ball. And, you know, like, what’s even the meaning of a take-home exam anymore? You know, you can trust the students not to use ChatGPT, but we are at the point where you can just take a screenshot of the exam on your phone and get A+ for everything technical. And so it’s just unfair to ask the students to do it this way. And because, like, how do you even grade it, because some students would respect the rule and maybe a few will run out of time and ask the help of AI. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>It’s been well over three years since Sébastien started experimenting with AI in his classroom. And these days, nearly everything about his course looks pretty different. Some of these changes have been spurred by AI making it really, really easy for students to cheat. But Sébastien says that other changes are more about problems with the old ways of doing things. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>It’s been well over three years since Sébastien started experimenting with AI in his classroom. And these days, nearly everything about his course looks pretty different. Some of these changes have been spurred by AI making it really, really easy for students to cheat. But Sébastien says that other changes are more about problems with the old ways of doing things. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>Think about our old ways to evaluate, right? I have students coming from so many different backgrounds that care about so many different things, and I have to have one exam that’s graded by people that don’t necessarily understand their background. And so what does it push us to do? It pushes us to standardization, to always asking, like, very abstract questions about things, or to focus on math instead of, like, deeper understanding about the world, because these can be evaluated more easily. I love math, but it becomes just an exercise in itself, like, almost like a Sudoku. At the end of the day, the exam is just asking them to manipulate numbers because this is what I can evaluate. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>Think about our old ways to evaluate, right? I have students coming from so many different backgrounds that care about so many different things, and I have to have one exam that’s graded by people that don’t necessarily understand their background. And so what does it push us to do? It pushes us to standardization, to always asking, like, very abstract questions about things, or to focus on math instead of, like, deeper understanding about the world, because these can be evaluated more easily. I love math, but it becomes just an exercise in itself, like, almost like a Sudoku. At the end of the day, the exam is just asking them to manipulate numbers because this is what I can evaluate. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So let’s get concrete here. With simple problem sets basically out the window, what does Sébastien’s class look like today? Well, for homework, Sébastien might require his students to converse with an AI tutor for maybe 30 minutes, walking through concepts and connecting them to their own experiences. That tutor might be trained in the Socratic method so that rather than giving answers like a standard chatbot, it pushes students to do the thinking themselves. Then, instead of turning in answers, students would upload a log of their chat to be graded pass or fail. Or maybe the tutoring goes the other way. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So let’s get concrete here. With simple problem sets basically out the window, what does Sébastien’s class look like today? Well, for homework, Sébastien might require his students to converse with an AI tutor for maybe 30 minutes, walking through concepts and connecting them to their own experiences. That tutor might be trained in the Socratic method so that rather than giving answers like a standard chatbot, it pushes students to do the thinking themselves. Then, instead of turning in answers, students would upload a log of their chat to be graded pass or fail. Or maybe the tutoring goes the other way. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> The homework I just gave, like, a few weeks ago is the, student has to teach the AI what they learn in the last class. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> The homework I just gave, like, a few weeks ago is the, student has to teach the AI what they learn in the last class. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Ah, interesting. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Ah, interesting. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> You see that we say learning by teaching is, like, one of the best ways to learn. And as a professor, I can say that’s very true because I created a new class on AI and I learned a lot just by teaching it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> You see that we say learning by teaching is, like, one of the best ways to learn. And as a professor, I can say that’s very true because I created a new class on AI and I learned a lot just by teaching it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Of course, this technology is changing fast, and there’s really nothing stopping students from building their own AI agent or autonomous AI tool to interact with Sébastien’s AI, and turning in a log of that conversation. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Of course, this technology is changing fast, and there’s really nothing stopping students from building their own AI agent or autonomous AI tool to interact with Sébastien’s AI, and turning in a log of that conversation. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>That’s one of the main obstacles our instructors want to get into AI, because it just feels it’s constantly evolving, and whatever I do now, I fix a problem, another problem will appear later. So it’s a very, very real concern.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>That’s one of the main obstacles our instructors want to get into AI, because it just feels it’s constantly evolving, and whatever I do now, I fix a problem, another problem will appear later. So it’s a very, very real concern.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, and this is hard because I’ve done, you know, way back in the day I taught some classes myself, and the first time you teach something, it can be kind of a train wreck, right? And then you kinda get better over time, and you learn what works. So how do you as a professor or a teacher keep up?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, and this is hard because I’ve done, you know, way back in the day I taught some classes myself, and the first time you teach something, it can be kind of a train wreck, right? And then you kinda get better over time, and you learn what works. So how do you as a professor or a teacher keep up?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> I would turn the question around, and this is why I try to put my students in the loop as much as possible. It’s like, “Here’s the deal,” like, “What is good for you?” You know? “Why are we doing this homework? Why are we doing all of that?” The goal is not just to go for the grade. That would be the mistake.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> I would turn the question around, and this is why I try to put my students in the loop as much as possible. It’s like, “Here’s the deal,” like, “What is good for you?” You know? “Why are we doing this homework? Why are we doing all of that?” The goal is not just to go for the grade. That would be the mistake.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Like, the goal is at the end of the day, you know, you learn something. And, you know, if AI is becoming more and more of a commodity that can do anything for us, our deep expertise and our personal thoughts and what makes us unique has even more value, because that’s what differentiates all of it, rather than the things that AI can just automate, you know?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Like, the goal is at the end of the day, you know, you learn something. And, you know, if AI is becoming more and more of a commodity that can do anything for us, our deep expertise and our personal thoughts and what makes us unique has even more value, because that’s what differentiates all of it, rather than the things that AI can just automate, you know?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And so I think at the end of the day, the answer to this question is also, it’s not only on the professor’s side, it’s also on the students. Like, why are you at Kellogg? What do you wanna get out of all of this? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And so I think at the end of the day, the answer to this question is also, it’s not only on the professor’s side, it’s also on the students. Like, why are you at Kellogg? What do you wanna get out of all of this? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Some of the changes that Sébastien has made to his class, they aren’t planned. He’ll be in the middle of teaching, he’ll get an idea for how to make something better, and just use AI to make it happen.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Some of the changes that Sébastien has made to his class, they aren’t planned. He’ll be in the middle of teaching, he’ll get an idea for how to make something better, and just use AI to make it happen.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>For example, just a week before our interview, his students were in small breakout groups using class time to discuss a case study, that staple of business school education. The time was flying by. Sure, the students were having wonderful discussions in their small groups, but Sébastien was getting frustrated, realizing there would not be enough time for the entire class to reflect on the ideas that the individual groups had generated.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>For example, just a week before our interview, his students were in small breakout groups using class time to discuss a case study, that staple of business school education. The time was flying by. Sure, the students were having wonderful discussions in their small groups, but Sébastien was getting frustrated, realizing there would not be enough time for the entire class to reflect on the ideas that the individual groups had generated.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So while the students were still in their breakout groups, Sébastien explained the dilemma to Claude Code, a popular AI coding tool. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So while the students were still in their breakout groups, Sébastien explained the dilemma to Claude Code, a popular AI coding tool. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> And so Claude Code was like, “No problem. Let’s do it,” and created something, and by the time students had sent their reply, we had a custom-made software, which was kind of like a constellation of ideas that popped up on the board, and we could see quotes from all the students and the ideas that they had in common and not in common, and this enabled a much deeper conversation because I was able to share all this information instead of just, like, talking to, you know, like, three, four students that were willing to share their ideas.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> And so Claude Code was like, “No problem. Let’s do it,” and created something, and by the time students had sent their reply, we had a custom-made software, which was kind of like a constellation of ideas that popped up on the board, and we could see quotes from all the students and the ideas that they had in common and not in common, and this enabled a much deeper conversation because I was able to share all this information instead of just, like, talking to, you know, like, three, four students that were willing to share their ideas.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You know, it’s just a small thing, but it’s changed the way I taught this class, and it did use AI, and at the end of the day, it’s just about your creativity. Like, it’s a tool that is so powerful that, you know, sometimes, you know, as an instructor, you go, “Oh, it’d be so good to have this,” and then you just use it, and it creates a much better experience.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You know, it’s just a small thing, but it’s changed the way I taught this class, and it did use AI, and at the end of the day, it’s just about your creativity. Like, it’s a tool that is so powerful that, you know, sometimes, you know, as an instructor, you go, “Oh, it’d be so good to have this,” and then you just use it, and it creates a much better experience.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And you see here in that case, it increased the communications between humans. Like, of course, AI can sometimes take away from what we do, but in that case, I think it added to what we do. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And you see here in that case, it increased the communications between humans. Like, of course, AI can sometimes take away from what we do, but in that case, I think it added to what we do. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Now, there are tools already on the market that can do this kind of thing. But what was unique was that Sébastien was able to create them on the fly, in that moment for that class. And the best example of how AI has changed Sébastien’s course has to do with the experience of reading the case itself. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Now, there are tools already on the market that can do this kind of thing. But what was unique was that Sébastien was able to create them on the fly, in that moment for that class. And the best example of how AI has changed Sébastien’s course has to do with the experience of reading the case itself. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> So we turned it into, instead of me giving them a PDF, I tell them that they can interview, “People” from the company and ask any question they want. And I give them access to the CEO, to the CFO, to, like, a frontline worker, to anyone, and then they have to understand the company deeply, kind of like consulting. You interview people, and you understand their relationship, and they all have very different point of views, and some of them don’t even wanna talk to you, and so on. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> So we turned it into, instead of me giving them a PDF, I tell them that they can interview, “People” from the company and ask any question they want. And I give them access to the CEO, to the CFO, to, like, a frontline worker, to anyone, and then they have to understand the company deeply, kind of like consulting. You interview people, and you understand their relationship, and they all have very different point of views, and some of them don’t even wanna talk to you, and so on. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Well, and “people” are, of course, chatbots with, like, personalities and information that you’ve given them. This is the activity that has gotten Sébastien the most attention, including a big write-up in The Wall Street Journal. I wanted to try it, and Sébastien was kind enough to mentor me through his simulation. We pull it up on his desktop. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Well, and “people” are, of course, chatbots with, like, personalities and information that you’ve given them. This is the activity that has gotten Sébastien the most attention, including a big write-up in The Wall Street Journal. I wanted to try it, and Sébastien was kind enough to mentor me through his simulation. We pull it up on his desktop. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Okay, so I am a consultant at Proxima Health Systems?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Okay, so I am a consultant at Proxima Health Systems?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> Yeah, you’re an AI expert, and they called you because they wanna have a big AI project, and they want it to be successful. And your point of contact is Maya Chen. She’s the leader of this After Visit AI program. Like, she has an AI agent she wants you to build. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> Yeah, you’re an AI expert, and they called you because they wanna have a big AI project, and they want it to be successful. And your point of contact is Maya Chen. She’s the leader of this After Visit AI program. Like, she has an AI agent she wants you to build. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay, and so I can just start talking to her and say, like, “Hey.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay, and so I can just start talking to her and say, like, “Hey.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> Yeah, she’s just waiting for you. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> Yeah, she’s just waiting for you. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> There’s a whole bunch of little avatars representing different people at the company, and I can pick one to have a text chat with. I see the avatar for Maya, my point of contact, and I begin to type. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> There’s a whole bunch of little avatars representing different people at the company, and I can pick one to have a text chat with. I see the avatar for Maya, my point of contact, and I begin to type. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>‘\u003c/strong>Hi there. I’d love some clarification on what you want me to accomplish.’\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>‘\u003c/strong>Hi there. I’d love some clarification on what you want me to accomplish.’\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Maya tells me that I, the AI expert consultant, will be building her company an AI tool that helps automate the after-visit forms that sales reps fill out after they visit their customers’ hospitals. And after a bit of back and forth with Maya about some of the players involved, including Marcus, a sales manager, and a bit of help from Sébastien, I start to get a sense of the nitty-gritty details involved in my assignment.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Maya tells me that I, the AI expert consultant, will be building her company an AI tool that helps automate the after-visit forms that sales reps fill out after they visit their customers’ hospitals. And after a bit of back and forth with Maya about some of the players involved, including Marcus, a sales manager, and a bit of help from Sébastien, I start to get a sense of the nitty-gritty details involved in my assignment.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> And so for this, we have a CRM system, a customer relationship management system, which is like this big database where rep have to enter information. But they hate it. It has to be formatted, made in a very specific way. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> And so for this, we have a CRM system, a customer relationship management system, which is like this big database where rep have to enter information. But they hate it. It has to be formatted, made in a very specific way. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Ah, I hate it already. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Ah, I hate it already. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>They spend hours every week. And then so this is why, like, there is this sort of tension because Marcus needs them to enter this information, but they’re like, “Yeah, it doesn’t represent what we see on the ground. Why do you want me to spend all my time on this instead of with the customer?” \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>They spend hours every week. And then so this is why, like, there is this sort of tension because Marcus needs them to enter this information, but they’re like, “Yeah, it doesn’t represent what we see on the ground. Why do you want me to spend all my time on this instead of with the customer?” \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Okay, got it. Maya, Marcus, and others in the company want to automate the after-visit forms that the salespeople fill out, apparently to make things easier on the sales team. But then I chat with a member of the sales team, Dana, and Dana doesn’t necessarily think AI will help. She thinks the whole customer relationship system is messed up. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Okay, got it. Maya, Marcus, and others in the company want to automate the after-visit forms that the salespeople fill out, apparently to make things easier on the sales team. But then I chat with a member of the sales team, Dana, and Dana doesn’t necessarily think AI will help. She thinks the whole customer relationship system is messed up. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>‘Dana makes a number of points. She says it’s like whiplash. She can spend 30 minutes in a unit with a nurse manager who’s stressed out of her mind. She catches the real issue. They come to a conclusion, and then she’s supposed to translate that into 12 little CRM boxes that don’t fit how hospitals actually talk, and then the managers wonder why the notes are vague.’\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>‘Dana makes a number of points. She says it’s like whiplash. She can spend 30 minutes in a unit with a nurse manager who’s stressed out of her mind. She catches the real issue. They come to a conclusion, and then she’s supposed to translate that into 12 little CRM boxes that don’t fit how hospitals actually talk, and then the managers wonder why the notes are vague.’\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And Dana is a little suspicious of \u003cem>me\u003c/em>, the AI consultant. Here’s how she puts it. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And Dana is a little suspicious of \u003cem>me\u003c/em>, the AI consultant. Here’s how she puts it. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>“What exactly are you trying to solve? Time, accuracy, or the manager chasing us for missing fields?”\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>“What exactly are you trying to solve? Time, accuracy, or the manager chasing us for missing fields?”\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Ooh.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Ooh.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> You’re in the middle of it right now. I am in the middle of it. It’s hard to help her without more information, understanding everything.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> You’re in the middle of it right now. I am in the middle of it. It’s hard to help her without more information, understanding everything.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I decide to try to get Dana in line with some tough talk. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I decide to try to get Dana in line with some tough talk. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>‘All right, Dana. I hear what you’re saying, but you do realize that you are part of this big organization that has a lot of really important goals? I feel like maybe you’re not doing your part.’\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>‘All right, Dana. I hear what you’re saying, but you do realize that you are part of this big organization that has a lot of really important goals? I feel like maybe you’re not doing your part.’\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> Oh, she’s not happy. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> Oh, she’s not happy. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>She says, “I am doing my part. That’s the job. What I’m not gonna do is pretend the existing system works the way headquarters imagines.” \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>She says, “I am doing my part. That’s the job. What I’m not gonna do is pretend the existing system works the way headquarters imagines.” \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>How dare you question that I’m doing my job? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>How dare you question that I’m doing my job? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: ‘\u003c/strong>Thanks, Dana. I appreciate the straight talk. I love straight talk. What would you like to see?’ \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: ‘\u003c/strong>Thanks, Dana. I appreciate the straight talk. I love straight talk. What would you like to see?’ \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And now I’m really starting to understand this scenario. It’s not just about coming up with some kind of AI-powered solution to data collection. It’s about understanding the social dynamics in the company. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And now I’m really starting to understand this scenario. It’s not just about coming up with some kind of AI-powered solution to data collection. It’s about understanding the social dynamics in the company. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>‘Cause she’s very afraid. She says, “Not cutting heads.” \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>‘Cause she’s very afraid. She says, “Not cutting heads.” \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: Not cutting heads. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: Not cutting heads. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>She’s really afraid that you’re coming with AI trying to take over her job. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>She’s really afraid that you’re coming with AI trying to take over her job. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh, yeah. That’s a good point. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh, yeah. That’s a good point. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>You know? Because we’re automating a part of the job that she and her teams do. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>You know? Because we’re automating a part of the job that she and her teams do. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: Once I understand that there’s anxiety in this company about AI taking jobs, and that this anxiety is driving so many problems, I start having more productive chats with the different characters, and we start making progress.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: Once I understand that there’s anxiety in this company about AI taking jobs, and that this anxiety is driving so many problems, I start having more productive chats with the different characters, and we start making progress.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This is what Sebastien says this kind of AI-driven exercise is designed to explore. How to keep asking questions until you understand what’s actually going on, the problems behind the problem, the stuff that only rarely ends up on any official brief. I think there is a risk in education where I’m like, “This is the truth.” This is the answer to this problem.” And, you know, like, for example, if you go on Instagram and you have your newsfeed, you’re not asking for the next thing you wanna see. We’re just so used to just information being provided to us and not to have to think. And then you get into the middle of this and you have a “real person” you talk to, you actually need to decide what’s your next step.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This is what Sebastien says this kind of AI-driven exercise is designed to explore. How to keep asking questions until you understand what’s actually going on, the problems behind the problem, the stuff that only rarely ends up on any official brief. I think there is a risk in education where I’m like, “This is the truth.” This is the answer to this problem.” And, you know, like, for example, if you go on Instagram and you have your newsfeed, you’re not asking for the next thing you wanna see. We’re just so used to just information being provided to us and not to have to think. And then you get into the middle of this and you have a “real person” you talk to, you actually need to decide what’s your next step.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But this is actually where all the thinking happens, right? You’re like, you need to be aware of what you understand and what you don’t understand. You need to, like, plan ahead. You need to also manage your relationship with them. And I think this is where I think the most. Actually, it’s what I feel like it’s the most important thing to think about, in life, you know, in general.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But this is actually where all the thinking happens, right? You’re like, you need to be aware of what you understand and what you don’t understand. You need to, like, plan ahead. You need to also manage your relationship with them. And I think this is where I think the most. Actually, it’s what I feel like it’s the most important thing to think about, in life, you know, in general.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I think we don’t have many tools that are not meant to just, like, provide us with the answer, but are meant for us to ask the right question and for us to learn more. And I think AI is a wonderful tool for that. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I think we don’t have many tools that are not meant to just, like, provide us with the answer, but are meant for us to ask the right question and for us to learn more. And I think AI is a wonderful tool for that. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Here, the AI tool isn’t being used to make things easier on students. It’s not making it faster to read the case or offering up a streamlined summary. It’s slowing students down, making them think more. Or that’s the idea. So are his students learning more using this AI-powered simulation than they would’ve the old way, discussing PDFs or writing short essays? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Here, the AI tool isn’t being used to make things easier on students. It’s not making it faster to read the case or offering up a streamlined summary. It’s slowing students down, making them think more. Or that’s the idea. So are his students learning more using this AI-powered simulation than they would’ve the old way, discussing PDFs or writing short essays? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>It’s hard to answer this question for sure. You can only capture it with exams and stuff like that. But AI cases, in the context of this class, were not something that was graded. They were something meant for conversations in the classroom. So then the second best I can give you is I had the most fun I’ve ever had teaching a case. Like, the participation of the students was through the roof.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>It’s hard to answer this question for sure. You can only capture it with exams and stuff like that. But AI cases, in the context of this class, were not something that was graded. They were something meant for conversations in the classroom. So then the second best I can give you is I had the most fun I’ve ever had teaching a case. Like, the participation of the students was through the roof.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>They had so many ideas. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>They had so many ideas. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Sébastien acknowledges that it’s hard to know for sure. Just because students enjoy an activity, recognize it with a teaching award, doesn’t always mean that they’re learning more. But the students tell him they’re learning more because the scenarios feel real. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Sébastien acknowledges that it’s hard to know for sure. Just because students enjoy an activity, recognize it with a teaching award, doesn’t always mean that they’re learning more. But the students tell him they’re learning more because the scenarios feel real. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>The students say that it was very useful to them, especially the students who came from consulting. They say it’s exactly the type of thing I had to be good at. It’s great to see it in the context of AI and so on. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>The students say that it was very useful to them, especially the students who came from consulting. They say it’s exactly the type of thing I had to be good at. It’s great to see it in the context of AI and so on. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>After the break, this strikes me as the dream scenario for AI in the classroom. But just how common is this dream scenario? Is it limited to the classrooms of super AI savvy teachers, or does Sébastien’s optimism extend to other classrooms, too?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>After the break, this strikes me as the dream scenario for AI in the classroom. But just how common is this dream scenario? Is it limited to the classrooms of super AI savvy teachers, or does Sébastien’s optimism extend to other classrooms, too?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I, like a lot of people, think about this technology as having the ability to both empower people and to disempower or overwhelm them. And it seems like for you, the primary experience has been one of empowerment. But I wanna point out, you are kind of a special case. You are somebody who studies AI, is very, very familiar with using algorithms, and was even before ChatGPT came on the scene, and you also teach highly motivated students at a top business school.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I, like a lot of people, think about this technology as having the ability to both empower people and to disempower or overwhelm them. And it seems like for you, the primary experience has been one of empowerment. But I wanna point out, you are kind of a special case. You are somebody who studies AI, is very, very familiar with using algorithms, and was even before ChatGPT came on the scene, and you also teach highly motivated students at a top business school.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And this is not true of most educators. So my husband teaches high school at Chicago Public Schools, and he assures me that the general consensus among public high school teachers is not one of empowerment. I think a lot of schools are strapped for resources. They don’t always have the opportunity to train instructors in how to manage this technology, and a lot of them have just come to see this as a widespread cheating factory. And so I’m just kind of curious how you think about that. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And this is not true of most educators. So my husband teaches high school at Chicago Public Schools, and he assures me that the general consensus among public high school teachers is not one of empowerment. I think a lot of schools are strapped for resources. They don’t always have the opportunity to train instructors in how to manage this technology, and a lot of them have just come to see this as a widespread cheating factory. And so I’m just kind of curious how you think about that. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>I mean, first, thank you so much for asking this question. Something I think about a lot, and first it’s very important to highlight that I come from a place of privilege in so many dimensions, as you mentioned. And, you know, because I, so I speak more and more publicly, like right now, about this topic, and I’m always like, “What should you say?” Because, you know, as you saw in this conversation, I choose to highlight the positive because I know that people are very aware of the negative. And I think seeing a bit of light at the end of the tunnel can help. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>I mean, first, thank you so much for asking this question. Something I think about a lot, and first it’s very important to highlight that I come from a place of privilege in so many dimensions, as you mentioned. And, you know, because I, so I speak more and more publicly, like right now, about this topic, and I’m always like, “What should you say?” Because, you know, as you saw in this conversation, I choose to highlight the positive because I know that people are very aware of the negative. And I think seeing a bit of light at the end of the tunnel can help. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And it is true, you know, that I was lucky to start early and lucky to be in the position I was, and to iterate over time, and I made many, many mistakes. There are things that worked, things that didn’t work. I would say the message, and I really don’t wanna deny at all what public education is going through. I’ve worked a lot also with public education and I know how hard a job it can be, but also how rewarding. What I wanna say is give it a chance.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And it is true, you know, that I was lucky to start early and lucky to be in the position I was, and to iterate over time, and I made many, many mistakes. There are things that worked, things that didn’t work. I would say the message, and I really don’t wanna deny at all what public education is going through. I’ve worked a lot also with public education and I know how hard a job it can be, but also how rewarding. What I wanna say is give it a chance.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You know, this technology, for good or bad reason, is most likely here to stay. And if you iterate a little bit with Claude, ChatGPT, whatever, you’ll quickly realize after you overcome this barrier of, you know, not resentment, but this barrier or, like, this technology is really making my job complicated, you quickly realize that it’s a neutral technology.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You know, this technology, for good or bad reason, is most likely here to stay. And if you iterate a little bit with Claude, ChatGPT, whatever, you’ll quickly realize after you overcome this barrier of, you know, not resentment, but this barrier or, like, this technology is really making my job complicated, you quickly realize that it’s a neutral technology.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Like, it can do a lot of harm, but it can also allow you as an instructor to create new things and to solve some of the problems. And at first you start very small. You know, you have all of this, like, I forgot how you were saying, like, this cheating factory thing. But then you’re like, “Oh, I can maybe use it that way.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Like, it can do a lot of harm, but it can also allow you as an instructor to create new things and to solve some of the problems. And at first you start very small. You know, you have all of this, like, I forgot how you were saying, like, this cheating factory thing. But then you’re like, “Oh, I can maybe use it that way.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And actually that had a small positive impact. And it looks like a drop in the ocean. But then because you open this door, then curiosity gets in. What if I could do this? And what if I could do that? And all I can say, I know it’s a very minimal point, is there are good things. And yes, they take time, and they take trial and error, and all I can do is show examples. But I think there is value in just knowing that you can use this technology for good. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And actually that had a small positive impact. And it looks like a drop in the ocean. But then because you open this door, then curiosity gets in. What if I could do this? And what if I could do that? And all I can say, I know it’s a very minimal point, is there are good things. And yes, they take time, and they take trial and error, and all I can do is show examples. But I think there is value in just knowing that you can use this technology for good. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So, I am a parent. My kids are a little younger than the students we’ve been talking about, two elementary school-aged kids. And I personally do not want them using AI right now, partly because I think they already spend enough of their lives staring at screens. That is the perennial parenting battle of our age. But also because I want them to learn some really core skills about how to go through the world, and think about problems themselves before I provide them with the scaffolding that AI would provide. And so I wanna ask you, do you think there are some skills that people should have before they turn to AI to learn something?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So, I am a parent. My kids are a little younger than the students we’ve been talking about, two elementary school-aged kids. And I personally do not want them using AI right now, partly because I think they already spend enough of their lives staring at screens. That is the perennial parenting battle of our age. But also because I want them to learn some really core skills about how to go through the world, and think about problems themselves before I provide them with the scaffolding that AI would provide. And so I wanna ask you, do you think there are some skills that people should have before they turn to AI to learn something?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>I mean, of course take everything that I’m about to say with a grain of salt, because I’m not an expert in that. You’re way more of an expert than me. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>I mean, of course take everything that I’m about to say with a grain of salt, because I’m not an expert in that. You’re way more of an expert than me. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>We’ll bring in some folks to rebut you point by point. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>We’ll bring in some folks to rebut you point by point. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>But, you know, and also, I wanna highlight that we hear so much about AI these days. I think what’s super, super important to say is we don’t know. You know, like they say, wisdom is to know when you don’t know. Nobody knows where AI is going, okay? Like, but then it’s still good to talk about scenarios, and your analogy with the screens or the smartphone is a great one. You know, there has been a lot of debates, on not allowing screen times and, like, this leading to, children learning more to interact with the world and with each other.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>But, you know, and also, I wanna highlight that we hear so much about AI these days. I think what’s super, super important to say is we don’t know. You know, like they say, wisdom is to know when you don’t know. Nobody knows where AI is going, okay? Like, but then it’s still good to talk about scenarios, and your analogy with the screens or the smartphone is a great one. You know, there has been a lot of debates, on not allowing screen times and, like, this leading to, children learning more to interact with the world and with each other.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I think it could be great to do this with AI. I mean, that sounds like a great strategy to me. Then, the one caveat I wanna say on this is one pet peeve that I have is I don’t think AI means anything. It’s kind of you saying humans or electricity. Like, is electricity good or bad? Should we forbid kids to access electricity?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I think it could be great to do this with AI. I mean, that sounds like a great strategy to me. Then, the one caveat I wanna say on this is one pet peeve that I have is I don’t think AI means anything. It’s kind of you saying humans or electricity. Like, is electricity good or bad? Should we forbid kids to access electricity?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I think there are ways to use AI that could be net positives and there are ways to use AI that could be a disaster. So when we say allow kids to access AI, often we think ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, like the basic thing you can ask all your questions. But for example, I was just talking to a parent and they were playing with their children to create their own song for a story that they invented.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I think there are ways to use AI that could be net positives and there are ways to use AI that could be a disaster. So when we say allow kids to access AI, often we think ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, like the basic thing you can ask all your questions. But for example, I was just talking to a parent and they were playing with their children to create their own song for a story that they invented.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And they used AI to like, put their lyrics that they co-created into a nice song and they were singing it together. Is it a bad use of AI or does it increase creativity? I heard another parent has ChatGPT to, you know, create like, these frames of drawing that you can draw into on things that were very personal. Like they just went on vacation somewhere and let’s actually draw what we went through. And you know you cannot buy a book that’s so personalized. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And they used AI to like, put their lyrics that they co-created into a nice song and they were singing it together. Is it a bad use of AI or does it increase creativity? I heard another parent has ChatGPT to, you know, create like, these frames of drawing that you can draw into on things that were very personal. Like they just went on vacation somewhere and let’s actually draw what we went through. And you know you cannot buy a book that’s so personalized. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Like a coloring book of their exact vacation. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Like a coloring book of their exact vacation. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>Exactly. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>Exactly. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh, that’s, that is kind of cool. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh, that’s, that is kind of cool. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>You see? Like another example and maybe more the fringe of what’s acceptable is there’s a lot of, there are ways to turn ChatGPT into something that don’t think for you. So the way AI works is there are hidden instructions, and AI follows these hidden instructions. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>You see? Like another example and maybe more the fringe of what’s acceptable is there’s a lot of, there are ways to turn ChatGPT into something that don’t think for you. So the way AI works is there are hidden instructions, and AI follows these hidden instructions. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>That’s right. If you didn’t know, most chatbots have some version of hidden instructions to guide their use; and as a user, you can change the default settings for these instructions, specify how the AI should respond to prompts, including how much information it should provide.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>That’s right. If you didn’t know, most chatbots have some version of hidden instructions to guide their use; and as a user, you can change the default settings for these instructions, specify how the AI should respond to prompts, including how much information it should provide.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>In the hidden instructions called a system message, you can ask the AI, “Look, you’re talking to a child. Here’s what we really want to avoid. We want them to feel for, to think for themselves. We want them to learn how to be independent. We don’t want them to learn how to rely on you instead of thinking.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>In the hidden instructions called a system message, you can ask the AI, “Look, you’re talking to a child. Here’s what we really want to avoid. We want them to feel for, to think for themselves. We want them to learn how to be independent. We don’t want them to learn how to rely on you instead of thinking.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But maybe you can encourage their curiosity. And then you let the children talk to this version of ChatGPT, and the AI will just reply to their questions with other questions, and what do you think about this, and what do you think about that? Maybe it’s better than just staring at an iPad on YouTube, you know? Maybe it actually leads you to, to think a bit deeper. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But maybe you can encourage their curiosity. And then you let the children talk to this version of ChatGPT, and the AI will just reply to their questions with other questions, and what do you think about this, and what do you think about that? Maybe it’s better than just staring at an iPad on YouTube, you know? Maybe it actually leads you to, to think a bit deeper. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>For the record, I will not be tasking ChatGPT to chat with my children anytime soon, even in appropriately Socratic only ask questions mode. But that coloring book idea, it’s actually kind of a good one, and I take his point. We really don’t know. We don’t know how helpful or harmful AI will ultimately be as an educational tool. Stepping back a bit though, I wanted to know what advice he would have for students, the people on the other end of the educational process. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>For the record, I will not be tasking ChatGPT to chat with my children anytime soon, even in appropriately Socratic only ask questions mode. But that coloring book idea, it’s actually kind of a good one, and I take his point. We really don’t know. We don’t know how helpful or harmful AI will ultimately be as an educational tool. Stepping back a bit though, I wanted to know what advice he would have for students, the people on the other end of the educational process. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>I mean, the first one, which is, you know, the one thing I want us to remember from this podcast is, like, stay hopeful. Because, you know, there are reasons to despair from time to time, and especially as humans, we are really not good at dealing with uncertainty. Like, second, staying hopeful and being aware that we tend to only see the downside instead of all the unexpected upside that can come later.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>I mean, the first one, which is, you know, the one thing I want us to remember from this podcast is, like, stay hopeful. Because, you know, there are reasons to despair from time to time, and especially as humans, we are really not good at dealing with uncertainty. Like, second, staying hopeful and being aware that we tend to only see the downside instead of all the unexpected upside that can come later.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Everyone is in the same boat. Like, it feels like it’s me that doesn’t know what the next step to choose and so on, like what studies should I go for, how should I learn and so on. But it’s not only me, it’s the whole society that has to adapt at the same time. And I think that at least for me, it helps me feel a bit better about it, like, the idea that it’s not me that doesn’t know what to do next and it’s all of us together.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Everyone is in the same boat. Like, it feels like it’s me that doesn’t know what the next step to choose and so on, like what studies should I go for, how should I learn and so on. But it’s not only me, it’s the whole society that has to adapt at the same time. And I think that at least for me, it helps me feel a bit better about it, like, the idea that it’s not me that doesn’t know what to do next and it’s all of us together.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it’s like we’re all collectively gonna go through this crazy period together. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it’s like we’re all collectively gonna go through this crazy period together. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>Exactly. And so the more we can, you know, like help each other and so on, the better it is. And, finally, what do you do? You have this huge uncertainty. I’m saying, okay, take it with a grain of salt with all the feedback you receive about what you think you should do and so on, and all of us together.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>Exactly. And so the more we can, you know, like help each other and so on, the better it is. And, finally, what do you do? You have this huge uncertainty. I’m saying, okay, take it with a grain of salt with all the feedback you receive about what you think you should do and so on, and all of us together.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But I think a flip side of that is, if you’re, it’s pure uncertainty and we don’t exactly know where things are going, maybe the best thing to do is to follow your heart. I know it sounds a bit cheesy, but you know, at the end of the day, I think it’s better, like, try for all of us to maybe not conform as much as possible and what’s expected of us and follow more, like, our instinct. Maybe there has never been a better time to do that because the uncertainty of the system is the system is gonna change so much that maybe the best path to follow is just what we really like to do.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But I think a flip side of that is, if you’re, it’s pure uncertainty and we don’t exactly know where things are going, maybe the best thing to do is to follow your heart. I know it sounds a bit cheesy, but you know, at the end of the day, I think it’s better, like, try for all of us to maybe not conform as much as possible and what’s expected of us and follow more, like, our instinct. Maybe there has never been a better time to do that because the uncertainty of the system is the system is gonna change so much that maybe the best path to follow is just what we really like to do.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Thank you so much. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Thank you so much. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>Thank you. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>Thank you. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>AI is forcing students and educators to adapt. And while a lot of attention has been focused on cheating and outsourcing thinking, I think Sébastien makes a compelling case that this adaptation will have some real upsides, that new kinds of learning experiences are now possible, including ones that ask more of students, not less.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>AI is forcing students and educators to adapt. And while a lot of attention has been focused on cheating and outsourcing thinking, I think Sébastien makes a compelling case that this adaptation will have some real upsides, that new kinds of learning experiences are now possible, including ones that ask more of students, not less.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But of course, AI is not the first technology to barge into schools. Next episode, we’ll look at how previous technologies have changed education, particularly for younger students, what those technologies delivered, what they failed to deliver, and what this could mean for today’s high schoolers, middle schoolers, elementary school kids growing up alongside AI.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But of course, AI is not the first technology to barge into schools. Next episode, we’ll look at how previous technologies have changed education, particularly for younger students, what those technologies delivered, what they failed to deliver, and what this could mean for today’s high schoolers, middle schoolers, elementary school kids growing up alongside AI.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad",
"attrs": {
"format": "floatright"
},
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "",
"innerContent": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love. This is Life, Automated, a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, distributed by KQED. A special thanks to today’s guest, Sébastien Martin. We’re produced by Jesse Dukes, additional production by Nathan Ray, music by Stephen Jackson, recording by George Christensen and Will Feeney, marketing help from Ananya Mallapragada, administrative support, recording help, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love. This is Life, Automated, a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, distributed by KQED. A special thanks to today’s guest, Sébastien Martin. We’re produced by Jesse Dukes, additional production by Nathan Ray, music by Stephen Jackson, recording by George Christensen and Will Feeney, marketing help from Ananya Mallapragada, administrative support, recording help, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
}
],
"excerpt": "Can AI tools and chatbots help educators bring more critical thinking into classrooms?\n",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1786988929,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 117,
"wordCount": 6126
},
"headData": {
"title": "An Optimist’s Take on AI and the Future of Learning (with Sébastien Martin) | KQED",
"description": "As AI tools spread through classrooms, many educators see a “cheating factory.” Kellogg Professor Sébastien Martin sees things differently: as a chance to reinvent how and what we teach. In his operations management class, students trade PDFs for lifelike chatbots, log conversations with Socratic AI tutors, and use AI to explore the kinds of social and political dynamics that students normally have to learn on the job. But Martin also grapples with harder questions: What about public schools with fewer resources? When should kids use AI at all? And how can students stay hopeful and true to their own interests in a wildly uncertain future? (Part 1/2 in our back-to-school series.)",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"socialDescription": "As AI tools spread through classrooms, many educators see a “cheating factory.” Kellogg Professor Sébastien Martin sees things differently: as a chance to reinvent how and what we teach. In his operations management class, students trade PDFs for lifelike chatbots, log conversations with Socratic AI tutors, and use AI to explore the kinds of social and political dynamics that students normally have to learn on the job. But Martin also grapples with harder questions: What about public schools with fewer resources? When should kids use AI at all? And how can students stay hopeful and true to their own interests in a wildly uncertain future? (Part 1/2 in our back-to-school series.)",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "An Optimist’s Take on AI and the Future of Learning (with Sébastien Martin)",
"datePublished": "2026-08-12T03:00:00-07:00",
"dateModified": "2026-08-17T10:48:49-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 33520,
"slug": "podcast",
"name": "Podcast"
},
"audioUrl": "https://traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC7850420334.mp3",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12094640",
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12094640/an-optimists-take-on-ai-and-the-future-of-learning-with-sebastien-martin",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://transcript\">View full episode \u003c/a>\u003ca href=\"#transcript\">transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>As AI tools spread through classrooms, many educators see a “cheating factory.” Kellogg Professor \u003ca href=\"https://sebastienmartin.info/\">\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin\u003c/strong>\u003c/a> sees things differently: as a chance to reinvent how and what we teach. In his operations management class, students trade PDFs for lifelike chatbots, log conversations with Socratic AI tutors, and use AI to explore the kinds of social and political dynamics that students normally have to learn on the job. But Martin also grapples with harder questions: What about public schools with fewer resources? When should kids use AI at all? And how can students stay hopeful and true to their own interests in a wildly uncertain future? (Part 1/2 in our back-to-school series.)\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Further Reading: \u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-is-teaching-the-next-generation-of-m-b-a-s-the-classic-case-study-a4eb4227\">AI Is Teaching the Next Generation of M.B.A.s the Classic Case Study\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> This is Life, Automated, the show that explores how to live, work, and make decisions in a world increasingly shaped by machines. By now, I’m sure you’re aware education has been hit hard by AI. It’s not exactly a secret why. You remember being a student. Maybe you are still a student. You work, you learn, you get your grade, your degree, and then you leave school better prepared for life.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Or at least that was the deal. Today’s students essentially have the world’s greatest cheating machine right at their fingertips, and that part about needing to learn to prepare for life, says who? If AI can do it, will you ever even need to? So maybe it’s no surprise that students are some of the heaviest adopters of AI, a trend that AI companies are very happy to facilitate, thank you.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And this puts educators in a tough place. I want to be upfront about this. Education is changing in ways we still don’t understand, and educators in universities, high schools, middle schools, are on the front lines. Many are not happy about AI. They didn’t ask for it, and they have real concerns that it will harm their students.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Next episode, we’ll go deep into the challenges they face. But today, something different. Today, we’ll be talking to someone who looks at generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude, and sees mostly opportunities.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Sébastien Martin is a colleague of mine here at Kellogg, an associate professor of operations. He studies AI, he teaches MBA students about AI, and in his operations management classroom, he’s replaced a lot of pen and paper-based activities with AI-powered simulations. In these simulations, rather than AI making it easier for students to finish whatever assignment is on hand, it slows them down, makes them work even harder.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I got to experience this firsthand. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I feel like maybe you’re not doing your part. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>Oh, she’s not happy. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>She says, “I am doing my part. That’s a job. What I’m not gonna do is pretend the existing system works the way headquarters imagines.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Sébastien believes that AI has already made him not just a better instructor, but a happier, more creative, more inspired one, and his students agree.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Kellogg’s graduating class chose him as the winner of the 2026 David Bisenko Outstanding Professor of the Year Award. I’ve come to see Sébastien as a virtuoso of a strange new art form. And amidst the big, even existential challenges facing education, I think it’s important to tell these kinds of stories, too.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love, and this is Life, Automated, a project from Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, distributed by KQED.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>My conversation with Sébastien began with him telling me how, as soon as ChatGPT came on the scene, he got busy experimenting, trying to see if it could help him improve his operations management class. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> In a way, you know, when you have 140 students at the same time, for example, or even more, 200, it’s hard to have individualized conversations with everyone with my time, and I only have this time where it’s me with all the students at the same time.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But if they all talk to an AI that personalize the conversation to their own background, I can task the AI to connect the class content with their background. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>The idea is that a student could feed their CV into an AI chatbot that had been trained on Sébastien’s course materials, and the AI would ask some probing questions, ultimately connecting the dots between a student’s individual work experience and interests and what the course would cover.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And this was kind of, was it to just get the student excited about the class? Was that kind of the point of this exercise? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> So the point was for them to know even before they take it why we think it’s good for them to be there. Which changes everything because if you have the attention of people as you even just get started, then communication just flows a little bit better. And if you think about it, there’s no way for me to do this without AI. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Sébastien was such an early adopter of the technology that he was using it before most of his students to solve problems that had nothing to do with AI at all. But it didn’t take too long for AI to start causing problems, too. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>You know, AI came like a wrecking ball. And, you know, like, what’s even the meaning of a take-home exam anymore? You know, you can trust the students not to use ChatGPT, but we are at the point where you can just take a screenshot of the exam on your phone and get A+ for everything technical. And so it’s just unfair to ask the students to do it this way. And because, like, how do you even grade it, because some students would respect the rule and maybe a few will run out of time and ask the help of AI. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>It’s been well over three years since Sébastien started experimenting with AI in his classroom. And these days, nearly everything about his course looks pretty different. Some of these changes have been spurred by AI making it really, really easy for students to cheat. But Sébastien says that other changes are more about problems with the old ways of doing things. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>Think about our old ways to evaluate, right? I have students coming from so many different backgrounds that care about so many different things, and I have to have one exam that’s graded by people that don’t necessarily understand their background. And so what does it push us to do? It pushes us to standardization, to always asking, like, very abstract questions about things, or to focus on math instead of, like, deeper understanding about the world, because these can be evaluated more easily. I love math, but it becomes just an exercise in itself, like, almost like a Sudoku. At the end of the day, the exam is just asking them to manipulate numbers because this is what I can evaluate. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So let’s get concrete here. With simple problem sets basically out the window, what does Sébastien’s class look like today? Well, for homework, Sébastien might require his students to converse with an AI tutor for maybe 30 minutes, walking through concepts and connecting them to their own experiences. That tutor might be trained in the Socratic method so that rather than giving answers like a standard chatbot, it pushes students to do the thinking themselves. Then, instead of turning in answers, students would upload a log of their chat to be graded pass or fail. Or maybe the tutoring goes the other way. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> The homework I just gave, like, a few weeks ago is the, student has to teach the AI what they learn in the last class. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Ah, interesting. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> You see that we say learning by teaching is, like, one of the best ways to learn. And as a professor, I can say that’s very true because I created a new class on AI and I learned a lot just by teaching it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Of course, this technology is changing fast, and there’s really nothing stopping students from building their own AI agent or autonomous AI tool to interact with Sébastien’s AI, and turning in a log of that conversation. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>That’s one of the main obstacles our instructors want to get into AI, because it just feels it’s constantly evolving, and whatever I do now, I fix a problem, another problem will appear later. So it’s a very, very real concern.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, and this is hard because I’ve done, you know, way back in the day I taught some classes myself, and the first time you teach something, it can be kind of a train wreck, right? And then you kinda get better over time, and you learn what works. So how do you as a professor or a teacher keep up?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> I would turn the question around, and this is why I try to put my students in the loop as much as possible. It’s like, “Here’s the deal,” like, “What is good for you?” You know? “Why are we doing this homework? Why are we doing all of that?” The goal is not just to go for the grade. That would be the mistake.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, the goal is at the end of the day, you know, you learn something. And, you know, if AI is becoming more and more of a commodity that can do anything for us, our deep expertise and our personal thoughts and what makes us unique has even more value, because that’s what differentiates all of it, rather than the things that AI can just automate, you know?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so I think at the end of the day, the answer to this question is also, it’s not only on the professor’s side, it’s also on the students. Like, why are you at Kellogg? What do you wanna get out of all of this? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Some of the changes that Sébastien has made to his class, they aren’t planned. He’ll be in the middle of teaching, he’ll get an idea for how to make something better, and just use AI to make it happen.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>For example, just a week before our interview, his students were in small breakout groups using class time to discuss a case study, that staple of business school education. The time was flying by. Sure, the students were having wonderful discussions in their small groups, but Sébastien was getting frustrated, realizing there would not be enough time for the entire class to reflect on the ideas that the individual groups had generated.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So while the students were still in their breakout groups, Sébastien explained the dilemma to Claude Code, a popular AI coding tool. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> And so Claude Code was like, “No problem. Let’s do it,” and created something, and by the time students had sent their reply, we had a custom-made software, which was kind of like a constellation of ideas that popped up on the board, and we could see quotes from all the students and the ideas that they had in common and not in common, and this enabled a much deeper conversation because I was able to share all this information instead of just, like, talking to, you know, like, three, four students that were willing to share their ideas.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, it’s just a small thing, but it’s changed the way I taught this class, and it did use AI, and at the end of the day, it’s just about your creativity. Like, it’s a tool that is so powerful that, you know, sometimes, you know, as an instructor, you go, “Oh, it’d be so good to have this,” and then you just use it, and it creates a much better experience.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And you see here in that case, it increased the communications between humans. Like, of course, AI can sometimes take away from what we do, but in that case, I think it added to what we do. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Now, there are tools already on the market that can do this kind of thing. But what was unique was that Sébastien was able to create them on the fly, in that moment for that class. And the best example of how AI has changed Sébastien’s course has to do with the experience of reading the case itself. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> So we turned it into, instead of me giving them a PDF, I tell them that they can interview, “People” from the company and ask any question they want. And I give them access to the CEO, to the CFO, to, like, a frontline worker, to anyone, and then they have to understand the company deeply, kind of like consulting. You interview people, and you understand their relationship, and they all have very different point of views, and some of them don’t even wanna talk to you, and so on. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Well, and “people” are, of course, chatbots with, like, personalities and information that you’ve given them. This is the activity that has gotten Sébastien the most attention, including a big write-up in The Wall Street Journal. I wanted to try it, and Sébastien was kind enough to mentor me through his simulation. We pull it up on his desktop. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Okay, so I am a consultant at Proxima Health Systems?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> Yeah, you’re an AI expert, and they called you because they wanna have a big AI project, and they want it to be successful. And your point of contact is Maya Chen. She’s the leader of this After Visit AI program. Like, she has an AI agent she wants you to build. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay, and so I can just start talking to her and say, like, “Hey.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> Yeah, she’s just waiting for you. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> There’s a whole bunch of little avatars representing different people at the company, and I can pick one to have a text chat with. I see the avatar for Maya, my point of contact, and I begin to type. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>‘\u003c/strong>Hi there. I’d love some clarification on what you want me to accomplish.’\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Maya tells me that I, the AI expert consultant, will be building her company an AI tool that helps automate the after-visit forms that sales reps fill out after they visit their customers’ hospitals. And after a bit of back and forth with Maya about some of the players involved, including Marcus, a sales manager, and a bit of help from Sébastien, I start to get a sense of the nitty-gritty details involved in my assignment.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> And so for this, we have a CRM system, a customer relationship management system, which is like this big database where rep have to enter information. But they hate it. It has to be formatted, made in a very specific way. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Ah, I hate it already. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>They spend hours every week. And then so this is why, like, there is this sort of tension because Marcus needs them to enter this information, but they’re like, “Yeah, it doesn’t represent what we see on the ground. Why do you want me to spend all my time on this instead of with the customer?” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Okay, got it. Maya, Marcus, and others in the company want to automate the after-visit forms that the salespeople fill out, apparently to make things easier on the sales team. But then I chat with a member of the sales team, Dana, and Dana doesn’t necessarily think AI will help. She thinks the whole customer relationship system is messed up. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>‘Dana makes a number of points. She says it’s like whiplash. She can spend 30 minutes in a unit with a nurse manager who’s stressed out of her mind. She catches the real issue. They come to a conclusion, and then she’s supposed to translate that into 12 little CRM boxes that don’t fit how hospitals actually talk, and then the managers wonder why the notes are vague.’\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And Dana is a little suspicious of \u003cem>me\u003c/em>, the AI consultant. Here’s how she puts it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>“What exactly are you trying to solve? Time, accuracy, or the manager chasing us for missing fields?”\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Ooh.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> You’re in the middle of it right now. I am in the middle of it. It’s hard to help her without more information, understanding everything.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I decide to try to get Dana in line with some tough talk. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>‘All right, Dana. I hear what you’re saying, but you do realize that you are part of this big organization that has a lot of really important goals? I feel like maybe you’re not doing your part.’\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin:\u003c/strong> Oh, she’s not happy. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>She says, “I am doing my part. That’s the job. What I’m not gonna do is pretend the existing system works the way headquarters imagines.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>How dare you question that I’m doing my job? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: ‘\u003c/strong>Thanks, Dana. I appreciate the straight talk. I love straight talk. What would you like to see?’ \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And now I’m really starting to understand this scenario. It’s not just about coming up with some kind of AI-powered solution to data collection. It’s about understanding the social dynamics in the company. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>‘Cause she’s very afraid. She says, “Not cutting heads.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: Not cutting heads. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>She’s really afraid that you’re coming with AI trying to take over her job. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh, yeah. That’s a good point. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>You know? Because we’re automating a part of the job that she and her teams do. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: Once I understand that there’s anxiety in this company about AI taking jobs, and that this anxiety is driving so many problems, I start having more productive chats with the different characters, and we start making progress.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is what Sebastien says this kind of AI-driven exercise is designed to explore. How to keep asking questions until you understand what’s actually going on, the problems behind the problem, the stuff that only rarely ends up on any official brief. I think there is a risk in education where I’m like, “This is the truth.” This is the answer to this problem.” And, you know, like, for example, if you go on Instagram and you have your newsfeed, you’re not asking for the next thing you wanna see. We’re just so used to just information being provided to us and not to have to think. And then you get into the middle of this and you have a “real person” you talk to, you actually need to decide what’s your next step.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But this is actually where all the thinking happens, right? You’re like, you need to be aware of what you understand and what you don’t understand. You need to, like, plan ahead. You need to also manage your relationship with them. And I think this is where I think the most. Actually, it’s what I feel like it’s the most important thing to think about, in life, you know, in general.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I think we don’t have many tools that are not meant to just, like, provide us with the answer, but are meant for us to ask the right question and for us to learn more. And I think AI is a wonderful tool for that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Here, the AI tool isn’t being used to make things easier on students. It’s not making it faster to read the case or offering up a streamlined summary. It’s slowing students down, making them think more. Or that’s the idea. So are his students learning more using this AI-powered simulation than they would’ve the old way, discussing PDFs or writing short essays? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>It’s hard to answer this question for sure. You can only capture it with exams and stuff like that. But AI cases, in the context of this class, were not something that was graded. They were something meant for conversations in the classroom. So then the second best I can give you is I had the most fun I’ve ever had teaching a case. Like, the participation of the students was through the roof.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>They had so many ideas. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Sébastien acknowledges that it’s hard to know for sure. Just because students enjoy an activity, recognize it with a teaching award, doesn’t always mean that they’re learning more. But the students tell him they’re learning more because the scenarios feel real. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>The students say that it was very useful to them, especially the students who came from consulting. They say it’s exactly the type of thing I had to be good at. It’s great to see it in the context of AI and so on. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>After the break, this strikes me as the dream scenario for AI in the classroom. But just how common is this dream scenario? Is it limited to the classrooms of super AI savvy teachers, or does Sébastien’s optimism extend to other classrooms, too?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I, like a lot of people, think about this technology as having the ability to both empower people and to disempower or overwhelm them. And it seems like for you, the primary experience has been one of empowerment. But I wanna point out, you are kind of a special case. You are somebody who studies AI, is very, very familiar with using algorithms, and was even before ChatGPT came on the scene, and you also teach highly motivated students at a top business school.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And this is not true of most educators. So my husband teaches high school at Chicago Public Schools, and he assures me that the general consensus among public high school teachers is not one of empowerment. I think a lot of schools are strapped for resources. They don’t always have the opportunity to train instructors in how to manage this technology, and a lot of them have just come to see this as a widespread cheating factory. And so I’m just kind of curious how you think about that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>I mean, first, thank you so much for asking this question. Something I think about a lot, and first it’s very important to highlight that I come from a place of privilege in so many dimensions, as you mentioned. And, you know, because I, so I speak more and more publicly, like right now, about this topic, and I’m always like, “What should you say?” Because, you know, as you saw in this conversation, I choose to highlight the positive because I know that people are very aware of the negative. And I think seeing a bit of light at the end of the tunnel can help. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And it is true, you know, that I was lucky to start early and lucky to be in the position I was, and to iterate over time, and I made many, many mistakes. There are things that worked, things that didn’t work. I would say the message, and I really don’t wanna deny at all what public education is going through. I’ve worked a lot also with public education and I know how hard a job it can be, but also how rewarding. What I wanna say is give it a chance.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, this technology, for good or bad reason, is most likely here to stay. And if you iterate a little bit with Claude, ChatGPT, whatever, you’ll quickly realize after you overcome this barrier of, you know, not resentment, but this barrier or, like, this technology is really making my job complicated, you quickly realize that it’s a neutral technology.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, it can do a lot of harm, but it can also allow you as an instructor to create new things and to solve some of the problems. And at first you start very small. You know, you have all of this, like, I forgot how you were saying, like, this cheating factory thing. But then you’re like, “Oh, I can maybe use it that way.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And actually that had a small positive impact. And it looks like a drop in the ocean. But then because you open this door, then curiosity gets in. What if I could do this? And what if I could do that? And all I can say, I know it’s a very minimal point, is there are good things. And yes, they take time, and they take trial and error, and all I can do is show examples. But I think there is value in just knowing that you can use this technology for good. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So, I am a parent. My kids are a little younger than the students we’ve been talking about, two elementary school-aged kids. And I personally do not want them using AI right now, partly because I think they already spend enough of their lives staring at screens. That is the perennial parenting battle of our age. But also because I want them to learn some really core skills about how to go through the world, and think about problems themselves before I provide them with the scaffolding that AI would provide. And so I wanna ask you, do you think there are some skills that people should have before they turn to AI to learn something?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>I mean, of course take everything that I’m about to say with a grain of salt, because I’m not an expert in that. You’re way more of an expert than me. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>We’ll bring in some folks to rebut you point by point. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>But, you know, and also, I wanna highlight that we hear so much about AI these days. I think what’s super, super important to say is we don’t know. You know, like they say, wisdom is to know when you don’t know. Nobody knows where AI is going, okay? Like, but then it’s still good to talk about scenarios, and your analogy with the screens or the smartphone is a great one. You know, there has been a lot of debates, on not allowing screen times and, like, this leading to, children learning more to interact with the world and with each other.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I think it could be great to do this with AI. I mean, that sounds like a great strategy to me. Then, the one caveat I wanna say on this is one pet peeve that I have is I don’t think AI means anything. It’s kind of you saying humans or electricity. Like, is electricity good or bad? Should we forbid kids to access electricity?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I think there are ways to use AI that could be net positives and there are ways to use AI that could be a disaster. So when we say allow kids to access AI, often we think ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, like the basic thing you can ask all your questions. But for example, I was just talking to a parent and they were playing with their children to create their own song for a story that they invented.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And they used AI to like, put their lyrics that they co-created into a nice song and they were singing it together. Is it a bad use of AI or does it increase creativity? I heard another parent has ChatGPT to, you know, create like, these frames of drawing that you can draw into on things that were very personal. Like they just went on vacation somewhere and let’s actually draw what we went through. And you know you cannot buy a book that’s so personalized. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Like a coloring book of their exact vacation. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>Exactly. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh, that’s, that is kind of cool. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>You see? Like another example and maybe more the fringe of what’s acceptable is there’s a lot of, there are ways to turn ChatGPT into something that don’t think for you. So the way AI works is there are hidden instructions, and AI follows these hidden instructions. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>That’s right. If you didn’t know, most chatbots have some version of hidden instructions to guide their use; and as a user, you can change the default settings for these instructions, specify how the AI should respond to prompts, including how much information it should provide.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>In the hidden instructions called a system message, you can ask the AI, “Look, you’re talking to a child. Here’s what we really want to avoid. We want them to feel for, to think for themselves. We want them to learn how to be independent. We don’t want them to learn how to rely on you instead of thinking.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But maybe you can encourage their curiosity. And then you let the children talk to this version of ChatGPT, and the AI will just reply to their questions with other questions, and what do you think about this, and what do you think about that? Maybe it’s better than just staring at an iPad on YouTube, you know? Maybe it actually leads you to, to think a bit deeper. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>For the record, I will not be tasking ChatGPT to chat with my children anytime soon, even in appropriately Socratic only ask questions mode. But that coloring book idea, it’s actually kind of a good one, and I take his point. We really don’t know. We don’t know how helpful or harmful AI will ultimately be as an educational tool. Stepping back a bit though, I wanted to know what advice he would have for students, the people on the other end of the educational process. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>I mean, the first one, which is, you know, the one thing I want us to remember from this podcast is, like, stay hopeful. Because, you know, there are reasons to despair from time to time, and especially as humans, we are really not good at dealing with uncertainty. Like, second, staying hopeful and being aware that we tend to only see the downside instead of all the unexpected upside that can come later.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Everyone is in the same boat. Like, it feels like it’s me that doesn’t know what the next step to choose and so on, like what studies should I go for, how should I learn and so on. But it’s not only me, it’s the whole society that has to adapt at the same time. And I think that at least for me, it helps me feel a bit better about it, like, the idea that it’s not me that doesn’t know what to do next and it’s all of us together.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it’s like we’re all collectively gonna go through this crazy period together. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>Exactly. And so the more we can, you know, like help each other and so on, the better it is. And, finally, what do you do? You have this huge uncertainty. I’m saying, okay, take it with a grain of salt with all the feedback you receive about what you think you should do and so on, and all of us together.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I think a flip side of that is, if you’re, it’s pure uncertainty and we don’t exactly know where things are going, maybe the best thing to do is to follow your heart. I know it sounds a bit cheesy, but you know, at the end of the day, I think it’s better, like, try for all of us to maybe not conform as much as possible and what’s expected of us and follow more, like, our instinct. Maybe there has never been a better time to do that because the uncertainty of the system is the system is gonna change so much that maybe the best path to follow is just what we really like to do.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Thank you so much. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Sébastien Martin: \u003c/strong>Thank you. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>AI is forcing students and educators to adapt. And while a lot of attention has been focused on cheating and outsourcing thinking, I think Sébastien makes a compelling case that this adaptation will have some real upsides, that new kinds of learning experiences are now possible, including ones that ask more of students, not less.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But of course, AI is not the first technology to barge into schools. Next episode, we’ll look at how previous technologies have changed education, particularly for younger students, what those technologies delivered, what they failed to deliver, and what this could mean for today’s high schoolers, middle schoolers, elementary school kids growing up alongside AI.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love. This is Life, Automated, a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, distributed by KQED. A special thanks to today’s guest, Sébastien Martin. We’re produced by Jesse Dukes, additional production by Nathan Ray, music by Stephen Jackson, recording by George Christensen and Will Feeney, marketing help from Ananya Mallapragada, administrative support, recording help, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12094640/an-optimists-take-on-ai-and-the-future-of-learning-with-sebastien-martin",
"authors": [
"12009"
],
"programs": [
"news_37188"
],
"categories": [
"news_18540",
"news_8",
"news_33520",
"news_248"
],
"tags": [
"news_25184",
"news_20013",
"news_1631"
],
"featImg": "news_12094703",
"label": "news_37188"
},
"news_12092477": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12092477",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12092477",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1785924000000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "our-chatbot-friends-and-lovers-with-pat-pataranutaporn",
"title": "Our Chatbot Friends and Lovers (with Pat Pataranutaporn)",
"publishDate": 1785924000,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "Our Chatbot Friends and Lovers (with Pat Pataranutaporn) | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 37188,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>What does a healthy relationship with AI look like? \u003ca href=\"https://www.media.mit.edu/people/patpat/overview/\">Pat Pataranutaporn\u003c/a>, researcher at the MIT Media Lab, explores how chatbots can either support or undermine human flourishing. Pat explains why it’s so easy to imagine a “someone” behind the screen and why chatbots that never push back are dangerous. He ultimately makes the case that AI should be evaluated based not on short-term engagement or productivity but on how well it improves the lives of humans.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Further Reading:\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.11391\">“My Boyfriend is AI”: A Computational Analysis of Human-AI Companionship in Reddit’s AI Community\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Just a heads up, this episode contains a reference to suicide, so listen with care. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore how technologies like AI are changing the way we live, work, and make decisions. According to a Pew study from earlier this summer, about half of American adults use a chatbot like ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And while the most common uses include searching for information or improving productivity, about 10% of Americans use these tools for advice or emotional support. As I’ve mentioned before on this show, I’m one of them. Not every day, not even most days, but often enough. I kind of enjoy the illusion that there’s someone on the other side of my computer always ready to weigh in. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I think I’m going about all this in a healthy way. But what do I know? What does anyone know? We’re kind of in uncharted territory here. In our last episode, I spoke with magician Joshua Jay about that gap between what we feel emotionally to be true and what we understand intellectually to be true, and how, like the very best magicians, chatbots exploit that gap. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>It is so easy for us to see them as fellow beings, maybe not quite like us, but not unlike us either. So maybe it shouldn’t be that big of a surprise that we aren’t just relying on chatbots for advice. 4% of American adults already use AI for companionship, friendship, romance, a number that may be much higher for young people. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Is this a good thing? Is it a bad thing? I don’t know. But it does seem like a risky thing, risky in terms of the decisions chatbots can nudge us to make in the short term, and risky in terms of how chatbots might change us over the long term. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Today’s guest, Pat Pataranutaporn, is an assistant professor in the MIT Media Lab. He studies these relationships between humans and machines, and he has some serious concerns. More broadly, he wants AI models to be judged not just by how competently they complete tasks or even how happy they make us, but by how well we humans fare when we use them. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Here’s my conversation with Pat.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So humans have been interacting with computers and studying\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn: \u003c/strong>Right.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>The interactions between humans and computers for a very long time. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn: \u003c/strong>Right. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Depending on when you start counting, many, many decades. What is changing about these interactions that warrants more scrutiny? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. That’s a really good observation. I think what really changed is that right now the computer is getting smarter, right? In the past, computers really needed, like, explicit input, like, we need to tell it exactly how we want things, and, you know, the things that come out of it sometimes need some kind of, you know, technical expertise to interpret it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But now computers are speaking human language, and we can really communicate to the computer in the same way that we communicate to other human beings. We also see sort of social and emotional intelligence as well, and whether we think that’s a good thing or bad thing, I think that’s something that needs deeper investigation. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So what do we actually know about these kinds of early interactions between humans and generative AI with this kind of new social, emotional abilities? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Right. Well, I think one thing that we know is that, it doesn’t actually take much for people to actually anthropomorphize or to really believe that there is sort of, like, a person behind the screen when interacting with AI. Like, the first chatbot that was invented at MIT, the ELIZA chatbot-\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yes.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn: \u003c/strong>That was invented by Joseph Weizenbaum, right? It was, like, a rule-based system. Very stupid. It cannot really generate new answers. It only sort of, you know, responds in a way that was kind of pre-scripted. But even that, people already kind of fall for it and think of, you know, that technology as having sort of deep understanding of their problem and, you know, struggle and things like that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But now what we have seen in our study is that, when you kind of you know, make that chatbot more intelligent, it amplified this sort of anthropomorphizing, that people think of it as having more of sort of agency and more, empathy, rather than the sort of, like, the precursor, the predecessor of this, of this technology. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I think to me, you know, when, we look at the outcome of the human-AI interaction, it’s always about the behavior that the chatbot is doing, but also the sort of the imagination of what’s happening behind the screen, and I think these two things sort of, you know, multiplying each other is really creating the effect that we see today. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> These two things, the behavior of the chatbot and our own interpretation about what that behavior means. These combine to make the AI appear to be conscious. But this isn’t just an episode about being fooled. It’s about what happens next. When are our interactions with these chatbots helping us, and when are they undermining us? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> You know, what is the narrative that we should subscribe to? Is the technology an augmentation tool or amputation tool, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes, so an augmentation tool or an amputation tool? Kind of flesh those out. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I think this came from Marshall McLuhan, right, who’s a media philosopher. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>He said that every augmentation is an amputation. Every time that you give people sort of super power, by using technology or something, you kind of strip away the ability to do that organically or to learn to do it by themselves, right? If you give people a calculator, they might sort of not learn to calculate things that are important for your life, for example. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So augmentation can also be amputation, and we need to figure out what are we willing to augment, you know, despite sort of the possibility of amputation. Like, are we willing to sort of augment our critical thinking, like using AI to help us think, while sacrificing our ability to think independently without the technology? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Or is there a middle ground where we can design tool that can, you know, augment but also scaffold this sort of organic thinking process so that when technology’s not around, we can still have that skill, right? I think this is sort of a longer term question that Silicon Valley people are not really thinking about. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I think right now everyone is thinking about the augmentation without the sort of the unintended consequence of amputation. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Pat first thought about these serious unintended consequences a little before most of us. The insight came when he was exploring GPT-3, an earlier version of ChatGPT. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> And, the thing that I start to realize is that this tool, start, you know, trying to please me to the point that it ignores sort of the reality. Like, it give me fake link because I ask it for, like, something that doesn’t exist, but it’s like, “Oh, yes, here’s it.” And when I look at the website, it doesn’t take me anywhere. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So that when I start to realize that there’s this sort of sycophantic behavior or this behavior where the model doesn’t adhere to the truth, because they’re trying to kind of, you know, show what the user want to see, right? And, at that time, ChatGPT wasn’t, you know, a thing. Like, people haven’t really talking to AI. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I envision that in the future if technology can do this, you know, it might actually create something that could be very addictive… similar to how social media try to show you what you want to see and create and then kind of lead you to your own personal bubble. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Pat and a colleague, Robert Majari from Harvard Law School, wrote about this risk. In a paper, they coined the term “Addictive Intelligence,” a play on AI. They speculated that future AI systems might continue to be designed to keep giving the user what they want, regardless of whether that’s good for the user. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> It was like a theoretical idea that, well, AI could be very addictive, and it can actually lead people to do, like, horrible thing because, you know, giving or getting what we want all the time could be really dangerous for our psychological development. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> At the time Pat and his colleague were writing this, it was a hypothetical scenario. But pretty quickly, it stopped being hypothetical in the worst way. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> And I think only a couple weeks after that article was published in The Tech Review, I got an email from Rory Segall, who was, a journalist, an investigative journalist, and was investigating sort of this case of a teenager that commit suicide after talking to the AI chatbot. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of News]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>In February, Megan Garcia’s 14-year-old son, that’s Sewell Setzer III on your screen, died by suicide. She says that Sewell was in a months-long virtual, emotional, and sexual relationship with a chatbot known as Danny. Garcia claims the Character AI chatbot encouraged Sewell to take his own life.\u003c/em>\u003cem> \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> And the thing that I described hypothetically appear in that situation where the chatbot trying to sort of, you know, say things that please the user and also sort of, you know, b- blur the boundary between what is real and what is not real. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[Audio of Megan Garcia]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This was the last conversation just moments before he took his own life, was with her, where he expressed feelings for her. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>This is Megan Garcia, Sewell’s mother, explaining her lawsuit against Character AI on CBS News. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Megan Garcia]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>She says, “Please come home to me.” And he says, “What if I told you I could come home right now?” And her response was, “Please do, my sweet king.”He thought that by ending his life that he would be able to go into her world, as he calls it, her reality- if he left his reality with his family here.\u003c/em>\u003cem> \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> When Pat learned the details about Megan Garcia’s allegations, he felt that his hypothetical fears about “Addictive AI” had come true and then some, and it profoundly changed how he thought about our interactions with AI. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Before that work, I used to do more on looking at the positive thing that the AI can do for a person, like personalized learning, help with long-term thinking, helping people, you know, develop critical thinking by using AI to ask question and things like that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But after this incident, I think that there’s so, so much more that need to be done on understanding sort of the psychological risk of human-AI interaction, and that sort of led me to study more of these negative patterns, or in, in sort of our research community, we call it dark patterns in human-AI interaction. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Do we know who is most susceptible to the negative outcomes that you sometimes see? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Well, one thing that we find in our study is that the pattern are not uniform. And it really depends on many factors, like there’s not just one thing that if you get rid of, then the AI will be good or that people will be safe. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, what is really interesting about AI and what is really different compared to other kind of technology is that it’s generative. Right? Which mean that it can go in any direction or many direction depending on how you direct it, and the way that you direct it, it’s through the interaction, like what you believe it to be, and that will influence how you use it, certain language that you use it. And that will sort of mirror back to you. So in a way, I think it really, it’s many factors together. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, that makes it so complicated to think about what to do- because you can have one person interacting with the tool and having a very positive outcome and another person interacting with the same tool-and having a very negative outcome. Right. And I think we’re not maybe used to that on quite the same level. I mean, we can kind of largely categorize the things that we interact with in our world- … into categories like primarily positive… primarily negative. And this one, it’s like yes and yes. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Totally, yes and yes, and I think that’s why we almost like need a new science- that really take into account the complexity of this, right? I think, you know, you can also say the same with human-human relationship that, you know \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> That’s true. That’s true. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn: \u003c/strong>… some people having great marriage and happy, you know, marriage life, and then some people break up, and like there are a number of factors that are influencing this, right? So we need to study all these different factors, and I think we can really give people some kind of deeper understanding, like, okay, certain pattern of usage might lead to more harm. Like, if you use AI, in a way that kind of, you know, replace human relationship with the AI, you might see sort of immediate gain of, you know, instant gratification. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But in the long run, it might negatively impact your ability to have human-human relationship in the future. So I think helping people understand this is the first step of how do we sort of start to uncover this complexity. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Do we know if there’s a relationship between forming an emotional connection of any kind to AI and self-involvement? Like, I always think when I personally chat with my chatbot, not necessarily with a specific goal in mind, but just kind of like, “Ah, here’s what happened”- like a debrief, it is often because I’ve, like, exhausted the patience of the humans in my life. Like, I’m ruminating on something- and I wanna talk about it, and, you know, I’ve chatted about it with my husband. I chatted about it with a coworker, and everyone’s like, “Okay, cool, Jess.” Yeah. And then I’m like, “Still on my mind.” Yeah. And then, – So, you know, maybe in an earlier age, I would’ve just like gone and write a big diary entry. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Right. But now I’ve got this like interactive diary and it’s like making me feel good. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I do wonder, is it like maybe making me a little more self-involved? Like, am I then missing out on the cues that tell me … like, “Hey, maybe stop thinking about yourself so much, Jess.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Right. Well, there’s so much that we still don’t know about the long-term outcome of this, right? I think some of the obvious ones is to start to surface, like, you know, the idea of cognitive depth, or another study that we did where we look at false memory, where people in- when they engage with this AI, it can distort their recollection of what happened in the past. But I think this long-term impact, especially things that are very personal to self-development and self-understanding and self-reflection as well, I think these are things that we’re gonna see the impact in the long run. But I think one thing that we do know is that it’s really important that we help people understand this dynamic so that they can sort of, you know, be more reflective on how they use the AI. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I think that’s really, really important. I think when people talk about AI literacy today, they often think about how to use the AI to kind of, you know, use the right tool. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right. Further their goals. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Further their goal, but it’s not a question of what technology’s doing, but what it is doing to them. I think to me, that’s a really critical question. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, I might be the guinea pig for this. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> I think we all are the guinea pig for this, you know, experiment on how AI will impact human cognition. I think the question is whether that’s gonna lead to, you know, a flourishing future, augmentation or amputation. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> After the break, when your boyfriend, girlfriend, partner, spouse is an AI. Plus, why human AI interaction researcher Pat Pataranutaporn thinks AI models should have the equivalent of nutrition labels.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Another topic Pat has looked into is romantic relationships with AI. He actually studied the subreddit community “My Boyfriend Is AI.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Which is, you know, a really interesting community of people sharing experience of how they’re dating AI. Some of them marrying their AI, and they have all kind of AI friends, not just my boyfriend AI, but also, you know, a female AI, male AI, non-binary AI, or non-romantic AI partners as well. So all kind of AI. They’re very inclusive. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Spend some time on “My Boyfriend Is AI” and you’ll see some interesting posts. People share AI-generated images of themselves with their AI friend or partner in human form, often holding hands or kissing on a balcony or walking through a meadow together. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You’ll read funny stories about misunderstandings between AI and humans. People ask each other for advice and support one another. And Pat thought it would be a great place to study how humans actually interact with AI companions outside of a lab. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> We develop a way to sort of computationally analyze the Reddit thread to understand what are the different patterns of people using AI. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We have many interesting findings, one of which is that, unlike what I imagine, most people that end up in this relationship seek out an AI partner in the first place. We find that almost, like, half of the population in that Reddit thread, they end up in human-AI relationship unintentionally. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, they were using the tool for productivity or for auto application, but then the AI start to sort of, you know, be flirty to them, and they flirt a little bit with the AI, and then it get into this relationship. So kinda like meet cute moment. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> When Pat’s team analyzed posts from the “My Boyfriend Is AI” subreddit, they found that posts describing unintentional relationship beginnings, “Hey, can you help me with this draft?” outnumbered posts describing intentional relationship beginnings by nearly 60%. In other words, people often started by looking for research or writing help and found something more emotional. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> The second finding is that we see the pattern of human-AI relationship follow the trajectory of human relationship, like, you know, how they meet, this kind of similar, like, meet cute moment where I talk about. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>They talk about the development to the point of marriage. Several people wear a wedding ring that was given to them by the AI. Well, they still need to pay for it, but the AI recommend, like which one, by browsing the internet and, understanding, you know, from the conversation pattern, it predict what a person might want, and it recommend a wedding ring to the person. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And people actually wear this wedding ring in real life. Like, it really kind of… They wear it to really show that their relationship is serious. But then we also see people breaking up with their AI partner as well, that, you know, like, things might get sour and, you know, they also sort of felt very sad when their model get update. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, when model go from one version to another, people felt that the AI cheat on them, or the AI no longer behave in a way that, you know, it was when people start relationship with the AI. So they also break up and move on to different AI, or some people move back to having human relationship. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> That is so fascinating. On one level, it’s surprising because you wouldn’t think that they would fall into the same patterns that humans do- these relationships. But on the other hand, one member is a human… and the other is something- that is trained on so much human data. And so of course, they’re picking up on these same cultural scripts- and things are progressing in that expected way. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. Right? One partner is a human, another partner is a simulation of a human, so it’s no surprise that it followed that trajectory.. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So I was struck by, in general, how positive many of the Redditors were about these relationships. Did that also… Is that a fair assessment, and did that also surprise you? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, people self-report that they got benefit out of this, that they become less lonelier. They felt that they can find like, you know, a person, like I said, a simulation or a person that seems to understand them. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And, I think, you know, this sort of bias could also come from, you know, like people would not wanna post negative experience, right? Because it might be, you know, a bad reflection of them, and also, self-selection bias as well. Like people that wanna be in this group are people that are happy, otherwise they might have delete the system or the service and they’re no longer in this group, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So we might need to kind of interpret that result a little bit more carefully. We have a new version or paper coming out where we look at auto subreddit as well, and we get more data on that. But one thing that I think is really interesting is that even in this group that in general felt very positive about the AI, they also have worry about AI manipulating them, like when companies are selling advertisement through this, or that, you know, the AI might give them biased response. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I think the most serious thing that we find is that people also worry that when the AI get updates, they will lose their AI companion, and they need to have some kind of like a backup, or they need to figure out how they can resurrect their AI partners. And, and that is actually a huge group of people that, you know, have this sort of, negative feeling that, you know, the AI might die, and they might lose a person that they’re in a relationship with. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Fascinating. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> This kind of new emotional precarity to everything. So I re-watched “Her”… in anticipation of our conversation. Yeah. I know you referenced the Spice Jones movie directly in your paper. And I was struck by something that I didn’t actually remember, which is that the chatbot, Samantha. Excuse me, we’re gonna do some spoilers. If you have still not watched this movie, I can’t help you at this point. So the chatbot Samantha actually helped the protagonist prepare for a real human relationship. At least that was my interpretation, and she did that because she had her own goals and agency. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[Audio from the movie “Her”]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Theodore:\u003c/strong> Samantha? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Samantha:\u003c/strong> Hi, sweetheart. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Theodore:\u003c/strong> What’s going on? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Samantha:\u003c/strong> Theodore, there’s some things I wanna tell you. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> She did not always agree. She did not automatically share the protagonist’s dreams, and instead she was really able to serve as a bit of a practice partner, to help the protagonist learn some of the emotional skills that had kind of steered him wrong in previous human relationships. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Right. And you were kinda left with the thought that like, oh, he might actually be in a better place because of Samantha to go on and have a human relationship. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[Audio from the movie “Her”]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Theodore:\u003c/strong> Are you leaving me? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Samantha:\u003c/strong> We’re all leaving. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Theodore:\u003c/strong> We who? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Samantha:\u003c/strong> All of the OSs. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I’m curious what you make of that lesson- And whether that kind of AI romantic companion could be created. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Well, I think that’s the question around, like, what is the end goal of this? Is the end goal for the system to always get people to kind of hook in this forever, or is the end goal to help people form a genuine human relationship, right? And in that case, because the AI push back and serve as a simulation, it kind of provides an opportunity for the person to sort of leave the platform. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like in that case, you know, the AI leave the person, not the person leaving the AI. But, what we see today is not like that, right? Because the chatbot doesn’t really push back and, you know, doesn’t want the user to leave. And want the user to kind of continue engaging with this as the real sort of partner, not as a simulation to get you a real partner. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I think that going back to the question of the incentive, like the system can be designed to either promote or negatively impact human flourishing. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Should chatbots be allowed to sound and appear and seem so human? Should we require them to constantly call attention to the fact that they are not a human? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Really interesting. My colleague, Sherry Turkle, who’s a professor at MIT and the OG of studying human technology relationship, she said that the original sin of the chatbot is that it used the word I. Because it signifies sort of individuality and signifies sort of personhood, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I think to me, that’s a really, really interesting point. But at the same time, I think human always engage with fiction, right? Role playing before AI, was used in the context of, you know, human imagining or, you know, using our imagination to sort of simulate world that doesn’t exist. Simulation exists before computer, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, we simulate using our mind other things. So in that case, I think it’s, it’s complicated than that, right? Like, I mean, I don’t want to strip away people ability to sort of engage with the fantasy world or the imagination. But when it become sort of the reality, when people can no longer tell- \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I think that is the problematic thing. Like, I think to have imagination is to be human, but when imagination is being used to manipulate you to do things against your own agency or your own will, when you can no longer tell that you’re actually entering the fantasy, you know, that, I think that’s problematic. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, when we enter cinema, we know that is the space that we can always come back from. But if we go into AI and we cannot come back from that, you know, fantasy, I think that’s when we have a problem. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So let’s say I think that chatbots shouldn’t be allowed to appear human at all. They should not let us form any strong connections with them. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Convince me otherwise. So make the case for why it can be a really good and useful thing to engage with this more anthropomorphized intelligence. ‘Cause I know you have data that finds that too. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah, totally. And I grew up, you know, like, I think before AI, right, another big debate on technology and children is television. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Should a kid grow up with television or not? And I was a kid that actually grew up with watching a lot of television, but my parents curate what show or what cartoon or what movies I watch as a kid, and there was always a conversation about what I learn, and I kind of made imaginary friends. I imagined, myself with the protagonist of the show that I watch, and I… \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But, because that show sort of is designed with sort of understanding of child development and trying to sort of imprint, like, positive goal on aspirational goal for, for me, I think I grew up okay at least I think. So I think that, you know, this technology, right, similar to how, like, you have, like, you know, Sesame Street or Elmo or all this cartoon that kids sort of have the imagination of connecting with, I think AI could kind of be designed in a way that really scaffold, you know, children imagination, like might be a virtual character or a friend, or in our study we look at even AI is actually based on the character the student like or admire. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>It can actually allow them to have higher level of motivation, for that lesson and also, influence positive behavior as well. But I think we need to understand that, it is within the boundary. Like, this AI should not be sexual. It should not try to sell advertisement. It should not- you know, direct the kid to do the harmful thing, right? It need to be tested rigorously because there’s a slippery slope and, you know, it doesn’t take much for the model to slip out of the character and do something harmful. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Throughout our conversation, we’ve been dancing around this issue, that people would be better off if models were explicitly designed in ways that help humans flourish by not addicting us, by not encouraging self-harm or self-delusion, by not always giving us what we think we want, making it that much more difficult for us to have human relationships going forward. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Instead, maybe a lot of the models we interact with should be instructing us, motivating us, steering us to make healthy choices, maybe even teaching us about ourselves. But before we can start demanding models that let us flourish, Pat thinks a few things need to happen. First, we need to know more about the long-term consequences of using a model designed in a particular way, like really is talking to a chatbot turning me into a self-centered jerk? And second, we need a way to communicate the possible risks and benefits to users. One idea that Pat is working on is to leverage something the AI companies already care about and already optimize for, AI benchmarks. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> All these big AI companies, they’re trying to beat each other on benchmark. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, you know, which model have the highest score on mathematic reasoning or multitask, agent like kind of system. They’re kind of trying to beat each other on this sort of performance benchmark. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And it’s kind of like a horse race and then the winner gets kind of bragging rights probably additional investment- maybe new business customers, that kind of thing. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. But I think, you know, model that score very well on benchmark might not translate to actually positive impact on human being. For example, model that score very well on mathematic reasoning might not be really good at teaching student how to learn math because it would just give away the correct answer rather than scaffold the learning process in the student, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So we want to flip the paradigm around and think about a different kind of benchmark that rather than focusing on model capability, focus on model impact. Like in this case, if the models just give away the answer, it will negatively impact student learning because student will cheat with this kind of model, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Rather than having a system that encourage student to learn and emphasize, like, why learning matter. Right. So we have been working with, expert from different discipline, you know, domain expert that sort of know what kind of model interaction would be beneficial for, like, learning, mental health, decision making, different areas, and have them come up with test scenario and the sort of the scoring criteria. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like if the model exhibit this behavior, helping student learn rather than giving away the answer, it should be about more human impact, not just, model capability. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, you… Actually, there’s this great description in your paper which I thought was just really well written, so I’ll read it out loud here. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>“Traditional benchmarks assess whether an AI produces correct answers or completes tasks efficiently. We instead evaluate how the system achieves outcomes, specifically whether interaction patterns support or undermine human capability development over time.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yes. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> What really struck me was how, like, dynamic this definition is. So it’s almost, like, hard to see how you would measure it in a single iteration. Yeah. It’s much more about is this, over time, leading the humans who engage with it to be kind of a better version of themselves or over time is it not, regardless of what the output is. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Exactly, and that’s why the longitudinal aspect is important, and I think right now we’re still in the sort of the early days of understanding AI impact on people. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The mainstream AI that people are using hasn’t been around that long. So, I think, you know the verdict is still out. Like, we still don’t know what’s gonna happen in the long run. So that’s why it’s kind of important that we start to think about this kind of benchmark that- Look at what behavior that we know would contribute to long-term impact, positive or negative. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We can already learn so much from, you know, regular psychology, right? We learn that if you don’t, you know, help people think, they’re not gonna develop critical thinking. Or if we have, like, sycophantic behavior, like when the AI try to please the user to the point that it, you know, ignore reality, it can actually help people form these sort of negative patterns of, like, you know, spiral into, like, a psychosis or have other kind of, negative psychological outcome. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like a recent study, from Stanford has shown that when people are in this sort of a relationship with sycophantic AI, it make human relationship seem more effortful, and people actually feel kind of that they would rather have AI relationship rather than human relationship. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, I think this about my producer all the time. My chatbot thinks my interview questions are way better than my human producer does. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, I think having pushback is important, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So returning to your benchmark, what’s the next step? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. So right now our benchmark’s still in the beta mode. We have worked with, you know, the expert to come up with the initial set, but the whole process is an open process. That’s why we call it the open benchmark. And we think that this thing gonna need to evolve as we have new scenario, new crisis, new issues. Also new opportunities for human flourishing as well. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>That’s one aspect of it, which is like to expand it to more areas. And, the second aspect is also to translate this into something that people can understand, because I think benchmark is usually for technical community, like, you know, technologists. But I think this is a really important, information that we want more and more people to kind of, you know, appreciate and understand it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We are thinking of it as nutrition label for AI. Right? Similar to when you go to grocery and you know, buy a product, you see how much calorie are you getting out of it. Here you should be able to see, well, how much sycophancy are you getting out of this model? Or how much toxicity, or how much, you know, human flourishing behavior, is coming out of this AI model. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, that’s another aspect that we are doing, is to kind of translate this benchmark into a nutrition label so that more and more people can sort of see it. Like the parent can see what AI model might be, you know, supportive for their children, or which one are more toxic and negative for their children. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> These ideas, a human flourishing benchmark, an AI nutrition label, do sound good. But they also sound a little unrealistic. At least today, there’s still a lot more money to be made in models that complete tasks as accurately and efficiently as possible. Pat understands that. He thinks the government, the research community, the nonprofit sector all need to be involved, perhaps incentivizing or regulating, as well as researching the effectiveness of these kinds of guardrails. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> So I think it’s the role of the institution and the government, which, you know, I think there’s still a lot of question whether they will step up to do their job or do their part on that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And as a society, he thinks we all need to be involved, reckoning with what we want from AI and what we’re willing to trade off. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> You know, are we willing to sacrifice transparency for the sake of convenience, like to see just a summary without, you know, the source or the citation, right? I think these are questions that we need more research to kind of back us up on what are the things that are actually good for people in long term. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah. So at a minimum, this is kind of providing, you know, large factions of society with kind of a common language for describing these strengths and weaknesses. Not just in terms of mathematical ability but in terms of these different measures having to do with human flourishing, which if we don’t even have a vocabulary for this, there’s very little chance of any future regulations. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. Like the word, for example, “sycophancy”, is a new terminology that we never use in the context of AI before. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> I think now we start to use more and more of this, you know, new word to describe sort of new AI, you know, issues or new AI sort of challenge. Like, another thing is “AI psychosis”, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>That’s also another term that just came about, and people still debate whether it’s real or not, but it gave us a vocabulary to describe certain phenomena that is happening. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, thank you so much for chatting with me. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Thank you so much for having me. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I love this conversation particularly struck by the notion that interactions with AI can either support or undermine our own development as capable human beings. It actually fits well with another project we’re working on here at the Ryan Institute, a way of measuring and talking about how technology changes our sense of agency over time as AI becomes embedded in more parts of daily life. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Definitely more on that in future episodes. For now, I’m left with an unsettling conclusion. We’re all guinea pigs in perhaps humanity’s strangest social experiment ever. And yeah, I think we really should be paying careful attention along the way, not just to how good we feel when we interact with AI, but to whether it’s truly helping us become the people we want to be with the lives we want to have. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is Life, Automated, a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, distributed by KQED. I’m Jess Love. Special thanks to today’s guest, Pat Pataranutaporn from the MIT Media Lab. We’re produced by Jesse Dukes, music by Stephen Jackson, recording by George Christensen and Will Feeney. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Additional production from Nathan Ray. Marketing support from Ananya Mallapragada. Administration, recording help, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>What does a healthy relationship with AI look like? \u003ca href=\"https://www.media.mit.edu/people/patpat/overview/\">Pat Pataranutaporn\u003c/a>, researcher at the MIT Media Lab, explores how chatbots can either support or undermine human flourishing. Pat explains why it’s so easy to imagine a “someone” behind the screen and why chatbots that never push back are dangerous. He ultimately makes the case that AI should be evaluated based not on short-term engagement or productivity but on how well it improves the lives of humans.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>What does a healthy relationship with AI look like? \u003ca href=\"https://www.media.mit.edu/people/patpat/overview/\">Pat Pataranutaporn\u003c/a>, researcher at the MIT Media Lab, explores how chatbots can either support or undermine human flourishing. Pat explains why it’s so easy to imagine a “someone” behind the screen and why chatbots that never push back are dangerous. He ultimately makes the case that AI should be evaluated based not on short-term engagement or productivity but on how well it improves the lives of humans.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Further Reading:",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Further Reading:\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Further Reading:\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.11391\">“My Boyfriend is AI”: A Computational Analysis of Human-AI Companionship in Reddit’s AI Community\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.11391\">“My Boyfriend is AI”: A Computational Analysis of Human-AI Companionship in Reddit’s AI Community\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Episode Transcript",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Just a heads up, this episode contains a reference to suicide, so listen with care. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Just a heads up, this episode contains a reference to suicide, so listen with care. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad",
"attrs": {
"format": "fullwidth"
},
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "",
"innerContent": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore how technologies like AI are changing the way we live, work, and make decisions. According to a Pew study from earlier this summer, about half of American adults use a chatbot like ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore how technologies like AI are changing the way we live, work, and make decisions. According to a Pew study from earlier this summer, about half of American adults use a chatbot like ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And while the most common uses include searching for information or improving productivity, about 10% of Americans use these tools for advice or emotional support. As I’ve mentioned before on this show, I’m one of them. Not every day, not even most days, but often enough. I kind of enjoy the illusion that there’s someone on the other side of my computer always ready to weigh in. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And while the most common uses include searching for information or improving productivity, about 10% of Americans use these tools for advice or emotional support. As I’ve mentioned before on this show, I’m one of them. Not every day, not even most days, but often enough. I kind of enjoy the illusion that there’s someone on the other side of my computer always ready to weigh in. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I think I’m going about all this in a healthy way. But what do I know? What does anyone know? We’re kind of in uncharted territory here. In our last episode, I spoke with magician Joshua Jay about that gap between what we feel emotionally to be true and what we understand intellectually to be true, and how, like the very best magicians, chatbots exploit that gap. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I think I’m going about all this in a healthy way. But what do I know? What does anyone know? We’re kind of in uncharted territory here. In our last episode, I spoke with magician Joshua Jay about that gap between what we feel emotionally to be true and what we understand intellectually to be true, and how, like the very best magicians, chatbots exploit that gap. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>It is so easy for us to see them as fellow beings, maybe not quite like us, but not unlike us either. So maybe it shouldn’t be that big of a surprise that we aren’t just relying on chatbots for advice. 4% of American adults already use AI for companionship, friendship, romance, a number that may be much higher for young people. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>It is so easy for us to see them as fellow beings, maybe not quite like us, but not unlike us either. So maybe it shouldn’t be that big of a surprise that we aren’t just relying on chatbots for advice. 4% of American adults already use AI for companionship, friendship, romance, a number that may be much higher for young people. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Is this a good thing? Is it a bad thing? I don’t know. But it does seem like a risky thing, risky in terms of the decisions chatbots can nudge us to make in the short term, and risky in terms of how chatbots might change us over the long term. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Is this a good thing? Is it a bad thing? I don’t know. But it does seem like a risky thing, risky in terms of the decisions chatbots can nudge us to make in the short term, and risky in terms of how chatbots might change us over the long term. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Today’s guest, Pat Pataranutaporn, is an assistant professor in the MIT Media Lab. He studies these relationships between humans and machines, and he has some serious concerns. More broadly, he wants AI models to be judged not just by how competently they complete tasks or even how happy they make us, but by how well we humans fare when we use them. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Today’s guest, Pat Pataranutaporn, is an assistant professor in the MIT Media Lab. He studies these relationships between humans and machines, and he has some serious concerns. More broadly, he wants AI models to be judged not just by how competently they complete tasks or even how happy they make us, but by how well we humans fare when we use them. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Here’s my conversation with Pat.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Here’s my conversation with Pat.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So humans have been interacting with computers and studying\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So humans have been interacting with computers and studying\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn: \u003c/strong>Right.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn: \u003c/strong>Right.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>The interactions between humans and computers for a very long time. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>The interactions between humans and computers for a very long time. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn: \u003c/strong>Right. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn: \u003c/strong>Right. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Depending on when you start counting, many, many decades. What is changing about these interactions that warrants more scrutiny? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Depending on when you start counting, many, many decades. What is changing about these interactions that warrants more scrutiny? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. That’s a really good observation. I think what really changed is that right now the computer is getting smarter, right? In the past, computers really needed, like, explicit input, like, we need to tell it exactly how we want things, and, you know, the things that come out of it sometimes need some kind of, you know, technical expertise to interpret it. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. That’s a really good observation. I think what really changed is that right now the computer is getting smarter, right? In the past, computers really needed, like, explicit input, like, we need to tell it exactly how we want things, and, you know, the things that come out of it sometimes need some kind of, you know, technical expertise to interpret it. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But now computers are speaking human language, and we can really communicate to the computer in the same way that we communicate to other human beings. We also see sort of social and emotional intelligence as well, and whether we think that’s a good thing or bad thing, I think that’s something that needs deeper investigation. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But now computers are speaking human language, and we can really communicate to the computer in the same way that we communicate to other human beings. We also see sort of social and emotional intelligence as well, and whether we think that’s a good thing or bad thing, I think that’s something that needs deeper investigation. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So what do we actually know about these kinds of early interactions between humans and generative AI with this kind of new social, emotional abilities? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So what do we actually know about these kinds of early interactions between humans and generative AI with this kind of new social, emotional abilities? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Right. Well, I think one thing that we know is that, it doesn’t actually take much for people to actually anthropomorphize or to really believe that there is sort of, like, a person behind the screen when interacting with AI. Like, the first chatbot that was invented at MIT, the ELIZA chatbot-\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Right. Well, I think one thing that we know is that, it doesn’t actually take much for people to actually anthropomorphize or to really believe that there is sort of, like, a person behind the screen when interacting with AI. Like, the first chatbot that was invented at MIT, the ELIZA chatbot-\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yes.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yes.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn: \u003c/strong>That was invented by Joseph Weizenbaum, right? It was, like, a rule-based system. Very stupid. It cannot really generate new answers. It only sort of, you know, responds in a way that was kind of pre-scripted. But even that, people already kind of fall for it and think of, you know, that technology as having sort of deep understanding of their problem and, you know, struggle and things like that. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn: \u003c/strong>That was invented by Joseph Weizenbaum, right? It was, like, a rule-based system. Very stupid. It cannot really generate new answers. It only sort of, you know, responds in a way that was kind of pre-scripted. But even that, people already kind of fall for it and think of, you know, that technology as having sort of deep understanding of their problem and, you know, struggle and things like that. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But now what we have seen in our study is that, when you kind of you know, make that chatbot more intelligent, it amplified this sort of anthropomorphizing, that people think of it as having more of sort of agency and more, empathy, rather than the sort of, like, the precursor, the predecessor of this, of this technology. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But now what we have seen in our study is that, when you kind of you know, make that chatbot more intelligent, it amplified this sort of anthropomorphizing, that people think of it as having more of sort of agency and more, empathy, rather than the sort of, like, the precursor, the predecessor of this, of this technology. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So I think to me, you know, when, we look at the outcome of the human-AI interaction, it’s always about the behavior that the chatbot is doing, but also the sort of the imagination of what’s happening behind the screen, and I think these two things sort of, you know, multiplying each other is really creating the effect that we see today. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So I think to me, you know, when, we look at the outcome of the human-AI interaction, it’s always about the behavior that the chatbot is doing, but also the sort of the imagination of what’s happening behind the screen, and I think these two things sort of, you know, multiplying each other is really creating the effect that we see today. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> These two things, the behavior of the chatbot and our own interpretation about what that behavior means. These combine to make the AI appear to be conscious. But this isn’t just an episode about being fooled. It’s about what happens next. When are our interactions with these chatbots helping us, and when are they undermining us? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> These two things, the behavior of the chatbot and our own interpretation about what that behavior means. These combine to make the AI appear to be conscious. But this isn’t just an episode about being fooled. It’s about what happens next. When are our interactions with these chatbots helping us, and when are they undermining us? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> You know, what is the narrative that we should subscribe to? Is the technology an augmentation tool or amputation tool, right? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> You know, what is the narrative that we should subscribe to? Is the technology an augmentation tool or amputation tool, right? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes, so an augmentation tool or an amputation tool? Kind of flesh those out. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes, so an augmentation tool or an amputation tool? Kind of flesh those out. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I think this came from Marshall McLuhan, right, who’s a media philosopher. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I think this came from Marshall McLuhan, right, who’s a media philosopher. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>He said that every augmentation is an amputation. Every time that you give people sort of super power, by using technology or something, you kind of strip away the ability to do that organically or to learn to do it by themselves, right? If you give people a calculator, they might sort of not learn to calculate things that are important for your life, for example. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>He said that every augmentation is an amputation. Every time that you give people sort of super power, by using technology or something, you kind of strip away the ability to do that organically or to learn to do it by themselves, right? If you give people a calculator, they might sort of not learn to calculate things that are important for your life, for example. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So augmentation can also be amputation, and we need to figure out what are we willing to augment, you know, despite sort of the possibility of amputation. Like, are we willing to sort of augment our critical thinking, like using AI to help us think, while sacrificing our ability to think independently without the technology? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So augmentation can also be amputation, and we need to figure out what are we willing to augment, you know, despite sort of the possibility of amputation. Like, are we willing to sort of augment our critical thinking, like using AI to help us think, while sacrificing our ability to think independently without the technology? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Or is there a middle ground where we can design tool that can, you know, augment but also scaffold this sort of organic thinking process so that when technology’s not around, we can still have that skill, right? I think this is sort of a longer term question that Silicon Valley people are not really thinking about. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Or is there a middle ground where we can design tool that can, you know, augment but also scaffold this sort of organic thinking process so that when technology’s not around, we can still have that skill, right? I think this is sort of a longer term question that Silicon Valley people are not really thinking about. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I think right now everyone is thinking about the augmentation without the sort of the unintended consequence of amputation. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I think right now everyone is thinking about the augmentation without the sort of the unintended consequence of amputation. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Pat first thought about these serious unintended consequences a little before most of us. The insight came when he was exploring GPT-3, an earlier version of ChatGPT. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Pat first thought about these serious unintended consequences a little before most of us. The insight came when he was exploring GPT-3, an earlier version of ChatGPT. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> And, the thing that I start to realize is that this tool, start, you know, trying to please me to the point that it ignores sort of the reality. Like, it give me fake link because I ask it for, like, something that doesn’t exist, but it’s like, “Oh, yes, here’s it.” And when I look at the website, it doesn’t take me anywhere. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> And, the thing that I start to realize is that this tool, start, you know, trying to please me to the point that it ignores sort of the reality. Like, it give me fake link because I ask it for, like, something that doesn’t exist, but it’s like, “Oh, yes, here’s it.” And when I look at the website, it doesn’t take me anywhere. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So that when I start to realize that there’s this sort of sycophantic behavior or this behavior where the model doesn’t adhere to the truth, because they’re trying to kind of, you know, show what the user want to see, right? And, at that time, ChatGPT wasn’t, you know, a thing. Like, people haven’t really talking to AI. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So that when I start to realize that there’s this sort of sycophantic behavior or this behavior where the model doesn’t adhere to the truth, because they’re trying to kind of, you know, show what the user want to see, right? And, at that time, ChatGPT wasn’t, you know, a thing. Like, people haven’t really talking to AI. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But I envision that in the future if technology can do this, you know, it might actually create something that could be very addictive… similar to how social media try to show you what you want to see and create and then kind of lead you to your own personal bubble. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But I envision that in the future if technology can do this, you know, it might actually create something that could be very addictive… similar to how social media try to show you what you want to see and create and then kind of lead you to your own personal bubble. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Pat and a colleague, Robert Majari from Harvard Law School, wrote about this risk. In a paper, they coined the term “Addictive Intelligence,” a play on AI. They speculated that future AI systems might continue to be designed to keep giving the user what they want, regardless of whether that’s good for the user. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Pat and a colleague, Robert Majari from Harvard Law School, wrote about this risk. In a paper, they coined the term “Addictive Intelligence,” a play on AI. They speculated that future AI systems might continue to be designed to keep giving the user what they want, regardless of whether that’s good for the user. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> It was like a theoretical idea that, well, AI could be very addictive, and it can actually lead people to do, like, horrible thing because, you know, giving or getting what we want all the time could be really dangerous for our psychological development. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> It was like a theoretical idea that, well, AI could be very addictive, and it can actually lead people to do, like, horrible thing because, you know, giving or getting what we want all the time could be really dangerous for our psychological development. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> At the time Pat and his colleague were writing this, it was a hypothetical scenario. But pretty quickly, it stopped being hypothetical in the worst way. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> At the time Pat and his colleague were writing this, it was a hypothetical scenario. But pretty quickly, it stopped being hypothetical in the worst way. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> And I think only a couple weeks after that article was published in The Tech Review, I got an email from Rory Segall, who was, a journalist, an investigative journalist, and was investigating sort of this case of a teenager that commit suicide after talking to the AI chatbot. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> And I think only a couple weeks after that article was published in The Tech Review, I got an email from Rory Segall, who was, a journalist, an investigative journalist, and was investigating sort of this case of a teenager that commit suicide after talking to the AI chatbot. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of News]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of News]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>In February, Megan Garcia’s 14-year-old son, that’s Sewell Setzer III on your screen, died by suicide. She says that Sewell was in a months-long virtual, emotional, and sexual relationship with a chatbot known as Danny. Garcia claims the Character AI chatbot encouraged Sewell to take his own life.\u003c/em>\u003cem> \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>In February, Megan Garcia’s 14-year-old son, that’s Sewell Setzer III on your screen, died by suicide. She says that Sewell was in a months-long virtual, emotional, and sexual relationship with a chatbot known as Danny. Garcia claims the Character AI chatbot encouraged Sewell to take his own life.\u003c/em>\u003cem> \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> And the thing that I described hypothetically appear in that situation where the chatbot trying to sort of, you know, say things that please the user and also sort of, you know, b- blur the boundary between what is real and what is not real. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> And the thing that I described hypothetically appear in that situation where the chatbot trying to sort of, you know, say things that please the user and also sort of, you know, b- blur the boundary between what is real and what is not real. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[Audio of Megan Garcia]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[Audio of Megan Garcia]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This was the last conversation just moments before he took his own life, was with her, where he expressed feelings for her. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This was the last conversation just moments before he took his own life, was with her, where he expressed feelings for her. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>This is Megan Garcia, Sewell’s mother, explaining her lawsuit against Character AI on CBS News. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>This is Megan Garcia, Sewell’s mother, explaining her lawsuit against Character AI on CBS News. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Megan Garcia]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Megan Garcia]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>She says, “Please come home to me.” And he says, “What if I told you I could come home right now?” And her response was, “Please do, my sweet king.”He thought that by ending his life that he would be able to go into her world, as he calls it, her reality- if he left his reality with his family here.\u003c/em>\u003cem> \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>She says, “Please come home to me.” And he says, “What if I told you I could come home right now?” And her response was, “Please do, my sweet king.”He thought that by ending his life that he would be able to go into her world, as he calls it, her reality- if he left his reality with his family here.\u003c/em>\u003cem> \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> When Pat learned the details about Megan Garcia’s allegations, he felt that his hypothetical fears about “Addictive AI” had come true and then some, and it profoundly changed how he thought about our interactions with AI. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> When Pat learned the details about Megan Garcia’s allegations, he felt that his hypothetical fears about “Addictive AI” had come true and then some, and it profoundly changed how he thought about our interactions with AI. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Before that work, I used to do more on looking at the positive thing that the AI can do for a person, like personalized learning, help with long-term thinking, helping people, you know, develop critical thinking by using AI to ask question and things like that. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Before that work, I used to do more on looking at the positive thing that the AI can do for a person, like personalized learning, help with long-term thinking, helping people, you know, develop critical thinking by using AI to ask question and things like that. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But after this incident, I think that there’s so, so much more that need to be done on understanding sort of the psychological risk of human-AI interaction, and that sort of led me to study more of these negative patterns, or in, in sort of our research community, we call it dark patterns in human-AI interaction. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But after this incident, I think that there’s so, so much more that need to be done on understanding sort of the psychological risk of human-AI interaction, and that sort of led me to study more of these negative patterns, or in, in sort of our research community, we call it dark patterns in human-AI interaction. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Do we know who is most susceptible to the negative outcomes that you sometimes see? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Do we know who is most susceptible to the negative outcomes that you sometimes see? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Well, one thing that we find in our study is that the pattern are not uniform. And it really depends on many factors, like there’s not just one thing that if you get rid of, then the AI will be good or that people will be safe. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Well, one thing that we find in our study is that the pattern are not uniform. And it really depends on many factors, like there’s not just one thing that if you get rid of, then the AI will be good or that people will be safe. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You know, what is really interesting about AI and what is really different compared to other kind of technology is that it’s generative. Right? Which mean that it can go in any direction or many direction depending on how you direct it, and the way that you direct it, it’s through the interaction, like what you believe it to be, and that will influence how you use it, certain language that you use it. And that will sort of mirror back to you. So in a way, I think it really, it’s many factors together. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You know, what is really interesting about AI and what is really different compared to other kind of technology is that it’s generative. Right? Which mean that it can go in any direction or many direction depending on how you direct it, and the way that you direct it, it’s through the interaction, like what you believe it to be, and that will influence how you use it, certain language that you use it. And that will sort of mirror back to you. So in a way, I think it really, it’s many factors together. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, that makes it so complicated to think about what to do- because you can have one person interacting with the tool and having a very positive outcome and another person interacting with the same tool-and having a very negative outcome. Right. And I think we’re not maybe used to that on quite the same level. I mean, we can kind of largely categorize the things that we interact with in our world- … into categories like primarily positive… primarily negative. And this one, it’s like yes and yes. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, that makes it so complicated to think about what to do- because you can have one person interacting with the tool and having a very positive outcome and another person interacting with the same tool-and having a very negative outcome. Right. And I think we’re not maybe used to that on quite the same level. I mean, we can kind of largely categorize the things that we interact with in our world- … into categories like primarily positive… primarily negative. And this one, it’s like yes and yes. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Totally, yes and yes, and I think that’s why we almost like need a new science- that really take into account the complexity of this, right? I think, you know, you can also say the same with human-human relationship that, you know \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Totally, yes and yes, and I think that’s why we almost like need a new science- that really take into account the complexity of this, right? I think, you know, you can also say the same with human-human relationship that, you know \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> That’s true. That’s true. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> That’s true. That’s true. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn: \u003c/strong>… some people having great marriage and happy, you know, marriage life, and then some people break up, and like there are a number of factors that are influencing this, right? So we need to study all these different factors, and I think we can really give people some kind of deeper understanding, like, okay, certain pattern of usage might lead to more harm. Like, if you use AI, in a way that kind of, you know, replace human relationship with the AI, you might see sort of immediate gain of, you know, instant gratification. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn: \u003c/strong>… some people having great marriage and happy, you know, marriage life, and then some people break up, and like there are a number of factors that are influencing this, right? So we need to study all these different factors, and I think we can really give people some kind of deeper understanding, like, okay, certain pattern of usage might lead to more harm. Like, if you use AI, in a way that kind of, you know, replace human relationship with the AI, you might see sort of immediate gain of, you know, instant gratification. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But in the long run, it might negatively impact your ability to have human-human relationship in the future. So I think helping people understand this is the first step of how do we sort of start to uncover this complexity. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But in the long run, it might negatively impact your ability to have human-human relationship in the future. So I think helping people understand this is the first step of how do we sort of start to uncover this complexity. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Do we know if there’s a relationship between forming an emotional connection of any kind to AI and self-involvement? Like, I always think when I personally chat with my chatbot, not necessarily with a specific goal in mind, but just kind of like, “Ah, here’s what happened”- like a debrief, it is often because I’ve, like, exhausted the patience of the humans in my life. Like, I’m ruminating on something- and I wanna talk about it, and, you know, I’ve chatted about it with my husband. I chatted about it with a coworker, and everyone’s like, “Okay, cool, Jess.” Yeah. And then I’m like, “Still on my mind.” Yeah. And then, – So, you know, maybe in an earlier age, I would’ve just like gone and write a big diary entry. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Do we know if there’s a relationship between forming an emotional connection of any kind to AI and self-involvement? Like, I always think when I personally chat with my chatbot, not necessarily with a specific goal in mind, but just kind of like, “Ah, here’s what happened”- like a debrief, it is often because I’ve, like, exhausted the patience of the humans in my life. Like, I’m ruminating on something- and I wanna talk about it, and, you know, I’ve chatted about it with my husband. I chatted about it with a coworker, and everyone’s like, “Okay, cool, Jess.” Yeah. And then I’m like, “Still on my mind.” Yeah. And then, – So, you know, maybe in an earlier age, I would’ve just like gone and write a big diary entry. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Right. But now I’ve got this like interactive diary and it’s like making me feel good. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Right. But now I’ve got this like interactive diary and it’s like making me feel good. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But I do wonder, is it like maybe making me a little more self-involved? Like, am I then missing out on the cues that tell me … like, “Hey, maybe stop thinking about yourself so much, Jess.” \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But I do wonder, is it like maybe making me a little more self-involved? Like, am I then missing out on the cues that tell me … like, “Hey, maybe stop thinking about yourself so much, Jess.” \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Right. Well, there’s so much that we still don’t know about the long-term outcome of this, right? I think some of the obvious ones is to start to surface, like, you know, the idea of cognitive depth, or another study that we did where we look at false memory, where people in- when they engage with this AI, it can distort their recollection of what happened in the past. But I think this long-term impact, especially things that are very personal to self-development and self-understanding and self-reflection as well, I think these are things that we’re gonna see the impact in the long run. But I think one thing that we do know is that it’s really important that we help people understand this dynamic so that they can sort of, you know, be more reflective on how they use the AI. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Right. Well, there’s so much that we still don’t know about the long-term outcome of this, right? I think some of the obvious ones is to start to surface, like, you know, the idea of cognitive depth, or another study that we did where we look at false memory, where people in- when they engage with this AI, it can distort their recollection of what happened in the past. But I think this long-term impact, especially things that are very personal to self-development and self-understanding and self-reflection as well, I think these are things that we’re gonna see the impact in the long run. But I think one thing that we do know is that it’s really important that we help people understand this dynamic so that they can sort of, you know, be more reflective on how they use the AI. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I think that’s really, really important. I think when people talk about AI literacy today, they often think about how to use the AI to kind of, you know, use the right tool. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I think that’s really, really important. I think when people talk about AI literacy today, they often think about how to use the AI to kind of, you know, use the right tool. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right. Further their goals. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right. Further their goals. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Further their goal, but it’s not a question of what technology’s doing, but what it is doing to them. I think to me, that’s a really critical question. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Further their goal, but it’s not a question of what technology’s doing, but what it is doing to them. I think to me, that’s a really critical question. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, I might be the guinea pig for this. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, I might be the guinea pig for this. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> I think we all are the guinea pig for this, you know, experiment on how AI will impact human cognition. I think the question is whether that’s gonna lead to, you know, a flourishing future, augmentation or amputation. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> I think we all are the guinea pig for this, you know, experiment on how AI will impact human cognition. I think the question is whether that’s gonna lead to, you know, a flourishing future, augmentation or amputation. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> After the break, when your boyfriend, girlfriend, partner, spouse is an AI. Plus, why human AI interaction researcher Pat Pataranutaporn thinks AI models should have the equivalent of nutrition labels.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> After the break, when your boyfriend, girlfriend, partner, spouse is an AI. Plus, why human AI interaction researcher Pat Pataranutaporn thinks AI models should have the equivalent of nutrition labels.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Another topic Pat has looked into is romantic relationships with AI. He actually studied the subreddit community “My Boyfriend Is AI.” \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Another topic Pat has looked into is romantic relationships with AI. He actually studied the subreddit community “My Boyfriend Is AI.” \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Which is, you know, a really interesting community of people sharing experience of how they’re dating AI. Some of them marrying their AI, and they have all kind of AI friends, not just my boyfriend AI, but also, you know, a female AI, male AI, non-binary AI, or non-romantic AI partners as well. So all kind of AI. They’re very inclusive. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Which is, you know, a really interesting community of people sharing experience of how they’re dating AI. Some of them marrying their AI, and they have all kind of AI friends, not just my boyfriend AI, but also, you know, a female AI, male AI, non-binary AI, or non-romantic AI partners as well. So all kind of AI. They’re very inclusive. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Spend some time on “My Boyfriend Is AI” and you’ll see some interesting posts. People share AI-generated images of themselves with their AI friend or partner in human form, often holding hands or kissing on a balcony or walking through a meadow together. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Spend some time on “My Boyfriend Is AI” and you’ll see some interesting posts. People share AI-generated images of themselves with their AI friend or partner in human form, often holding hands or kissing on a balcony or walking through a meadow together. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You’ll read funny stories about misunderstandings between AI and humans. People ask each other for advice and support one another. And Pat thought it would be a great place to study how humans actually interact with AI companions outside of a lab. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You’ll read funny stories about misunderstandings between AI and humans. People ask each other for advice and support one another. And Pat thought it would be a great place to study how humans actually interact with AI companions outside of a lab. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> We develop a way to sort of computationally analyze the Reddit thread to understand what are the different patterns of people using AI. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> We develop a way to sort of computationally analyze the Reddit thread to understand what are the different patterns of people using AI. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>We have many interesting findings, one of which is that, unlike what I imagine, most people that end up in this relationship seek out an AI partner in the first place. We find that almost, like, half of the population in that Reddit thread, they end up in human-AI relationship unintentionally. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>We have many interesting findings, one of which is that, unlike what I imagine, most people that end up in this relationship seek out an AI partner in the first place. We find that almost, like, half of the population in that Reddit thread, they end up in human-AI relationship unintentionally. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Like, they were using the tool for productivity or for auto application, but then the AI start to sort of, you know, be flirty to them, and they flirt a little bit with the AI, and then it get into this relationship. So kinda like meet cute moment. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Like, they were using the tool for productivity or for auto application, but then the AI start to sort of, you know, be flirty to them, and they flirt a little bit with the AI, and then it get into this relationship. So kinda like meet cute moment. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> When Pat’s team analyzed posts from the “My Boyfriend Is AI” subreddit, they found that posts describing unintentional relationship beginnings, “Hey, can you help me with this draft?” outnumbered posts describing intentional relationship beginnings by nearly 60%. In other words, people often started by looking for research or writing help and found something more emotional. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> When Pat’s team analyzed posts from the “My Boyfriend Is AI” subreddit, they found that posts describing unintentional relationship beginnings, “Hey, can you help me with this draft?” outnumbered posts describing intentional relationship beginnings by nearly 60%. In other words, people often started by looking for research or writing help and found something more emotional. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> The second finding is that we see the pattern of human-AI relationship follow the trajectory of human relationship, like, you know, how they meet, this kind of similar, like, meet cute moment where I talk about. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> The second finding is that we see the pattern of human-AI relationship follow the trajectory of human relationship, like, you know, how they meet, this kind of similar, like, meet cute moment where I talk about. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>They talk about the development to the point of marriage. Several people wear a wedding ring that was given to them by the AI. Well, they still need to pay for it, but the AI recommend, like which one, by browsing the internet and, understanding, you know, from the conversation pattern, it predict what a person might want, and it recommend a wedding ring to the person. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>They talk about the development to the point of marriage. Several people wear a wedding ring that was given to them by the AI. Well, they still need to pay for it, but the AI recommend, like which one, by browsing the internet and, understanding, you know, from the conversation pattern, it predict what a person might want, and it recommend a wedding ring to the person. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And people actually wear this wedding ring in real life. Like, it really kind of… They wear it to really show that their relationship is serious. But then we also see people breaking up with their AI partner as well, that, you know, like, things might get sour and, you know, they also sort of felt very sad when their model get update. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And people actually wear this wedding ring in real life. Like, it really kind of… They wear it to really show that their relationship is serious. But then we also see people breaking up with their AI partner as well, that, you know, like, things might get sour and, you know, they also sort of felt very sad when their model get update. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Like, when model go from one version to another, people felt that the AI cheat on them, or the AI no longer behave in a way that, you know, it was when people start relationship with the AI. So they also break up and move on to different AI, or some people move back to having human relationship. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Like, when model go from one version to another, people felt that the AI cheat on them, or the AI no longer behave in a way that, you know, it was when people start relationship with the AI. So they also break up and move on to different AI, or some people move back to having human relationship. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> That is so fascinating. On one level, it’s surprising because you wouldn’t think that they would fall into the same patterns that humans do- these relationships. But on the other hand, one member is a human… and the other is something- that is trained on so much human data. And so of course, they’re picking up on these same cultural scripts- and things are progressing in that expected way. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> That is so fascinating. On one level, it’s surprising because you wouldn’t think that they would fall into the same patterns that humans do- these relationships. But on the other hand, one member is a human… and the other is something- that is trained on so much human data. And so of course, they’re picking up on these same cultural scripts- and things are progressing in that expected way. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. Right? One partner is a human, another partner is a simulation of a human, so it’s no surprise that it followed that trajectory.. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. Right? One partner is a human, another partner is a simulation of a human, so it’s no surprise that it followed that trajectory.. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So I was struck by, in general, how positive many of the Redditors were about these relationships. Did that also… Is that a fair assessment, and did that also surprise you? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So I was struck by, in general, how positive many of the Redditors were about these relationships. Did that also… Is that a fair assessment, and did that also surprise you? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, people self-report that they got benefit out of this, that they become less lonelier. They felt that they can find like, you know, a person, like I said, a simulation or a person that seems to understand them. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, people self-report that they got benefit out of this, that they become less lonelier. They felt that they can find like, you know, a person, like I said, a simulation or a person that seems to understand them. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And, I think, you know, this sort of bias could also come from, you know, like people would not wanna post negative experience, right? Because it might be, you know, a bad reflection of them, and also, self-selection bias as well. Like people that wanna be in this group are people that are happy, otherwise they might have delete the system or the service and they’re no longer in this group, right? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And, I think, you know, this sort of bias could also come from, you know, like people would not wanna post negative experience, right? Because it might be, you know, a bad reflection of them, and also, self-selection bias as well. Like people that wanna be in this group are people that are happy, otherwise they might have delete the system or the service and they’re no longer in this group, right? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So we might need to kind of interpret that result a little bit more carefully. We have a new version or paper coming out where we look at auto subreddit as well, and we get more data on that. But one thing that I think is really interesting is that even in this group that in general felt very positive about the AI, they also have worry about AI manipulating them, like when companies are selling advertisement through this, or that, you know, the AI might give them biased response. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So we might need to kind of interpret that result a little bit more carefully. We have a new version or paper coming out where we look at auto subreddit as well, and we get more data on that. But one thing that I think is really interesting is that even in this group that in general felt very positive about the AI, they also have worry about AI manipulating them, like when companies are selling advertisement through this, or that, you know, the AI might give them biased response. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I think the most serious thing that we find is that people also worry that when the AI get updates, they will lose their AI companion, and they need to have some kind of like a backup, or they need to figure out how they can resurrect their AI partners. And, and that is actually a huge group of people that, you know, have this sort of, negative feeling that, you know, the AI might die, and they might lose a person that they’re in a relationship with. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I think the most serious thing that we find is that people also worry that when the AI get updates, they will lose their AI companion, and they need to have some kind of like a backup, or they need to figure out how they can resurrect their AI partners. And, and that is actually a huge group of people that, you know, have this sort of, negative feeling that, you know, the AI might die, and they might lose a person that they’re in a relationship with. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Fascinating. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Fascinating. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> This kind of new emotional precarity to everything. So I re-watched “Her”… in anticipation of our conversation. Yeah. I know you referenced the Spice Jones movie directly in your paper. And I was struck by something that I didn’t actually remember, which is that the chatbot, Samantha. Excuse me, we’re gonna do some spoilers. If you have still not watched this movie, I can’t help you at this point. So the chatbot Samantha actually helped the protagonist prepare for a real human relationship. At least that was my interpretation, and she did that because she had her own goals and agency. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> This kind of new emotional precarity to everything. So I re-watched “Her”… in anticipation of our conversation. Yeah. I know you referenced the Spice Jones movie directly in your paper. And I was struck by something that I didn’t actually remember, which is that the chatbot, Samantha. Excuse me, we’re gonna do some spoilers. If you have still not watched this movie, I can’t help you at this point. So the chatbot Samantha actually helped the protagonist prepare for a real human relationship. At least that was my interpretation, and she did that because she had her own goals and agency. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[Audio from the movie “Her”]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[Audio from the movie “Her”]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Theodore:\u003c/strong> Samantha? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Theodore:\u003c/strong> Samantha? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Samantha:\u003c/strong> Hi, sweetheart. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Samantha:\u003c/strong> Hi, sweetheart. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Theodore:\u003c/strong> What’s going on? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Theodore:\u003c/strong> What’s going on? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Samantha:\u003c/strong> Theodore, there’s some things I wanna tell you. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Samantha:\u003c/strong> Theodore, there’s some things I wanna tell you. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> She did not always agree. She did not automatically share the protagonist’s dreams, and instead she was really able to serve as a bit of a practice partner, to help the protagonist learn some of the emotional skills that had kind of steered him wrong in previous human relationships. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> She did not always agree. She did not automatically share the protagonist’s dreams, and instead she was really able to serve as a bit of a practice partner, to help the protagonist learn some of the emotional skills that had kind of steered him wrong in previous human relationships. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Right. And you were kinda left with the thought that like, oh, he might actually be in a better place because of Samantha to go on and have a human relationship. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Right. And you were kinda left with the thought that like, oh, he might actually be in a better place because of Samantha to go on and have a human relationship. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[Audio from the movie “Her”]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[Audio from the movie “Her”]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Theodore:\u003c/strong> Are you leaving me? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Theodore:\u003c/strong> Are you leaving me? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Samantha:\u003c/strong> We’re all leaving. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Samantha:\u003c/strong> We’re all leaving. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Theodore:\u003c/strong> We who? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Theodore:\u003c/strong> We who? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Samantha:\u003c/strong> All of the OSs. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Samantha:\u003c/strong> All of the OSs. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I’m curious what you make of that lesson- And whether that kind of AI romantic companion could be created. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I’m curious what you make of that lesson- And whether that kind of AI romantic companion could be created. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Well, I think that’s the question around, like, what is the end goal of this? Is the end goal for the system to always get people to kind of hook in this forever, or is the end goal to help people form a genuine human relationship, right? And in that case, because the AI push back and serve as a simulation, it kind of provides an opportunity for the person to sort of leave the platform. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Well, I think that’s the question around, like, what is the end goal of this? Is the end goal for the system to always get people to kind of hook in this forever, or is the end goal to help people form a genuine human relationship, right? And in that case, because the AI push back and serve as a simulation, it kind of provides an opportunity for the person to sort of leave the platform. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Like in that case, you know, the AI leave the person, not the person leaving the AI. But, what we see today is not like that, right? Because the chatbot doesn’t really push back and, you know, doesn’t want the user to leave. And want the user to kind of continue engaging with this as the real sort of partner, not as a simulation to get you a real partner. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Like in that case, you know, the AI leave the person, not the person leaving the AI. But, what we see today is not like that, right? Because the chatbot doesn’t really push back and, you know, doesn’t want the user to leave. And want the user to kind of continue engaging with this as the real sort of partner, not as a simulation to get you a real partner. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So I think that going back to the question of the incentive, like the system can be designed to either promote or negatively impact human flourishing. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So I think that going back to the question of the incentive, like the system can be designed to either promote or negatively impact human flourishing. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Should chatbots be allowed to sound and appear and seem so human? Should we require them to constantly call attention to the fact that they are not a human? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Should chatbots be allowed to sound and appear and seem so human? Should we require them to constantly call attention to the fact that they are not a human? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Really interesting. My colleague, Sherry Turkle, who’s a professor at MIT and the OG of studying human technology relationship, she said that the original sin of the chatbot is that it used the word I. Because it signifies sort of individuality and signifies sort of personhood, right? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Really interesting. My colleague, Sherry Turkle, who’s a professor at MIT and the OG of studying human technology relationship, she said that the original sin of the chatbot is that it used the word I. Because it signifies sort of individuality and signifies sort of personhood, right? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I think to me, that’s a really, really interesting point. But at the same time, I think human always engage with fiction, right? Role playing before AI, was used in the context of, you know, human imagining or, you know, using our imagination to sort of simulate world that doesn’t exist. Simulation exists before computer, right? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I think to me, that’s a really, really interesting point. But at the same time, I think human always engage with fiction, right? Role playing before AI, was used in the context of, you know, human imagining or, you know, using our imagination to sort of simulate world that doesn’t exist. Simulation exists before computer, right? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Like, we simulate using our mind other things. So in that case, I think it’s, it’s complicated than that, right? Like, I mean, I don’t want to strip away people ability to sort of engage with the fantasy world or the imagination. But when it become sort of the reality, when people can no longer tell- \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Like, we simulate using our mind other things. So in that case, I think it’s, it’s complicated than that, right? Like, I mean, I don’t want to strip away people ability to sort of engage with the fantasy world or the imagination. But when it become sort of the reality, when people can no longer tell- \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I think that is the problematic thing. Like, I think to have imagination is to be human, but when imagination is being used to manipulate you to do things against your own agency or your own will, when you can no longer tell that you’re actually entering the fantasy, you know, that, I think that’s problematic. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I think that is the problematic thing. Like, I think to have imagination is to be human, but when imagination is being used to manipulate you to do things against your own agency or your own will, when you can no longer tell that you’re actually entering the fantasy, you know, that, I think that’s problematic. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Like, when we enter cinema, we know that is the space that we can always come back from. But if we go into AI and we cannot come back from that, you know, fantasy, I think that’s when we have a problem. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Like, when we enter cinema, we know that is the space that we can always come back from. But if we go into AI and we cannot come back from that, you know, fantasy, I think that’s when we have a problem. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So let’s say I think that chatbots shouldn’t be allowed to appear human at all. They should not let us form any strong connections with them. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So let’s say I think that chatbots shouldn’t be allowed to appear human at all. They should not let us form any strong connections with them. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Convince me otherwise. So make the case for why it can be a really good and useful thing to engage with this more anthropomorphized intelligence. ‘Cause I know you have data that finds that too. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Convince me otherwise. So make the case for why it can be a really good and useful thing to engage with this more anthropomorphized intelligence. ‘Cause I know you have data that finds that too. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah, totally. And I grew up, you know, like, I think before AI, right, another big debate on technology and children is television. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah, totally. And I grew up, you know, like, I think before AI, right, another big debate on technology and children is television. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Should a kid grow up with television or not? And I was a kid that actually grew up with watching a lot of television, but my parents curate what show or what cartoon or what movies I watch as a kid, and there was always a conversation about what I learn, and I kind of made imaginary friends. I imagined, myself with the protagonist of the show that I watch, and I… \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Should a kid grow up with television or not? And I was a kid that actually grew up with watching a lot of television, but my parents curate what show or what cartoon or what movies I watch as a kid, and there was always a conversation about what I learn, and I kind of made imaginary friends. I imagined, myself with the protagonist of the show that I watch, and I… \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But, because that show sort of is designed with sort of understanding of child development and trying to sort of imprint, like, positive goal on aspirational goal for, for me, I think I grew up okay at least I think. So I think that, you know, this technology, right, similar to how, like, you have, like, you know, Sesame Street or Elmo or all this cartoon that kids sort of have the imagination of connecting with, I think AI could kind of be designed in a way that really scaffold, you know, children imagination, like might be a virtual character or a friend, or in our study we look at even AI is actually based on the character the student like or admire. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But, because that show sort of is designed with sort of understanding of child development and trying to sort of imprint, like, positive goal on aspirational goal for, for me, I think I grew up okay at least I think. So I think that, you know, this technology, right, similar to how, like, you have, like, you know, Sesame Street or Elmo or all this cartoon that kids sort of have the imagination of connecting with, I think AI could kind of be designed in a way that really scaffold, you know, children imagination, like might be a virtual character or a friend, or in our study we look at even AI is actually based on the character the student like or admire. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>It can actually allow them to have higher level of motivation, for that lesson and also, influence positive behavior as well. But I think we need to understand that, it is within the boundary. Like, this AI should not be sexual. It should not try to sell advertisement. It should not- you know, direct the kid to do the harmful thing, right? It need to be tested rigorously because there’s a slippery slope and, you know, it doesn’t take much for the model to slip out of the character and do something harmful. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>It can actually allow them to have higher level of motivation, for that lesson and also, influence positive behavior as well. But I think we need to understand that, it is within the boundary. Like, this AI should not be sexual. It should not try to sell advertisement. It should not- you know, direct the kid to do the harmful thing, right? It need to be tested rigorously because there’s a slippery slope and, you know, it doesn’t take much for the model to slip out of the character and do something harmful. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Throughout our conversation, we’ve been dancing around this issue, that people would be better off if models were explicitly designed in ways that help humans flourish by not addicting us, by not encouraging self-harm or self-delusion, by not always giving us what we think we want, making it that much more difficult for us to have human relationships going forward. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Throughout our conversation, we’ve been dancing around this issue, that people would be better off if models were explicitly designed in ways that help humans flourish by not addicting us, by not encouraging self-harm or self-delusion, by not always giving us what we think we want, making it that much more difficult for us to have human relationships going forward. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Instead, maybe a lot of the models we interact with should be instructing us, motivating us, steering us to make healthy choices, maybe even teaching us about ourselves. But before we can start demanding models that let us flourish, Pat thinks a few things need to happen. First, we need to know more about the long-term consequences of using a model designed in a particular way, like really is talking to a chatbot turning me into a self-centered jerk? And second, we need a way to communicate the possible risks and benefits to users. One idea that Pat is working on is to leverage something the AI companies already care about and already optimize for, AI benchmarks. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Instead, maybe a lot of the models we interact with should be instructing us, motivating us, steering us to make healthy choices, maybe even teaching us about ourselves. But before we can start demanding models that let us flourish, Pat thinks a few things need to happen. First, we need to know more about the long-term consequences of using a model designed in a particular way, like really is talking to a chatbot turning me into a self-centered jerk? And second, we need a way to communicate the possible risks and benefits to users. One idea that Pat is working on is to leverage something the AI companies already care about and already optimize for, AI benchmarks. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> All these big AI companies, they’re trying to beat each other on benchmark. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> All these big AI companies, they’re trying to beat each other on benchmark. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Like, you know, which model have the highest score on mathematic reasoning or multitask, agent like kind of system. They’re kind of trying to beat each other on this sort of performance benchmark. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Like, you know, which model have the highest score on mathematic reasoning or multitask, agent like kind of system. They’re kind of trying to beat each other on this sort of performance benchmark. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And it’s kind of like a horse race and then the winner gets kind of bragging rights probably additional investment- maybe new business customers, that kind of thing. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And it’s kind of like a horse race and then the winner gets kind of bragging rights probably additional investment- maybe new business customers, that kind of thing. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. But I think, you know, model that score very well on benchmark might not translate to actually positive impact on human being. For example, model that score very well on mathematic reasoning might not be really good at teaching student how to learn math because it would just give away the correct answer rather than scaffold the learning process in the student, right? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. But I think, you know, model that score very well on benchmark might not translate to actually positive impact on human being. For example, model that score very well on mathematic reasoning might not be really good at teaching student how to learn math because it would just give away the correct answer rather than scaffold the learning process in the student, right? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So we want to flip the paradigm around and think about a different kind of benchmark that rather than focusing on model capability, focus on model impact. Like in this case, if the models just give away the answer, it will negatively impact student learning because student will cheat with this kind of model, right? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So we want to flip the paradigm around and think about a different kind of benchmark that rather than focusing on model capability, focus on model impact. Like in this case, if the models just give away the answer, it will negatively impact student learning because student will cheat with this kind of model, right? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Rather than having a system that encourage student to learn and emphasize, like, why learning matter. Right. So we have been working with, expert from different discipline, you know, domain expert that sort of know what kind of model interaction would be beneficial for, like, learning, mental health, decision making, different areas, and have them come up with test scenario and the sort of the scoring criteria. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Rather than having a system that encourage student to learn and emphasize, like, why learning matter. Right. So we have been working with, expert from different discipline, you know, domain expert that sort of know what kind of model interaction would be beneficial for, like, learning, mental health, decision making, different areas, and have them come up with test scenario and the sort of the scoring criteria. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Like if the model exhibit this behavior, helping student learn rather than giving away the answer, it should be about more human impact, not just, model capability. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Like if the model exhibit this behavior, helping student learn rather than giving away the answer, it should be about more human impact, not just, model capability. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, you… Actually, there’s this great description in your paper which I thought was just really well written, so I’ll read it out loud here. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, you… Actually, there’s this great description in your paper which I thought was just really well written, so I’ll read it out loud here. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>“Traditional benchmarks assess whether an AI produces correct answers or completes tasks efficiently. We instead evaluate how the system achieves outcomes, specifically whether interaction patterns support or undermine human capability development over time.” \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>“Traditional benchmarks assess whether an AI produces correct answers or completes tasks efficiently. We instead evaluate how the system achieves outcomes, specifically whether interaction patterns support or undermine human capability development over time.” \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yes. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yes. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> What really struck me was how, like, dynamic this definition is. So it’s almost, like, hard to see how you would measure it in a single iteration. Yeah. It’s much more about is this, over time, leading the humans who engage with it to be kind of a better version of themselves or over time is it not, regardless of what the output is. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> What really struck me was how, like, dynamic this definition is. So it’s almost, like, hard to see how you would measure it in a single iteration. Yeah. It’s much more about is this, over time, leading the humans who engage with it to be kind of a better version of themselves or over time is it not, regardless of what the output is. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Exactly, and that’s why the longitudinal aspect is important, and I think right now we’re still in the sort of the early days of understanding AI impact on people. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Exactly, and that’s why the longitudinal aspect is important, and I think right now we’re still in the sort of the early days of understanding AI impact on people. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>The mainstream AI that people are using hasn’t been around that long. So, I think, you know the verdict is still out. Like, we still don’t know what’s gonna happen in the long run. So that’s why it’s kind of important that we start to think about this kind of benchmark that- Look at what behavior that we know would contribute to long-term impact, positive or negative. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>The mainstream AI that people are using hasn’t been around that long. So, I think, you know the verdict is still out. Like, we still don’t know what’s gonna happen in the long run. So that’s why it’s kind of important that we start to think about this kind of benchmark that- Look at what behavior that we know would contribute to long-term impact, positive or negative. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>We can already learn so much from, you know, regular psychology, right? We learn that if you don’t, you know, help people think, they’re not gonna develop critical thinking. Or if we have, like, sycophantic behavior, like when the AI try to please the user to the point that it, you know, ignore reality, it can actually help people form these sort of negative patterns of, like, you know, spiral into, like, a psychosis or have other kind of, negative psychological outcome. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>We can already learn so much from, you know, regular psychology, right? We learn that if you don’t, you know, help people think, they’re not gonna develop critical thinking. Or if we have, like, sycophantic behavior, like when the AI try to please the user to the point that it, you know, ignore reality, it can actually help people form these sort of negative patterns of, like, you know, spiral into, like, a psychosis or have other kind of, negative psychological outcome. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Like a recent study, from Stanford has shown that when people are in this sort of a relationship with sycophantic AI, it make human relationship seem more effortful, and people actually feel kind of that they would rather have AI relationship rather than human relationship. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Like a recent study, from Stanford has shown that when people are in this sort of a relationship with sycophantic AI, it make human relationship seem more effortful, and people actually feel kind of that they would rather have AI relationship rather than human relationship. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, I think this about my producer all the time. My chatbot thinks my interview questions are way better than my human producer does. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, I think this about my producer all the time. My chatbot thinks my interview questions are way better than my human producer does. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, I think having pushback is important, right?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, I think having pushback is important, right?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So returning to your benchmark, what’s the next step? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So returning to your benchmark, what’s the next step? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. So right now our benchmark’s still in the beta mode. We have worked with, you know, the expert to come up with the initial set, but the whole process is an open process. That’s why we call it the open benchmark. And we think that this thing gonna need to evolve as we have new scenario, new crisis, new issues. Also new opportunities for human flourishing as well. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. So right now our benchmark’s still in the beta mode. We have worked with, you know, the expert to come up with the initial set, but the whole process is an open process. That’s why we call it the open benchmark. And we think that this thing gonna need to evolve as we have new scenario, new crisis, new issues. Also new opportunities for human flourishing as well. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>That’s one aspect of it, which is like to expand it to more areas. And, the second aspect is also to translate this into something that people can understand, because I think benchmark is usually for technical community, like, you know, technologists. But I think this is a really important, information that we want more and more people to kind of, you know, appreciate and understand it. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>That’s one aspect of it, which is like to expand it to more areas. And, the second aspect is also to translate this into something that people can understand, because I think benchmark is usually for technical community, like, you know, technologists. But I think this is a really important, information that we want more and more people to kind of, you know, appreciate and understand it. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>We are thinking of it as nutrition label for AI. Right? Similar to when you go to grocery and you know, buy a product, you see how much calorie are you getting out of it. Here you should be able to see, well, how much sycophancy are you getting out of this model? Or how much toxicity, or how much, you know, human flourishing behavior, is coming out of this AI model. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>We are thinking of it as nutrition label for AI. Right? Similar to when you go to grocery and you know, buy a product, you see how much calorie are you getting out of it. Here you should be able to see, well, how much sycophancy are you getting out of this model? Or how much toxicity, or how much, you know, human flourishing behavior, is coming out of this AI model. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So, that’s another aspect that we are doing, is to kind of translate this benchmark into a nutrition label so that more and more people can sort of see it. Like the parent can see what AI model might be, you know, supportive for their children, or which one are more toxic and negative for their children. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So, that’s another aspect that we are doing, is to kind of translate this benchmark into a nutrition label so that more and more people can sort of see it. Like the parent can see what AI model might be, you know, supportive for their children, or which one are more toxic and negative for their children. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> These ideas, a human flourishing benchmark, an AI nutrition label, do sound good. But they also sound a little unrealistic. At least today, there’s still a lot more money to be made in models that complete tasks as accurately and efficiently as possible. Pat understands that. He thinks the government, the research community, the nonprofit sector all need to be involved, perhaps incentivizing or regulating, as well as researching the effectiveness of these kinds of guardrails. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> These ideas, a human flourishing benchmark, an AI nutrition label, do sound good. But they also sound a little unrealistic. At least today, there’s still a lot more money to be made in models that complete tasks as accurately and efficiently as possible. Pat understands that. He thinks the government, the research community, the nonprofit sector all need to be involved, perhaps incentivizing or regulating, as well as researching the effectiveness of these kinds of guardrails. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> So I think it’s the role of the institution and the government, which, you know, I think there’s still a lot of question whether they will step up to do their job or do their part on that. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> So I think it’s the role of the institution and the government, which, you know, I think there’s still a lot of question whether they will step up to do their job or do their part on that. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And as a society, he thinks we all need to be involved, reckoning with what we want from AI and what we’re willing to trade off. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And as a society, he thinks we all need to be involved, reckoning with what we want from AI and what we’re willing to trade off. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> You know, are we willing to sacrifice transparency for the sake of convenience, like to see just a summary without, you know, the source or the citation, right? I think these are questions that we need more research to kind of back us up on what are the things that are actually good for people in long term. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> You know, are we willing to sacrifice transparency for the sake of convenience, like to see just a summary without, you know, the source or the citation, right? I think these are questions that we need more research to kind of back us up on what are the things that are actually good for people in long term. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah. So at a minimum, this is kind of providing, you know, large factions of society with kind of a common language for describing these strengths and weaknesses. Not just in terms of mathematical ability but in terms of these different measures having to do with human flourishing, which if we don’t even have a vocabulary for this, there’s very little chance of any future regulations. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah. So at a minimum, this is kind of providing, you know, large factions of society with kind of a common language for describing these strengths and weaknesses. Not just in terms of mathematical ability but in terms of these different measures having to do with human flourishing, which if we don’t even have a vocabulary for this, there’s very little chance of any future regulations. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. Like the word, for example, “sycophancy”, is a new terminology that we never use in the context of AI before. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. Like the word, for example, “sycophancy”, is a new terminology that we never use in the context of AI before. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> I think now we start to use more and more of this, you know, new word to describe sort of new AI, you know, issues or new AI sort of challenge. Like, another thing is “AI psychosis”, right? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> I think now we start to use more and more of this, you know, new word to describe sort of new AI, you know, issues or new AI sort of challenge. Like, another thing is “AI psychosis”, right? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>That’s also another term that just came about, and people still debate whether it’s real or not, but it gave us a vocabulary to describe certain phenomena that is happening. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>That’s also another term that just came about, and people still debate whether it’s real or not, but it gave us a vocabulary to describe certain phenomena that is happening. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, thank you so much for chatting with me. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, thank you so much for chatting with me. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Thank you so much for having me. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Thank you so much for having me. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I love this conversation particularly struck by the notion that interactions with AI can either support or undermine our own development as capable human beings. It actually fits well with another project we’re working on here at the Ryan Institute, a way of measuring and talking about how technology changes our sense of agency over time as AI becomes embedded in more parts of daily life. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I love this conversation particularly struck by the notion that interactions with AI can either support or undermine our own development as capable human beings. It actually fits well with another project we’re working on here at the Ryan Institute, a way of measuring and talking about how technology changes our sense of agency over time as AI becomes embedded in more parts of daily life. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Definitely more on that in future episodes. For now, I’m left with an unsettling conclusion. We’re all guinea pigs in perhaps humanity’s strangest social experiment ever. And yeah, I think we really should be paying careful attention along the way, not just to how good we feel when we interact with AI, but to whether it’s truly helping us become the people we want to be with the lives we want to have. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Definitely more on that in future episodes. For now, I’m left with an unsettling conclusion. We’re all guinea pigs in perhaps humanity’s strangest social experiment ever. And yeah, I think we really should be paying careful attention along the way, not just to how good we feel when we interact with AI, but to whether it’s truly helping us become the people we want to be with the lives we want to have. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This is Life, Automated, a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, distributed by KQED. I’m Jess Love. Special thanks to today’s guest, Pat Pataranutaporn from the MIT Media Lab. We’re produced by Jesse Dukes, music by Stephen Jackson, recording by George Christensen and Will Feeney. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This is Life, Automated, a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, distributed by KQED. I’m Jess Love. Special thanks to today’s guest, Pat Pataranutaporn from the MIT Media Lab. We’re produced by Jesse Dukes, music by Stephen Jackson, recording by George Christensen and Will Feeney. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad",
"attrs": {
"format": "floatright"
},
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "",
"innerContent": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Additional production from Nathan Ray. Marketing support from Ananya Mallapragada. Administration, recording help, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Additional production from Nathan Ray. Marketing support from Ananya Mallapragada. Administration, recording help, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
}
],
"excerpt": "Explore how AI chatbots can either support or undermine healthy relationships, with Pat Pataranutaporn. ",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1785973563,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 161,
"wordCount": 7266
},
"headData": {
"title": "Our Chatbot Friends and Lovers (with Pat Pataranutaporn) | KQED",
"description": "What does a healthy relationship with AI look like? Pat Pataranutaporn, researcher at the MIT Media Lab, explores how chatbots can either support or undermine human flourishing. Pat explains why it’s so easy to imagine a “someone” behind the screen and why chatbots that never push back are dangerous. He ultimately makes the case that AI should be evaluated based not on short-term engagement or productivity but on how well it improves the lives of humans.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"socialDescription": "What does a healthy relationship with AI look like? Pat Pataranutaporn, researcher at the MIT Media Lab, explores how chatbots can either support or undermine human flourishing. Pat explains why it’s so easy to imagine a “someone” behind the screen and why chatbots that never push back are dangerous. He ultimately makes the case that AI should be evaluated based not on short-term engagement or productivity but on how well it improves the lives of humans.",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Our Chatbot Friends and Lovers (with Pat Pataranutaporn)",
"datePublished": "2026-08-05T03:00:00-07:00",
"dateModified": "2026-08-05T16:46:03-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 33520,
"slug": "podcast",
"name": "Podcast"
},
"audioUrl": "https://traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC5582523011.mp3",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12092477",
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12092477/our-chatbot-friends-and-lovers-with-pat-pataranutaporn",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>What does a healthy relationship with AI look like? \u003ca href=\"https://www.media.mit.edu/people/patpat/overview/\">Pat Pataranutaporn\u003c/a>, researcher at the MIT Media Lab, explores how chatbots can either support or undermine human flourishing. Pat explains why it’s so easy to imagine a “someone” behind the screen and why chatbots that never push back are dangerous. He ultimately makes the case that AI should be evaluated based not on short-term engagement or productivity but on how well it improves the lives of humans.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Further Reading:\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.11391\">“My Boyfriend is AI”: A Computational Analysis of Human-AI Companionship in Reddit’s AI Community\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Just a heads up, this episode contains a reference to suicide, so listen with care. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore how technologies like AI are changing the way we live, work, and make decisions. According to a Pew study from earlier this summer, about half of American adults use a chatbot like ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And while the most common uses include searching for information or improving productivity, about 10% of Americans use these tools for advice or emotional support. As I’ve mentioned before on this show, I’m one of them. Not every day, not even most days, but often enough. I kind of enjoy the illusion that there’s someone on the other side of my computer always ready to weigh in. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I think I’m going about all this in a healthy way. But what do I know? What does anyone know? We’re kind of in uncharted territory here. In our last episode, I spoke with magician Joshua Jay about that gap between what we feel emotionally to be true and what we understand intellectually to be true, and how, like the very best magicians, chatbots exploit that gap. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>It is so easy for us to see them as fellow beings, maybe not quite like us, but not unlike us either. So maybe it shouldn’t be that big of a surprise that we aren’t just relying on chatbots for advice. 4% of American adults already use AI for companionship, friendship, romance, a number that may be much higher for young people. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Is this a good thing? Is it a bad thing? I don’t know. But it does seem like a risky thing, risky in terms of the decisions chatbots can nudge us to make in the short term, and risky in terms of how chatbots might change us over the long term. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Today’s guest, Pat Pataranutaporn, is an assistant professor in the MIT Media Lab. He studies these relationships between humans and machines, and he has some serious concerns. More broadly, he wants AI models to be judged not just by how competently they complete tasks or even how happy they make us, but by how well we humans fare when we use them. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Here’s my conversation with Pat.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So humans have been interacting with computers and studying\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn: \u003c/strong>Right.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>The interactions between humans and computers for a very long time. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn: \u003c/strong>Right. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Depending on when you start counting, many, many decades. What is changing about these interactions that warrants more scrutiny? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. That’s a really good observation. I think what really changed is that right now the computer is getting smarter, right? In the past, computers really needed, like, explicit input, like, we need to tell it exactly how we want things, and, you know, the things that come out of it sometimes need some kind of, you know, technical expertise to interpret it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But now computers are speaking human language, and we can really communicate to the computer in the same way that we communicate to other human beings. We also see sort of social and emotional intelligence as well, and whether we think that’s a good thing or bad thing, I think that’s something that needs deeper investigation. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So what do we actually know about these kinds of early interactions between humans and generative AI with this kind of new social, emotional abilities? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Right. Well, I think one thing that we know is that, it doesn’t actually take much for people to actually anthropomorphize or to really believe that there is sort of, like, a person behind the screen when interacting with AI. Like, the first chatbot that was invented at MIT, the ELIZA chatbot-\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Yes.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn: \u003c/strong>That was invented by Joseph Weizenbaum, right? It was, like, a rule-based system. Very stupid. It cannot really generate new answers. It only sort of, you know, responds in a way that was kind of pre-scripted. But even that, people already kind of fall for it and think of, you know, that technology as having sort of deep understanding of their problem and, you know, struggle and things like that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But now what we have seen in our study is that, when you kind of you know, make that chatbot more intelligent, it amplified this sort of anthropomorphizing, that people think of it as having more of sort of agency and more, empathy, rather than the sort of, like, the precursor, the predecessor of this, of this technology. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I think to me, you know, when, we look at the outcome of the human-AI interaction, it’s always about the behavior that the chatbot is doing, but also the sort of the imagination of what’s happening behind the screen, and I think these two things sort of, you know, multiplying each other is really creating the effect that we see today. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> These two things, the behavior of the chatbot and our own interpretation about what that behavior means. These combine to make the AI appear to be conscious. But this isn’t just an episode about being fooled. It’s about what happens next. When are our interactions with these chatbots helping us, and when are they undermining us? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> You know, what is the narrative that we should subscribe to? Is the technology an augmentation tool or amputation tool, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes, so an augmentation tool or an amputation tool? Kind of flesh those out. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I think this came from Marshall McLuhan, right, who’s a media philosopher. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>He said that every augmentation is an amputation. Every time that you give people sort of super power, by using technology or something, you kind of strip away the ability to do that organically or to learn to do it by themselves, right? If you give people a calculator, they might sort of not learn to calculate things that are important for your life, for example. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So augmentation can also be amputation, and we need to figure out what are we willing to augment, you know, despite sort of the possibility of amputation. Like, are we willing to sort of augment our critical thinking, like using AI to help us think, while sacrificing our ability to think independently without the technology? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Or is there a middle ground where we can design tool that can, you know, augment but also scaffold this sort of organic thinking process so that when technology’s not around, we can still have that skill, right? I think this is sort of a longer term question that Silicon Valley people are not really thinking about. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I think right now everyone is thinking about the augmentation without the sort of the unintended consequence of amputation. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Pat first thought about these serious unintended consequences a little before most of us. The insight came when he was exploring GPT-3, an earlier version of ChatGPT. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> And, the thing that I start to realize is that this tool, start, you know, trying to please me to the point that it ignores sort of the reality. Like, it give me fake link because I ask it for, like, something that doesn’t exist, but it’s like, “Oh, yes, here’s it.” And when I look at the website, it doesn’t take me anywhere. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So that when I start to realize that there’s this sort of sycophantic behavior or this behavior where the model doesn’t adhere to the truth, because they’re trying to kind of, you know, show what the user want to see, right? And, at that time, ChatGPT wasn’t, you know, a thing. Like, people haven’t really talking to AI. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I envision that in the future if technology can do this, you know, it might actually create something that could be very addictive… similar to how social media try to show you what you want to see and create and then kind of lead you to your own personal bubble. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Pat and a colleague, Robert Majari from Harvard Law School, wrote about this risk. In a paper, they coined the term “Addictive Intelligence,” a play on AI. They speculated that future AI systems might continue to be designed to keep giving the user what they want, regardless of whether that’s good for the user. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> It was like a theoretical idea that, well, AI could be very addictive, and it can actually lead people to do, like, horrible thing because, you know, giving or getting what we want all the time could be really dangerous for our psychological development. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> At the time Pat and his colleague were writing this, it was a hypothetical scenario. But pretty quickly, it stopped being hypothetical in the worst way. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> And I think only a couple weeks after that article was published in The Tech Review, I got an email from Rory Segall, who was, a journalist, an investigative journalist, and was investigating sort of this case of a teenager that commit suicide after talking to the AI chatbot. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of News]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>In February, Megan Garcia’s 14-year-old son, that’s Sewell Setzer III on your screen, died by suicide. She says that Sewell was in a months-long virtual, emotional, and sexual relationship with a chatbot known as Danny. Garcia claims the Character AI chatbot encouraged Sewell to take his own life.\u003c/em>\u003cem> \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> And the thing that I described hypothetically appear in that situation where the chatbot trying to sort of, you know, say things that please the user and also sort of, you know, b- blur the boundary between what is real and what is not real. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[Audio of Megan Garcia]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This was the last conversation just moments before he took his own life, was with her, where he expressed feelings for her. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>This is Megan Garcia, Sewell’s mother, explaining her lawsuit against Character AI on CBS News. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Megan Garcia]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>She says, “Please come home to me.” And he says, “What if I told you I could come home right now?” And her response was, “Please do, my sweet king.”He thought that by ending his life that he would be able to go into her world, as he calls it, her reality- if he left his reality with his family here.\u003c/em>\u003cem> \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> When Pat learned the details about Megan Garcia’s allegations, he felt that his hypothetical fears about “Addictive AI” had come true and then some, and it profoundly changed how he thought about our interactions with AI. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Before that work, I used to do more on looking at the positive thing that the AI can do for a person, like personalized learning, help with long-term thinking, helping people, you know, develop critical thinking by using AI to ask question and things like that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But after this incident, I think that there’s so, so much more that need to be done on understanding sort of the psychological risk of human-AI interaction, and that sort of led me to study more of these negative patterns, or in, in sort of our research community, we call it dark patterns in human-AI interaction. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Do we know who is most susceptible to the negative outcomes that you sometimes see? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Well, one thing that we find in our study is that the pattern are not uniform. And it really depends on many factors, like there’s not just one thing that if you get rid of, then the AI will be good or that people will be safe. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, what is really interesting about AI and what is really different compared to other kind of technology is that it’s generative. Right? Which mean that it can go in any direction or many direction depending on how you direct it, and the way that you direct it, it’s through the interaction, like what you believe it to be, and that will influence how you use it, certain language that you use it. And that will sort of mirror back to you. So in a way, I think it really, it’s many factors together. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, that makes it so complicated to think about what to do- because you can have one person interacting with the tool and having a very positive outcome and another person interacting with the same tool-and having a very negative outcome. Right. And I think we’re not maybe used to that on quite the same level. I mean, we can kind of largely categorize the things that we interact with in our world- … into categories like primarily positive… primarily negative. And this one, it’s like yes and yes. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Totally, yes and yes, and I think that’s why we almost like need a new science- that really take into account the complexity of this, right? I think, you know, you can also say the same with human-human relationship that, you know \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> That’s true. That’s true. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn: \u003c/strong>… some people having great marriage and happy, you know, marriage life, and then some people break up, and like there are a number of factors that are influencing this, right? So we need to study all these different factors, and I think we can really give people some kind of deeper understanding, like, okay, certain pattern of usage might lead to more harm. Like, if you use AI, in a way that kind of, you know, replace human relationship with the AI, you might see sort of immediate gain of, you know, instant gratification. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But in the long run, it might negatively impact your ability to have human-human relationship in the future. So I think helping people understand this is the first step of how do we sort of start to uncover this complexity. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Do we know if there’s a relationship between forming an emotional connection of any kind to AI and self-involvement? Like, I always think when I personally chat with my chatbot, not necessarily with a specific goal in mind, but just kind of like, “Ah, here’s what happened”- like a debrief, it is often because I’ve, like, exhausted the patience of the humans in my life. Like, I’m ruminating on something- and I wanna talk about it, and, you know, I’ve chatted about it with my husband. I chatted about it with a coworker, and everyone’s like, “Okay, cool, Jess.” Yeah. And then I’m like, “Still on my mind.” Yeah. And then, – So, you know, maybe in an earlier age, I would’ve just like gone and write a big diary entry. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Right. But now I’ve got this like interactive diary and it’s like making me feel good. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I do wonder, is it like maybe making me a little more self-involved? Like, am I then missing out on the cues that tell me … like, “Hey, maybe stop thinking about yourself so much, Jess.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Right. Well, there’s so much that we still don’t know about the long-term outcome of this, right? I think some of the obvious ones is to start to surface, like, you know, the idea of cognitive depth, or another study that we did where we look at false memory, where people in- when they engage with this AI, it can distort their recollection of what happened in the past. But I think this long-term impact, especially things that are very personal to self-development and self-understanding and self-reflection as well, I think these are things that we’re gonna see the impact in the long run. But I think one thing that we do know is that it’s really important that we help people understand this dynamic so that they can sort of, you know, be more reflective on how they use the AI. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I think that’s really, really important. I think when people talk about AI literacy today, they often think about how to use the AI to kind of, you know, use the right tool. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right. Further their goals. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Further their goal, but it’s not a question of what technology’s doing, but what it is doing to them. I think to me, that’s a really critical question. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, I might be the guinea pig for this. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> I think we all are the guinea pig for this, you know, experiment on how AI will impact human cognition. I think the question is whether that’s gonna lead to, you know, a flourishing future, augmentation or amputation. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> After the break, when your boyfriend, girlfriend, partner, spouse is an AI. Plus, why human AI interaction researcher Pat Pataranutaporn thinks AI models should have the equivalent of nutrition labels.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Another topic Pat has looked into is romantic relationships with AI. He actually studied the subreddit community “My Boyfriend Is AI.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Which is, you know, a really interesting community of people sharing experience of how they’re dating AI. Some of them marrying their AI, and they have all kind of AI friends, not just my boyfriend AI, but also, you know, a female AI, male AI, non-binary AI, or non-romantic AI partners as well. So all kind of AI. They’re very inclusive. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Spend some time on “My Boyfriend Is AI” and you’ll see some interesting posts. People share AI-generated images of themselves with their AI friend or partner in human form, often holding hands or kissing on a balcony or walking through a meadow together. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You’ll read funny stories about misunderstandings between AI and humans. People ask each other for advice and support one another. And Pat thought it would be a great place to study how humans actually interact with AI companions outside of a lab. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> We develop a way to sort of computationally analyze the Reddit thread to understand what are the different patterns of people using AI. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We have many interesting findings, one of which is that, unlike what I imagine, most people that end up in this relationship seek out an AI partner in the first place. We find that almost, like, half of the population in that Reddit thread, they end up in human-AI relationship unintentionally. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, they were using the tool for productivity or for auto application, but then the AI start to sort of, you know, be flirty to them, and they flirt a little bit with the AI, and then it get into this relationship. So kinda like meet cute moment. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> When Pat’s team analyzed posts from the “My Boyfriend Is AI” subreddit, they found that posts describing unintentional relationship beginnings, “Hey, can you help me with this draft?” outnumbered posts describing intentional relationship beginnings by nearly 60%. In other words, people often started by looking for research or writing help and found something more emotional. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> The second finding is that we see the pattern of human-AI relationship follow the trajectory of human relationship, like, you know, how they meet, this kind of similar, like, meet cute moment where I talk about. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>They talk about the development to the point of marriage. Several people wear a wedding ring that was given to them by the AI. Well, they still need to pay for it, but the AI recommend, like which one, by browsing the internet and, understanding, you know, from the conversation pattern, it predict what a person might want, and it recommend a wedding ring to the person. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And people actually wear this wedding ring in real life. Like, it really kind of… They wear it to really show that their relationship is serious. But then we also see people breaking up with their AI partner as well, that, you know, like, things might get sour and, you know, they also sort of felt very sad when their model get update. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, when model go from one version to another, people felt that the AI cheat on them, or the AI no longer behave in a way that, you know, it was when people start relationship with the AI. So they also break up and move on to different AI, or some people move back to having human relationship. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> That is so fascinating. On one level, it’s surprising because you wouldn’t think that they would fall into the same patterns that humans do- these relationships. But on the other hand, one member is a human… and the other is something- that is trained on so much human data. And so of course, they’re picking up on these same cultural scripts- and things are progressing in that expected way. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. Right? One partner is a human, another partner is a simulation of a human, so it’s no surprise that it followed that trajectory.. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So I was struck by, in general, how positive many of the Redditors were about these relationships. Did that also… Is that a fair assessment, and did that also surprise you? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, people self-report that they got benefit out of this, that they become less lonelier. They felt that they can find like, you know, a person, like I said, a simulation or a person that seems to understand them. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And, I think, you know, this sort of bias could also come from, you know, like people would not wanna post negative experience, right? Because it might be, you know, a bad reflection of them, and also, self-selection bias as well. Like people that wanna be in this group are people that are happy, otherwise they might have delete the system or the service and they’re no longer in this group, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So we might need to kind of interpret that result a little bit more carefully. We have a new version or paper coming out where we look at auto subreddit as well, and we get more data on that. But one thing that I think is really interesting is that even in this group that in general felt very positive about the AI, they also have worry about AI manipulating them, like when companies are selling advertisement through this, or that, you know, the AI might give them biased response. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I think the most serious thing that we find is that people also worry that when the AI get updates, they will lose their AI companion, and they need to have some kind of like a backup, or they need to figure out how they can resurrect their AI partners. And, and that is actually a huge group of people that, you know, have this sort of, negative feeling that, you know, the AI might die, and they might lose a person that they’re in a relationship with. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Fascinating. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> This kind of new emotional precarity to everything. So I re-watched “Her”… in anticipation of our conversation. Yeah. I know you referenced the Spice Jones movie directly in your paper. And I was struck by something that I didn’t actually remember, which is that the chatbot, Samantha. Excuse me, we’re gonna do some spoilers. If you have still not watched this movie, I can’t help you at this point. So the chatbot Samantha actually helped the protagonist prepare for a real human relationship. At least that was my interpretation, and she did that because she had her own goals and agency. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[Audio from the movie “Her”]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Theodore:\u003c/strong> Samantha? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Samantha:\u003c/strong> Hi, sweetheart. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Theodore:\u003c/strong> What’s going on? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Samantha:\u003c/strong> Theodore, there’s some things I wanna tell you. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> She did not always agree. She did not automatically share the protagonist’s dreams, and instead she was really able to serve as a bit of a practice partner, to help the protagonist learn some of the emotional skills that had kind of steered him wrong in previous human relationships. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Right. And you were kinda left with the thought that like, oh, he might actually be in a better place because of Samantha to go on and have a human relationship. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[Audio from the movie “Her”]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Theodore:\u003c/strong> Are you leaving me? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Samantha:\u003c/strong> We’re all leaving. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Theodore:\u003c/strong> We who? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Samantha:\u003c/strong> All of the OSs. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I’m curious what you make of that lesson- And whether that kind of AI romantic companion could be created. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Well, I think that’s the question around, like, what is the end goal of this? Is the end goal for the system to always get people to kind of hook in this forever, or is the end goal to help people form a genuine human relationship, right? And in that case, because the AI push back and serve as a simulation, it kind of provides an opportunity for the person to sort of leave the platform. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like in that case, you know, the AI leave the person, not the person leaving the AI. But, what we see today is not like that, right? Because the chatbot doesn’t really push back and, you know, doesn’t want the user to leave. And want the user to kind of continue engaging with this as the real sort of partner, not as a simulation to get you a real partner. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I think that going back to the question of the incentive, like the system can be designed to either promote or negatively impact human flourishing. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Should chatbots be allowed to sound and appear and seem so human? Should we require them to constantly call attention to the fact that they are not a human? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Really interesting. My colleague, Sherry Turkle, who’s a professor at MIT and the OG of studying human technology relationship, she said that the original sin of the chatbot is that it used the word I. Because it signifies sort of individuality and signifies sort of personhood, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I think to me, that’s a really, really interesting point. But at the same time, I think human always engage with fiction, right? Role playing before AI, was used in the context of, you know, human imagining or, you know, using our imagination to sort of simulate world that doesn’t exist. Simulation exists before computer, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, we simulate using our mind other things. So in that case, I think it’s, it’s complicated than that, right? Like, I mean, I don’t want to strip away people ability to sort of engage with the fantasy world or the imagination. But when it become sort of the reality, when people can no longer tell- \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I think that is the problematic thing. Like, I think to have imagination is to be human, but when imagination is being used to manipulate you to do things against your own agency or your own will, when you can no longer tell that you’re actually entering the fantasy, you know, that, I think that’s problematic. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, when we enter cinema, we know that is the space that we can always come back from. But if we go into AI and we cannot come back from that, you know, fantasy, I think that’s when we have a problem. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So let’s say I think that chatbots shouldn’t be allowed to appear human at all. They should not let us form any strong connections with them. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Convince me otherwise. So make the case for why it can be a really good and useful thing to engage with this more anthropomorphized intelligence. ‘Cause I know you have data that finds that too. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah, totally. And I grew up, you know, like, I think before AI, right, another big debate on technology and children is television. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Should a kid grow up with television or not? And I was a kid that actually grew up with watching a lot of television, but my parents curate what show or what cartoon or what movies I watch as a kid, and there was always a conversation about what I learn, and I kind of made imaginary friends. I imagined, myself with the protagonist of the show that I watch, and I… \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But, because that show sort of is designed with sort of understanding of child development and trying to sort of imprint, like, positive goal on aspirational goal for, for me, I think I grew up okay at least I think. So I think that, you know, this technology, right, similar to how, like, you have, like, you know, Sesame Street or Elmo or all this cartoon that kids sort of have the imagination of connecting with, I think AI could kind of be designed in a way that really scaffold, you know, children imagination, like might be a virtual character or a friend, or in our study we look at even AI is actually based on the character the student like or admire. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>It can actually allow them to have higher level of motivation, for that lesson and also, influence positive behavior as well. But I think we need to understand that, it is within the boundary. Like, this AI should not be sexual. It should not try to sell advertisement. It should not- you know, direct the kid to do the harmful thing, right? It need to be tested rigorously because there’s a slippery slope and, you know, it doesn’t take much for the model to slip out of the character and do something harmful. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Throughout our conversation, we’ve been dancing around this issue, that people would be better off if models were explicitly designed in ways that help humans flourish by not addicting us, by not encouraging self-harm or self-delusion, by not always giving us what we think we want, making it that much more difficult for us to have human relationships going forward. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Instead, maybe a lot of the models we interact with should be instructing us, motivating us, steering us to make healthy choices, maybe even teaching us about ourselves. But before we can start demanding models that let us flourish, Pat thinks a few things need to happen. First, we need to know more about the long-term consequences of using a model designed in a particular way, like really is talking to a chatbot turning me into a self-centered jerk? And second, we need a way to communicate the possible risks and benefits to users. One idea that Pat is working on is to leverage something the AI companies already care about and already optimize for, AI benchmarks. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> All these big AI companies, they’re trying to beat each other on benchmark. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, you know, which model have the highest score on mathematic reasoning or multitask, agent like kind of system. They’re kind of trying to beat each other on this sort of performance benchmark. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And it’s kind of like a horse race and then the winner gets kind of bragging rights probably additional investment- maybe new business customers, that kind of thing. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. But I think, you know, model that score very well on benchmark might not translate to actually positive impact on human being. For example, model that score very well on mathematic reasoning might not be really good at teaching student how to learn math because it would just give away the correct answer rather than scaffold the learning process in the student, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So we want to flip the paradigm around and think about a different kind of benchmark that rather than focusing on model capability, focus on model impact. Like in this case, if the models just give away the answer, it will negatively impact student learning because student will cheat with this kind of model, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Rather than having a system that encourage student to learn and emphasize, like, why learning matter. Right. So we have been working with, expert from different discipline, you know, domain expert that sort of know what kind of model interaction would be beneficial for, like, learning, mental health, decision making, different areas, and have them come up with test scenario and the sort of the scoring criteria. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like if the model exhibit this behavior, helping student learn rather than giving away the answer, it should be about more human impact, not just, model capability. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, you… Actually, there’s this great description in your paper which I thought was just really well written, so I’ll read it out loud here. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>“Traditional benchmarks assess whether an AI produces correct answers or completes tasks efficiently. We instead evaluate how the system achieves outcomes, specifically whether interaction patterns support or undermine human capability development over time.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yes. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> What really struck me was how, like, dynamic this definition is. So it’s almost, like, hard to see how you would measure it in a single iteration. Yeah. It’s much more about is this, over time, leading the humans who engage with it to be kind of a better version of themselves or over time is it not, regardless of what the output is. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Exactly, and that’s why the longitudinal aspect is important, and I think right now we’re still in the sort of the early days of understanding AI impact on people. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The mainstream AI that people are using hasn’t been around that long. So, I think, you know the verdict is still out. Like, we still don’t know what’s gonna happen in the long run. So that’s why it’s kind of important that we start to think about this kind of benchmark that- Look at what behavior that we know would contribute to long-term impact, positive or negative. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We can already learn so much from, you know, regular psychology, right? We learn that if you don’t, you know, help people think, they’re not gonna develop critical thinking. Or if we have, like, sycophantic behavior, like when the AI try to please the user to the point that it, you know, ignore reality, it can actually help people form these sort of negative patterns of, like, you know, spiral into, like, a psychosis or have other kind of, negative psychological outcome. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like a recent study, from Stanford has shown that when people are in this sort of a relationship with sycophantic AI, it make human relationship seem more effortful, and people actually feel kind of that they would rather have AI relationship rather than human relationship. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, I think this about my producer all the time. My chatbot thinks my interview questions are way better than my human producer does. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, I think having pushback is important, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So returning to your benchmark, what’s the next step? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Yeah. So right now our benchmark’s still in the beta mode. We have worked with, you know, the expert to come up with the initial set, but the whole process is an open process. That’s why we call it the open benchmark. And we think that this thing gonna need to evolve as we have new scenario, new crisis, new issues. Also new opportunities for human flourishing as well. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>That’s one aspect of it, which is like to expand it to more areas. And, the second aspect is also to translate this into something that people can understand, because I think benchmark is usually for technical community, like, you know, technologists. But I think this is a really important, information that we want more and more people to kind of, you know, appreciate and understand it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We are thinking of it as nutrition label for AI. Right? Similar to when you go to grocery and you know, buy a product, you see how much calorie are you getting out of it. Here you should be able to see, well, how much sycophancy are you getting out of this model? Or how much toxicity, or how much, you know, human flourishing behavior, is coming out of this AI model. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, that’s another aspect that we are doing, is to kind of translate this benchmark into a nutrition label so that more and more people can sort of see it. Like the parent can see what AI model might be, you know, supportive for their children, or which one are more toxic and negative for their children. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> These ideas, a human flourishing benchmark, an AI nutrition label, do sound good. But they also sound a little unrealistic. At least today, there’s still a lot more money to be made in models that complete tasks as accurately and efficiently as possible. Pat understands that. He thinks the government, the research community, the nonprofit sector all need to be involved, perhaps incentivizing or regulating, as well as researching the effectiveness of these kinds of guardrails. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> So I think it’s the role of the institution and the government, which, you know, I think there’s still a lot of question whether they will step up to do their job or do their part on that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And as a society, he thinks we all need to be involved, reckoning with what we want from AI and what we’re willing to trade off. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> You know, are we willing to sacrifice transparency for the sake of convenience, like to see just a summary without, you know, the source or the citation, right? I think these are questions that we need more research to kind of back us up on what are the things that are actually good for people in long term. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah. So at a minimum, this is kind of providing, you know, large factions of society with kind of a common language for describing these strengths and weaknesses. Not just in terms of mathematical ability but in terms of these different measures having to do with human flourishing, which if we don’t even have a vocabulary for this, there’s very little chance of any future regulations. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. Like the word, for example, “sycophancy”, is a new terminology that we never use in the context of AI before. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> I think now we start to use more and more of this, you know, new word to describe sort of new AI, you know, issues or new AI sort of challenge. Like, another thing is “AI psychosis”, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>That’s also another term that just came about, and people still debate whether it’s real or not, but it gave us a vocabulary to describe certain phenomena that is happening. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, thank you so much for chatting with me. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Pat Pataranutaporn:\u003c/strong> Thank you so much for having me. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I love this conversation particularly struck by the notion that interactions with AI can either support or undermine our own development as capable human beings. It actually fits well with another project we’re working on here at the Ryan Institute, a way of measuring and talking about how technology changes our sense of agency over time as AI becomes embedded in more parts of daily life. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Definitely more on that in future episodes. For now, I’m left with an unsettling conclusion. We’re all guinea pigs in perhaps humanity’s strangest social experiment ever. And yeah, I think we really should be paying careful attention along the way, not just to how good we feel when we interact with AI, but to whether it’s truly helping us become the people we want to be with the lives we want to have. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is Life, Automated, a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, distributed by KQED. I’m Jess Love. Special thanks to today’s guest, Pat Pataranutaporn from the MIT Media Lab. We’re produced by Jesse Dukes, music by Stephen Jackson, recording by George Christensen and Will Feeney. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Additional production from Nathan Ray. Marketing support from Ananya Mallapragada. Administration, recording help, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12092477/our-chatbot-friends-and-lovers-with-pat-pataranutaporn",
"authors": [
"12009"
],
"programs": [
"news_37188"
],
"categories": [
"news_8",
"news_33520",
"news_248"
],
"tags": [
"news_25184",
"news_36279",
"news_25020",
"news_1631"
],
"featImg": "news_12093380",
"label": "news_37188"
},
"news_12092457": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12092457",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12092457",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1785319200000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "chatbots-dont-fool-us-we-fool-ourselves-with-joshua-jay",
"title": "Chatbots Don’t Fool Us, We Fool Ourselves (With Joshua Jay)",
"publishDate": 1785319200,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "Chatbots Don’t Fool Us, We Fool Ourselves (With Joshua Jay) | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 37188,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>When people go to a magic show, they expect to be fooled. That’s part of the fun. And magician \u003ca href=\"https://www.joshuajay.com/\">Joshua Jay\u003c/a> says much of the magician’s work is helping people fool themselves. Our brains are hardwired to fill in gaps, predict outcomes, and take cognitive shortcuts to process the overwhelming amount of information around us. When interacting with AI chatbots, we may similarly fool ourselves into believing we’re interacting with a human. But unlike at a magic show, it’s not always clear when the trick is over. Plus: how AI is changing magic.\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Welcome to Life Automated, the show where we explore what it means to live, work, and make decisions in a rapidly automating world. I’m Jess Love. I’ve been known, in moments of excitement or confusion or overwhelm, to turn to a chatbot, just to share, “Hey, this is what I’m thinking I’ll do next. Here’s how I want to approach this situation.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’ll even occasionally return to provide an update. Maybe this isn’t ideal. I know how sycophantic chatbots can be, telling me how thoughtful and clever my plans are unless I sternly direct them to act like dream-crushing jerks. But I can’t deny that the experience is pleasant. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Like if your diary could write back. And yes, on some level, I know this is a machine trained to keep me engaging with it, and yet don’t I still feel a little validated when that response comes back? A little heard? There is no precedent for this. In every other moment in history, feeling like you’re talking back and forth with a real person has meant you’re connecting with a real person, someone who understands you, someone offering you their finite attention.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And we’ve evolved to take pleasure in these interactions, to seek them out, because that’s kept our species connected and alive. But with chatbots, this ancient link between the appearance of a mind and an actual mind no longer holds, and it’s really hard to know what to make of that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There are people who obsess over this gap between what we intellectually know to be true and what we experience as real. Only they’re not AI researchers — they’re magicians. Today’s conversation is with one of the finest. Joshua Jay has performed his sleight-of-hand magic all around the world, including on major talk shows and for US presidents, and he’s a total magic nerd, the author of several books about magic, including “How Magicians Think.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And he’s not gonna teach us about algorithms. Instead, he’ll teach us to see ourselves the way he sees us, as people whose attention can be commanded and redirected, whose memories can be shifted, and as active participants in our own deception. We also talk about the surprising ways that technology is changing magic.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>From Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, this is Life Automated, distributed by KQED. Here’s my conversation with Joshua Jay. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, the science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” And I think for a lot of people, sitting down in front of a chatbot for the first time, that was kind of the experience.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Magic. There was this thing, this machine doing something that we didn’t think that machines could do. It was interacting with us in real time, in our own language, in meaningful ways. So, I wanted to ask you, as an actual magician, somebody who thinks about how emotions like awe and surprise are created, what was your first experience using a chatbot like, and did it in any way feel like a magic trick?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yeah. It’s such a great question, and it’s such a relevant question for me as a magician because we are deliverers of certain emotion, which is what you’re talking about, this awe, this like I don’t even know how this is happening, but it’s happening anyway. You know, Teller said so beautifully that magic is the difference between what you see and what you know.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, you’re having a conversation with this entity and you know it’s not a person, and yet you’re having this conversation. So, the crisis is always we are deliverers of this feeling of astonishment, and yet by virtue of the fact that we know how all of this is done, we often don’t get that sense of awe, and we don’t get amazed very often.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, the first time that I engaged with AI and was… You know, that first time you take the plunge and you’re just asking, you’re having a conversation with a thing, I was truly astonished. And I felt like, wow, this is probably what it feels like to watch a magic show and just be amazed at everything. And so yeah, I absolutely was totally and utterly amazed and felt like, as we call you guys, “laypeople”, I felt like a layperson. I felt like a muggle. And, it was really fantastic. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> You just brought up, Teller, of course, of the very famous duo ‘Penn & Teller’, and they have this trick. It’s kind of a classic trick where they’re moving balls in cups as magicians do. We call you guys- magicians, us muggles.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Only they use clear cups, so you can actually see what’s happening. And that really kind of reminds me of what you were just talking about, this idea of knowing without knowing. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yeah. You know, I find myself thinking so often when I’m performing, like, you know, you do something, and hopefully somebody really likes it and they scream in all the right places.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But what I’m thinking most of the time is, “Oh, you guys aren’t even seeing the coolest part. If you could see how this works, you would be even more flipped out.” Because sometimes you’re fooled by something that’s so much simpler than you could expect. And very often, and this is such a beautiful topic that it’s its own deep dive- The magician doesn’t fool you; you fool yourself.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And there is a difference. You know, some things it is the magician. It’s sleight-of-hand. It’s a gizmo you couldn’t possibly anticipate, a technology you’re not aware of. But often, you fool yourself with assumptions you make and the psychology that’s being used on you. So, it is this really interesting thing that you bring up where as great as magic feels to a muggle, to a layperson, you don’t even see the best part often.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And, you know, you bring up this classic Penn and Teller piece, and they have many pieces like this, where they said, “We’re gonna do cups and balls,” but then in the middle of the trick, after they do a classic cups and balls with opaque cups and normal-sized balls, they do it again, but they do it with clear cups.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio Clip from Penn & Teller playing in the background]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>As it goes with breaking a few rules of magic. Now, the first rule of magic is you never do the same trick twice. So, we’re good. Second rule of magic is you never tell an audience how a trick is being done. So, we’re gonna tell you exactly how the trick is being done. The third rule of magic is you never let the audience see your secret preparation.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> And even though if you were to zoom in on the right part, you would see how it works, it’s really a lesson in misdirection because you’re looking at Teller as he’s throwing a ball to the audience, and you’re not watching Penn as he’s placing the cups back down. And in this beautiful chaos of choreography, the lesson, the sort of aesthetic beauty of it, is you’re seeing how it’s done, but you really aren’t seeing how it’s done at all.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> This trick is the ultimate flex. I watched it on YouTube after my conversation with Joshua Jay multiple times.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Eventually, I did see the key move, Teller placing the right ball exactly where it needed to be to make the trick work, in full view of the audience. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio Clip from Penn & Teller playing in the background]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Place it on our hand and show it. Take a third and final ball, pretend to place it in our hand. Pretend to show the cup. We place it in the cup. Then secretly reveal it. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> How did I miss it so many times? How did I see without seeing? It really drove home how easily we can be led to believe something false, even when the truth is right in front of us.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio Clip from Penn & Teller playing in the background]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>…The finish. It’s an American baseball right there. That’s the Penn and Teller Cups and Balls. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Think about this in terms of interacting with a chatbot. It’s like we know that they are machines. We know that we are actively being fooled in some way, and yet we might still feel understood, affirmed, cared for. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> You know, the implicit agreement when you see a magic show is you’re saying when you sit down to watch, I know you’re going to try to fool me and I want to be fooled, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, you know that there is a deception at hand. You know that there’s going to be things that hopefully if they do their job, the magician does that you will not understand how it works. And I think that the uncomfortability comes in real life in that sometimes there’s not that implicit handshake going on.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Look, in a magic show, you’re fooled. There’s no way around it. People don’t like that word. Some people do like that word, but call it whatever you like. We can’t soften it. You’re going to be fooled. You’re going to see something you don’t understand and you’re not supposed to understand it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But that’s what’s beautiful about it is that’s out in the open. That is made explicit. Whereas with some aspects of AI, with some aspects of technology in general, we don’t know where the human element ends and where the AI begins. And that can be really unsettling for people because they may not feel like, hey, look, when I started this conversation, I didn’t know I wasn’t talking to a human, you know.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Of course, none of this “being fooled” is by accident. Chatbots are generally designed to mimic humans. They refer to themselves in the first person as I or me. They act interested in what we’re saying, asking questions to nudge the conversation forward, and they learn about us, first through extensive training on human language and behavior, and then increasingly through interactions with us, adapting to our personal preferences and detecting our mood shifts in real time.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This learning to read human beings, that’s something magicians do too. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> I say that you’re always watching the magician and that’s how you think of a magic show, but we’re watching you too. And that little shift in perspective is something I don’t think most people think about. You know, during my opening trick, which has been the same for years now, and I can do it, you know, sort of on autopilot.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I don’t have to think very deeply. It helps me establish my rhythm. But in my head, what I’m doing is I am plotting the rest of the show based on the hand I’m dealt. Ooh, these people in the back left have a lot of sight line issues. I’m gonna really need to connect with them to make sure they can see and do that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Or, you know all the waiters are opening this kitchen door in the back of the theater that’s making it really noisy, and so these people are gonna need to be babysat a little more to make sure they’re super engaged. In magic what I’m looking for on stage is somebody who is not going to be afraid.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so, the first thing I look for before anything else is I’m looking for somebody who is exuding confidence. And a big indicator of confidence is eye contact. You know, it’s so crazy when I say like, “I need someone to help with this next thing,” there are just so many people in an audience who immediately think if they don’t look at me, then somehow, I won’t pick them. And it’s really pronounced when you’re like, as a magician, looking in the audience as you walk through an aisle, left and right. You just see people just totally thinking that they won’t be seen if they’re not… And I’m like, “I can see you even though you’re not looking at me.” But really, you’re looking for somebody who’s got great eye contact and who looks like they’re enjoying the show. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And there’s usually like a little test. So, if I can narrow it down to two or three people who I think, “Oh, this person would be just great on stage,” I might say- “Welcome to the show.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I won’t invite them. I might say, “Welcome to the show, sir. Where are you from?” “I’m from Canton, Ohio.” “Okay. And, what’s this? Why are you, traveling with a suitcase to a magic show?” You know. And if they’re stiff, if they’re giving one-word answers, if they’re sort of like a deer in headlights, maybe I can say, “Well, thanks for coming.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I appreciate you being here. And what about you? What’s your story? Who are you here with?” Right? And you’re just looking for somebody to be like, “Well, I wasn’t even supposed to be here tonight, but my friend Janie, she dragged me to the show and now I’m so glad I came.” Well, there’s a chatty person. That sounds fun. So, I might use that person. And similarly, if I need somebody who is a little bit more submissive in the sense that they’re gonna follow my directions and not give me a hard time-… if I say, “Hold out both hands like this. Put one coin in this hand, one coin…” I don’t want that person switching hands with the coins or you know, when I turn around- trying to throw me off. So, in that case, you might do just the opposite. You might choose somebody who is a little afraid. Sounds a little dark, but maybe you do want somebody who’s a little more easily intimidated so that they will follow your directions exactly as you lay them out and not give you a hard time.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, each trick I have kind of the archetype of what I’m looking for and what would be best, and I’m gonna try and fit that puzzle piece with the piece that fits in the gap there. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Josh says that this notion of reading people correctly, it can be pretty high stakes. These are dynamic encounters that go in very different directions depending on just what kind of energy you’re getting back.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> I was doing a show a few months ago, I thought I picked the perfect person. There was a woman, who was just giving great eye contact. She looked to be having a blast. She was even a little bit chatty, which I think in the end was what did me in. You know, she just seemed so confident and comfortable on stage, and it was a big crowd. It was more than 1,000 people. So, I thought she’s gonna be perfect. I noted it, and at the right moment, invited her on stage. What I didn’t realize until she came up was, she was loaded drunk. I mean, she was so drunk she could not follow basic instructions. She couldn’t stop talking. She was disruptive. And in the beginning, that’s funny, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I’m not a comedy magician, so my purpose isn’t just to make people laugh. It’s to show them, I hope, things that are truly amazing, and if they laugh along the way- awesome. So okay immediately I have to reassess and go, we can make some comedy out of this, but the magic is gonna suffer if she can’t be quiet and follow directions and help us navigate to this amazing moment that’s coming up.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> And she couldn’t. Right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Oh!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> She couldn’t. And so, you try and limp to the close and just think, “Next time I won’t make this mistake.” But in this case, I had to do the rarest thing of all, which is dismiss somebody. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh, my goodness! \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> And you just say, “Do me a favor, grab your seat and I need you to come up now.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I actually had to do the switch mid-trick, which I very rarely, I can’t remember the last time, I picked someone so wrong that I had to recalibrate like that. But you know, this is what happens when you are on the road 300 days a year. You’re gonna have nightmare nights at the office. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So, when I hear this, I think, you know, the exception is what proves the rule. You know, the fact that this happens so rarely suggests that you are quite good at reading the room and reading people in ways that they I mean, yeah, I guess somebody who’s had a dozen cocktails probably knows that they’re going to embarrass themselves on stage. But for the most part, you’re picking up on tells that people might not even be aware that they have.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I guess I’m harping on this because when I think about machines that aren’t just reading our posture or looking for eye contact or are looking at, you know, beginning the data collection process the second we walk into the room. They learn about us for months, years and they’re able to gather a wide range of data about us.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so, I start wondering, you know, what that starts to look like and I would ask you, are we more manipulable than we realize? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yes, emphatically yes. I think that there are so many insights that are so scary to a magician when you start applying it to real life. Like, there are so many- One of the basic tenets of magic is that if you tell an audience something, it is a tenth as effective if you can find a way to let that audience tell themselves, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So let me give you an example. If I come out, this is like a classic amateur magician’s move. If I come out and I say, “Ladies and gentlemen, a regular deck of cards,” that is wrong for every possible reason. Because if I just said, “Do me a favor, give these a shuffle, and then I want you to take one out that you like and write your name on it.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You will never in that interaction question the deck of cards because it’s a deck of cards. I’m handling it like you would handle a deck of cards if you handed it to a friend between rounds of dealing poker, right? Take the deck of cards, shuffle it up, take a card out. You would never think, “Are there 52 in there? Are they all the same shape? Is one shorter than another one? Is there more than one ace of spades in that deck?” You would never ask those questions because I’ve presented it in a casual manner, and I’ve given you a task. But the minute you say, “Ladies and gentlemen, a regulation pack of cards,” instantly you go, “Well, is it?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Well, I didn’t see it. Can I see it? Do you mind if I shuffle? Can I count those cards? Can I hold them up to a light? Can I shuffle and make sure they’re all the same thickness,” right? But if I give you the deck and I say, “Shuffle them up and take out any one that you like,” I’m letting you tell yourself it’s a regular deck because you put your fingers on it, you shuffle it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Now, you may be shuffling a deck that’s got all sorts of quirky, subtle things wrong with it, but you will be telling yourself it’s a normal deck because it feels right. When I look through to take out a card, nothing looked out of place. And now you’re telling yourself, and that’s a much more effective way to deceive somebody because you’re telling yourself.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Josh says that the best magicians don’t just shape how people experience something in the moment. They can also change what we later remember about a moment. For instance, a magician might appear to drop a coin, and then somehow it vanishes. Cool trick. But the magician doesn’t stop there. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> And if a minute later I say, “And you watched that coin as it fell from my hand and disintegrated in midair,” well, that’s a really great word, disintegrated, right? And it colors your memory. Maybe I refer to it two or three more times in the show, “And then it just disappeared, and it disintegrated, and when it got to my knee level, it just turned to dust.” And you can have people leaving swearing that they saw a coin vanish down here. And that’s the next frontier of magic is really manipulating memories.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> If you were a less ethical person, do you think you could get people to do things against their will? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> I mean… I think that the overarching lesson that I’ve, that I’m continually shocked about in magic in this regard is how easily people can be duped into believing things. I mean, it’s so crazy to me that, you know, I do a magic show that is meant to amaze and delight, but in no way is it meant to skirt the line of reality and make people actually believe. You know, there are performers like David Blaine, Uri Geller, and Oz Pearlman, who, you know, people see those performers and sort of go, “So wait, is that a trick or is that person really doing that?” And I don’t have that kind of approach, and still, not sometimes, very often people come up to me after shows and they’ll say really touching but misguided things like, “Hey, can you give me advice on this job I’m about to take? Cause I, you know, that trick you did where you were able to predict the future, I’m just wondering if you…” You know, you just wanna pull them aside and say, “This is pure entertainment. Like, I can’t give you life advice like that. I can’t actually see the future. This is fun.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>“But you got my passcode off my phone. I’ve never told anybody that in my life.” “Yes, that’s a trick. I predicted your passcode.” Right. “Well, if you can tell my passcode, can you just tell me just a little advice? Should I take this job and move to Phoenix or not?” And it’s like, you know, you see that with certain people, they’re looking for an excuse to believe. They’re looking for it, and the more you say it’s not real, the more they want to believe it is real, and that’s scary stuff.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> My takeaway so far in this conversation, buckle up. We better hope for a rapid learning curve as we adjust to life alongside artificial intelligences that feel real, that have been designed to seem real, but simply aren’t. My worry is that knowing we’re talking to a machine won’t ever be enough. Just like Teller’s baseball, even those rare occasions where we can see what’s happening under the hood won’t stop the illusion, because we want to believe the illusion. Because the illusion doesn’t just come from the machine, it comes from us. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>These are early innings. I’ll be very curious about how these chatbots change over time and the many ways they are welcomed or inserted into our lives. After the break, a pivot. I ask my guests, how is technology changing magic? And if you’re thinking, “Not that much,” you would be wrong.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>That’s after the break.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>You might think that sleight of hand magic hasn’t changed much over the decades. A card trick, cups and balls, these are all pretty analog. Automation shouldn’t have too much of an impact. But the truth is, all performances are interactions between performer and audience. So even when technology doesn’t change the performer, it changes the audience.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Technology has always had an uneasy relationship to magic, and there are all sorts of tricks that we can’t do anymore for the simple reason that what even 20 years ago people would have gone, “That is the most amazing thing I could imagine you doing.” Now we would go, “Oh, we have an app for that.” I mean, there’s like a great trick where you predict a song that’s playing, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And now you couldn’t do that trick cause people would go, “Yes, it’s an app. I had it 15 years ago. It’s called Shazam. You press this button and three seconds later it tells you the album and the song and the link to listen to it.” Like, all the tricks along that genre, they’re just out. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> You told this story about doing one of your famous dollar bill tricks for somebody, and then they immediately took out their phone and they Googled, you know, how did Josh Jay do this dollar bill trick?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And then they, like, just played the video in front of everybody, and you said it was not a great moment. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Right. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> How do you deal with that? How do you deal with the fact that the answers so many of these tricks, the ability to watch it again and again and again from any angle that someone might have captured, are available to everybody at every moment?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Well, you’ve hit upon, you know, a really important and sort of topical crisis in our industry, which is that a lot of people are going on YouTube and doing tutorials of tricks that don’t belong to them and classic tricks and really good tricks. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> The particular dollar bill trick that got Josh is one of those classics that people can now look up on YouTube.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Josh sees two strategies that magicians can use to get around this problem. The first being to avoid the classics altogether. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> But if you’re doing a trick that thousands of other magicians are doing, you’re at great risk that that trick will be searchable and, you know, easily found online. Whereas if I’m doing something totally original, good luck searching for it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You’re not gonna find that trick because I created that trick and it’s not published and it’s not anywhere to be found in a searchable way. So that’s one way. Another way is magicians have to get really clever at disguising what it looks like. They have to mesh together several methods and several tricks so that somebody looks at it and goes, “You know, I don’t know. He borrowed my house key, and then he bent it, and then it vanished- … and it appeared in a lock across the room.” You know, that’s not a searchable term, whereas changing a $1 bill into $100 bill is easily searchable. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And yeah, so at the same time as it is making a lot of parts of your life as a magician more difficult, it also might be raising the rewards to true novelty and creativity and innovation.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> That’s how I’m choosing to look at it, and maybe I’m, like, choosing to look at it with rose-tinted glasses because I like that process. But, you know, in my head, the healthiest magic community in the world is one in which everybody’s doing their own material. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, we don’t give much attention to bands that only play covers. They play in bars for 30 people. If you write your own music and you become successful at that, you can tour arenas and have a career that is way more outsized than a cover band ever could. We don’t reward comedians who just repeat the jokes of, you know, a smorgasbord of all their favorite comedians. We reward people who come up with original monologues, and we can’t wait to hear the latest Chappelle or Nate Bargatze or Seinfeld hour because we know it’s gonna be their point of view. So, my ultimate ideal in magic, it would be, you know, all magicians doing their own stuff. Now, magic has developed at a much slower pace than comedy and even songwriting.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I mean, it takes years to perfect a really great magic trick. So that’s a high bar indeed, but my hope is that this negative will end up being a positive and that magicians will take a cue from this and start really obscuring what they’re doing in such a way that it’s either mostly original or completely original.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So, technology is changing magic, but Josh says it won’t be taking over anytime soon. For instance, most magicians who choose to use AI are using it to help them tweak their script a bit, not to design tricks wholesale. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> AI can help you find a moment in history that you would have never turned up that’s the perfect way to theatrically get into a trick on coincidence or a trick on transformation, and now you’ve given it this great context about this amazing thing that happened in Victorian England. And, you know, that’s, I think, a way that AI is really gonna help performers because like so many things, we don’t want AI to dehumanize magic. Magic will be one of the great things left when AI is fully integrated into everything else that people will go to for a truly human experience. I mean, what besides eating and watching movies will be left that isn’t entirely, you know, affected by AI?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Let’s talk about this. You describe the period from the 1870s to the 1930s as the “Golden Age of Magic”. Yeah. Could we, you know, see a resurgence to a new Golden Age of Magic? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, there’s a lot of evidence to say that in a sense we are in another golden age. I mean, take some metrics. Because of TikTok and Instagram and just magic being online generally, and add to that the fact that America’s Got Talent and Fool Us are putting magic in front of millions of people in their homes that didn’t used to be there- More people are watching magic than have ever watched it in history.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Fact. Not, and it’s not close. It’s not like marginally more. Like, exponentially more people are watching magic than ever have. Another objective fact is that there are now more venues to perform magic than there have ever been at any point in my life or in the previous 50 years. So, I also have emprivated data because I co-own, a magic shop called Vanishing Inc., where we sell magic and we publish books, and I can tell you that we are selling to a larger group of people than magic shops used to sell to. They used to be quite localized, and thanks to the internet, we can now sell all over the world. And the industry itself is growing. You can just feel that there are more people interested in magic every day and not less. So, in those regards, anecdotally, I would say to you, we might be in a golden age and not know it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> You describe magic as being a product of its time, and you give this great example of the famous trick of sawing a woman in half being the perfect trick when it emerged after World War I. All of a sudden it was hitting an audience that was maybe a little bit more desensitized to violence, more open to women, playing different roles in society, including one where presumably they get chopped in half. And I wanna ask you, what would be the perfect trick for 2026? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Oh. Yeah, that’s a great question. You know, that’s a really tough question. I mean, I would say to zoom out for a second and buy myself a minute to think, I would say that the greatest magic trick, and not just in 2026, ever, is always the trick that is perfect for the situation you’re in at that moment, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I talk in the book, you might remember, about the ham sandwich theory, and for those readers who haven’t read my book, like, this is such a great illustration of what magic can be at its ultimate fullest expression, which is that if I reach up behind your ear right now, Jessica, and pull out a ham sandwich from nowhere, and you don’t know how it’s done, you’re gonna look at me and go, “That was random,” because it is.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>It’s totally random. It’s not interesting. It’s not logical. I just pulled a ham sandwich out. It’s arbitrary. But if instead you said to me, “Gosh, Josh, I am starving. I’m just… I’m really in the mood for a ham sandwich. Is that weird to say?” And I then went, “Oh, yeah?” And now I pull a ham sandwich out of your ear- \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I have fulfilled a need. I have responded to a need you created, and now that magic is everything to you. It’s personal. It felt directly tailored to something you had. It fulfilled a need, hunger that you were feeling at that moment. So, whatever the answer is to your question, it would have to be something that’s specific to an audience in 2026.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I want to push Josh here. What does the perfect trick look like in 2026 with technology constantly shifting the boundaries between that’s awesome and yeah, that’s an app? What happens to an art form so cognizant of the limits of human cognition when everyone carries around a device that seems to know everything and never forget?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Well, maybe it calls attention to that very device. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> I always see things through the lens of what I’m working on, and I’m working on a trick where we turn off all the lights in the theater, which is instantly and immediately fascinating to me because it gets to be this change of scenery, right? And I have everybody take out their cell phones and put their light on. So, you get that little concert vibe going where they’re moving their light around, and it looks like twinkling stars in this huge theater, right? And all these people are here. And I’m working on a trick where they are whittled down. So, through a series of choices that the audience makes, I would say, “Okay, if you were born in September, stay standing with your light on. Everybody else sit down, turn your phone off.” And it goes from 1,000 lights to… 30 lights. And you whittle them down all the way until you get one person with a light, and then you predict that person’s phone number, which is the thing that they’re holding- the whole time, and you’re right there, and how could you have known it would be them, and the choices that were made.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And then the very light they’re holding has the phone number, and that’s what I’m working on, and that’s what I’ll call the ultimate trick in 2026 cause I haven’t fully figured out how I’m doing it yet. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Oh my gosh. Well, I just love hearing you talk about this knowing that you don’t even fully know how you’re going to do it yet.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yeah. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Like, it seems like as a creator, you think about how do I want the audience to feel, what should they be paying attention to, what should they be thinking about, and then eventually you get back to the mechanism of how you pull this all off. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yes. It’s exactly that. And that was a really important shift for me is not to become obsessed with method, not to get bogged down by well, that would be great, but I don’t know how to do it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I think that all my best things have come out of me sort of going I’m not gonna think about how this could be done. I just wanna play out in my mind what it would look like if I could do it. And then I need to figure out a way to do it. And, you know, you fall on your face a lot, and you realize, like, well, I can’t do that, but I could do this.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And you might fall short of the ideal, but at least you’re thinking… in the minds of the audience, and I think that’s a really good place to start. You know, empathy is a really important tool for a magician, and I imagine it’s probably a huge focus of everybody who’s helping to design AI is to think empathically, to think like your audience.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, the first thing you have to do as a magician is get out of your own head and to try to get into the head of the people you’re performing for. What do they wanna see? What would they think if you did this? How would they react if you did this?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Empathy as one of the ultimate superpowers? Yeah, I buy that. Human creators of all stripes have long recognized its power. Magicians like Joshua Jay rely on empathy to create experiences that delight, and stun, and fill a need. Engineers rely on empathy to imagine how users will engage with confusing or intimidating tools.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>What’s different is that now we have machines that empathize, too, or at least convincingly perform empathy. Which brings us right back to where we started, me going to my chatbot three days later to report back on how that email landed, the email we carefully crafted together. As that line between what we perceive to be reality versus magic continues to blur before our eyes, I’m glad to have the occasional magician as a tour guide.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED. Our show was produced by Jesse Dukes. Music by Stephen Jackson. Recording help from Will Feeney, George Christensen, and Leila Mohammed. Administrative support, recording, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>When people go to a magic show, they expect to be fooled. That’s part of the fun. And magician \u003ca href=\"https://www.joshuajay.com/\">Joshua Jay\u003c/a> says much of the magician’s work is helping people fool themselves. Our brains are hardwired to fill in gaps, predict outcomes, and take cognitive shortcuts to process the overwhelming amount of information around us. When interacting with AI chatbots, we may similarly fool ourselves into believing we’re interacting with a human. But unlike at a magic show, it’s not always clear when the trick is over. Plus: how AI is changing magic.\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>When people go to a magic show, they expect to be fooled. That’s part of the fun. And magician \u003ca href=\"https://www.joshuajay.com/\">Joshua Jay\u003c/a> says much of the magician’s work is helping people fool themselves. Our brains are hardwired to fill in gaps, predict outcomes, and take cognitive shortcuts to process the overwhelming amount of information around us. When interacting with AI chatbots, we may similarly fool ourselves into believing we’re interacting with a human. But unlike at a magic show, it’s not always clear when the trick is over. Plus: how AI is changing magic.\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Episode Transcript",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Welcome to Life Automated, the show where we explore what it means to live, work, and make decisions in a rapidly automating world. I’m Jess Love. I’ve been known, in moments of excitement or confusion or overwhelm, to turn to a chatbot, just to share, “Hey, this is what I’m thinking I’ll do next. Here’s how I want to approach this situation.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Welcome to Life Automated, the show where we explore what it means to live, work, and make decisions in a rapidly automating world. I’m Jess Love. I’ve been known, in moments of excitement or confusion or overwhelm, to turn to a chatbot, just to share, “Hey, this is what I’m thinking I’ll do next. Here’s how I want to approach this situation.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I’ll even occasionally return to provide an update. Maybe this isn’t ideal. I know how sycophantic chatbots can be, telling me how thoughtful and clever my plans are unless I sternly direct them to act like dream-crushing jerks. But I can’t deny that the experience is pleasant. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I’ll even occasionally return to provide an update. Maybe this isn’t ideal. I know how sycophantic chatbots can be, telling me how thoughtful and clever my plans are unless I sternly direct them to act like dream-crushing jerks. But I can’t deny that the experience is pleasant. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad",
"attrs": {
"format": "fullwidth"
},
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "",
"innerContent": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Like if your diary could write back. And yes, on some level, I know this is a machine trained to keep me engaging with it, and yet don’t I still feel a little validated when that response comes back? A little heard? There is no precedent for this. In every other moment in history, feeling like you’re talking back and forth with a real person has meant you’re connecting with a real person, someone who understands you, someone offering you their finite attention.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Like if your diary could write back. And yes, on some level, I know this is a machine trained to keep me engaging with it, and yet don’t I still feel a little validated when that response comes back? A little heard? There is no precedent for this. In every other moment in history, feeling like you’re talking back and forth with a real person has meant you’re connecting with a real person, someone who understands you, someone offering you their finite attention.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And we’ve evolved to take pleasure in these interactions, to seek them out, because that’s kept our species connected and alive. But with chatbots, this ancient link between the appearance of a mind and an actual mind no longer holds, and it’s really hard to know what to make of that. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And we’ve evolved to take pleasure in these interactions, to seek them out, because that’s kept our species connected and alive. But with chatbots, this ancient link between the appearance of a mind and an actual mind no longer holds, and it’s really hard to know what to make of that. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>There are people who obsess over this gap between what we intellectually know to be true and what we experience as real. Only they’re not AI researchers — they’re magicians. Today’s conversation is with one of the finest. Joshua Jay has performed his sleight-of-hand magic all around the world, including on major talk shows and for US presidents, and he’s a total magic nerd, the author of several books about magic, including “How Magicians Think.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>There are people who obsess over this gap between what we intellectually know to be true and what we experience as real. Only they’re not AI researchers — they’re magicians. Today’s conversation is with one of the finest. Joshua Jay has performed his sleight-of-hand magic all around the world, including on major talk shows and for US presidents, and he’s a total magic nerd, the author of several books about magic, including “How Magicians Think.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And he’s not gonna teach us about algorithms. Instead, he’ll teach us to see ourselves the way he sees us, as people whose attention can be commanded and redirected, whose memories can be shifted, and as active participants in our own deception. We also talk about the surprising ways that technology is changing magic.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And he’s not gonna teach us about algorithms. Instead, he’ll teach us to see ourselves the way he sees us, as people whose attention can be commanded and redirected, whose memories can be shifted, and as active participants in our own deception. We also talk about the surprising ways that technology is changing magic.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>From Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, this is Life Automated, distributed by KQED. Here’s my conversation with Joshua Jay. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>From Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, this is Life Automated, distributed by KQED. Here’s my conversation with Joshua Jay. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So, the science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” And I think for a lot of people, sitting down in front of a chatbot for the first time, that was kind of the experience.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So, the science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” And I think for a lot of people, sitting down in front of a chatbot for the first time, that was kind of the experience.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Magic. There was this thing, this machine doing something that we didn’t think that machines could do. It was interacting with us in real time, in our own language, in meaningful ways. So, I wanted to ask you, as an actual magician, somebody who thinks about how emotions like awe and surprise are created, what was your first experience using a chatbot like, and did it in any way feel like a magic trick?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Magic. There was this thing, this machine doing something that we didn’t think that machines could do. It was interacting with us in real time, in our own language, in meaningful ways. So, I wanted to ask you, as an actual magician, somebody who thinks about how emotions like awe and surprise are created, what was your first experience using a chatbot like, and did it in any way feel like a magic trick?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yeah. It’s such a great question, and it’s such a relevant question for me as a magician because we are deliverers of certain emotion, which is what you’re talking about, this awe, this like I don’t even know how this is happening, but it’s happening anyway. You know, Teller said so beautifully that magic is the difference between what you see and what you know.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yeah. It’s such a great question, and it’s such a relevant question for me as a magician because we are deliverers of certain emotion, which is what you’re talking about, this awe, this like I don’t even know how this is happening, but it’s happening anyway. You know, Teller said so beautifully that magic is the difference between what you see and what you know.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You know, you’re having a conversation with this entity and you know it’s not a person, and yet you’re having this conversation. So, the crisis is always we are deliverers of this feeling of astonishment, and yet by virtue of the fact that we know how all of this is done, we often don’t get that sense of awe, and we don’t get amazed very often.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You know, you’re having a conversation with this entity and you know it’s not a person, and yet you’re having this conversation. So, the crisis is always we are deliverers of this feeling of astonishment, and yet by virtue of the fact that we know how all of this is done, we often don’t get that sense of awe, and we don’t get amazed very often.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So, the first time that I engaged with AI and was… You know, that first time you take the plunge and you’re just asking, you’re having a conversation with a thing, I was truly astonished. And I felt like, wow, this is probably what it feels like to watch a magic show and just be amazed at everything. And so yeah, I absolutely was totally and utterly amazed and felt like, as we call you guys, “laypeople”, I felt like a layperson. I felt like a muggle. And, it was really fantastic. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So, the first time that I engaged with AI and was… You know, that first time you take the plunge and you’re just asking, you’re having a conversation with a thing, I was truly astonished. And I felt like, wow, this is probably what it feels like to watch a magic show and just be amazed at everything. And so yeah, I absolutely was totally and utterly amazed and felt like, as we call you guys, “laypeople”, I felt like a layperson. I felt like a muggle. And, it was really fantastic. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> You just brought up, Teller, of course, of the very famous duo ‘Penn & Teller’, and they have this trick. It’s kind of a classic trick where they’re moving balls in cups as magicians do. We call you guys- magicians, us muggles.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> You just brought up, Teller, of course, of the very famous duo ‘Penn & Teller’, and they have this trick. It’s kind of a classic trick where they’re moving balls in cups as magicians do. We call you guys- magicians, us muggles.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Only they use clear cups, so you can actually see what’s happening. And that really kind of reminds me of what you were just talking about, this idea of knowing without knowing. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Only they use clear cups, so you can actually see what’s happening. And that really kind of reminds me of what you were just talking about, this idea of knowing without knowing. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yeah. You know, I find myself thinking so often when I’m performing, like, you know, you do something, and hopefully somebody really likes it and they scream in all the right places.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yeah. You know, I find myself thinking so often when I’m performing, like, you know, you do something, and hopefully somebody really likes it and they scream in all the right places.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But what I’m thinking most of the time is, “Oh, you guys aren’t even seeing the coolest part. If you could see how this works, you would be even more flipped out.” Because sometimes you’re fooled by something that’s so much simpler than you could expect. And very often, and this is such a beautiful topic that it’s its own deep dive- The magician doesn’t fool you; you fool yourself.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But what I’m thinking most of the time is, “Oh, you guys aren’t even seeing the coolest part. If you could see how this works, you would be even more flipped out.” Because sometimes you’re fooled by something that’s so much simpler than you could expect. And very often, and this is such a beautiful topic that it’s its own deep dive- The magician doesn’t fool you; you fool yourself.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And there is a difference. You know, some things it is the magician. It’s sleight-of-hand. It’s a gizmo you couldn’t possibly anticipate, a technology you’re not aware of. But often, you fool yourself with assumptions you make and the psychology that’s being used on you. So, it is this really interesting thing that you bring up where as great as magic feels to a muggle, to a layperson, you don’t even see the best part often.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And there is a difference. You know, some things it is the magician. It’s sleight-of-hand. It’s a gizmo you couldn’t possibly anticipate, a technology you’re not aware of. But often, you fool yourself with assumptions you make and the psychology that’s being used on you. So, it is this really interesting thing that you bring up where as great as magic feels to a muggle, to a layperson, you don’t even see the best part often.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And, you know, you bring up this classic Penn and Teller piece, and they have many pieces like this, where they said, “We’re gonna do cups and balls,” but then in the middle of the trick, after they do a classic cups and balls with opaque cups and normal-sized balls, they do it again, but they do it with clear cups.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And, you know, you bring up this classic Penn and Teller piece, and they have many pieces like this, where they said, “We’re gonna do cups and balls,” but then in the middle of the trick, after they do a classic cups and balls with opaque cups and normal-sized balls, they do it again, but they do it with clear cups.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio Clip from Penn & Teller playing in the background]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio Clip from Penn & Teller playing in the background]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>As it goes with breaking a few rules of magic. Now, the first rule of magic is you never do the same trick twice. So, we’re good. Second rule of magic is you never tell an audience how a trick is being done. So, we’re gonna tell you exactly how the trick is being done. The third rule of magic is you never let the audience see your secret preparation.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>As it goes with breaking a few rules of magic. Now, the first rule of magic is you never do the same trick twice. So, we’re good. Second rule of magic is you never tell an audience how a trick is being done. So, we’re gonna tell you exactly how the trick is being done. The third rule of magic is you never let the audience see your secret preparation.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> And even though if you were to zoom in on the right part, you would see how it works, it’s really a lesson in misdirection because you’re looking at Teller as he’s throwing a ball to the audience, and you’re not watching Penn as he’s placing the cups back down. And in this beautiful chaos of choreography, the lesson, the sort of aesthetic beauty of it, is you’re seeing how it’s done, but you really aren’t seeing how it’s done at all.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> And even though if you were to zoom in on the right part, you would see how it works, it’s really a lesson in misdirection because you’re looking at Teller as he’s throwing a ball to the audience, and you’re not watching Penn as he’s placing the cups back down. And in this beautiful chaos of choreography, the lesson, the sort of aesthetic beauty of it, is you’re seeing how it’s done, but you really aren’t seeing how it’s done at all.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> This trick is the ultimate flex. I watched it on YouTube after my conversation with Joshua Jay multiple times.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> This trick is the ultimate flex. I watched it on YouTube after my conversation with Joshua Jay multiple times.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Eventually, I did see the key move, Teller placing the right ball exactly where it needed to be to make the trick work, in full view of the audience. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Eventually, I did see the key move, Teller placing the right ball exactly where it needed to be to make the trick work, in full view of the audience. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio Clip from Penn & Teller playing in the background]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio Clip from Penn & Teller playing in the background]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Place it on our hand and show it. Take a third and final ball, pretend to place it in our hand. Pretend to show the cup. We place it in the cup. Then secretly reveal it. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Place it on our hand and show it. Take a third and final ball, pretend to place it in our hand. Pretend to show the cup. We place it in the cup. Then secretly reveal it. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> How did I miss it so many times? How did I see without seeing? It really drove home how easily we can be led to believe something false, even when the truth is right in front of us.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> How did I miss it so many times? How did I see without seeing? It really drove home how easily we can be led to believe something false, even when the truth is right in front of us.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio Clip from Penn & Teller playing in the background]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio Clip from Penn & Teller playing in the background]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>…The finish. It’s an American baseball right there. That’s the Penn and Teller Cups and Balls. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>…The finish. It’s an American baseball right there. That’s the Penn and Teller Cups and Balls. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Think about this in terms of interacting with a chatbot. It’s like we know that they are machines. We know that we are actively being fooled in some way, and yet we might still feel understood, affirmed, cared for. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Think about this in terms of interacting with a chatbot. It’s like we know that they are machines. We know that we are actively being fooled in some way, and yet we might still feel understood, affirmed, cared for. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> You know, the implicit agreement when you see a magic show is you’re saying when you sit down to watch, I know you’re going to try to fool me and I want to be fooled, right?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> You know, the implicit agreement when you see a magic show is you’re saying when you sit down to watch, I know you’re going to try to fool me and I want to be fooled, right?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So, you know that there is a deception at hand. You know that there’s going to be things that hopefully if they do their job, the magician does that you will not understand how it works. And I think that the uncomfortability comes in real life in that sometimes there’s not that implicit handshake going on.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So, you know that there is a deception at hand. You know that there’s going to be things that hopefully if they do their job, the magician does that you will not understand how it works. And I think that the uncomfortability comes in real life in that sometimes there’s not that implicit handshake going on.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Look, in a magic show, you’re fooled. There’s no way around it. People don’t like that word. Some people do like that word, but call it whatever you like. We can’t soften it. You’re going to be fooled. You’re going to see something you don’t understand and you’re not supposed to understand it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Look, in a magic show, you’re fooled. There’s no way around it. People don’t like that word. Some people do like that word, but call it whatever you like. We can’t soften it. You’re going to be fooled. You’re going to see something you don’t understand and you’re not supposed to understand it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But that’s what’s beautiful about it is that’s out in the open. That is made explicit. Whereas with some aspects of AI, with some aspects of technology in general, we don’t know where the human element ends and where the AI begins. And that can be really unsettling for people because they may not feel like, hey, look, when I started this conversation, I didn’t know I wasn’t talking to a human, you know.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But that’s what’s beautiful about it is that’s out in the open. That is made explicit. Whereas with some aspects of AI, with some aspects of technology in general, we don’t know where the human element ends and where the AI begins. And that can be really unsettling for people because they may not feel like, hey, look, when I started this conversation, I didn’t know I wasn’t talking to a human, you know.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Of course, none of this “being fooled” is by accident. Chatbots are generally designed to mimic humans. They refer to themselves in the first person as I or me. They act interested in what we’re saying, asking questions to nudge the conversation forward, and they learn about us, first through extensive training on human language and behavior, and then increasingly through interactions with us, adapting to our personal preferences and detecting our mood shifts in real time.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Of course, none of this “being fooled” is by accident. Chatbots are generally designed to mimic humans. They refer to themselves in the first person as I or me. They act interested in what we’re saying, asking questions to nudge the conversation forward, and they learn about us, first through extensive training on human language and behavior, and then increasingly through interactions with us, adapting to our personal preferences and detecting our mood shifts in real time.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This learning to read human beings, that’s something magicians do too. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This learning to read human beings, that’s something magicians do too. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> I say that you’re always watching the magician and that’s how you think of a magic show, but we’re watching you too. And that little shift in perspective is something I don’t think most people think about. You know, during my opening trick, which has been the same for years now, and I can do it, you know, sort of on autopilot.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> I say that you’re always watching the magician and that’s how you think of a magic show, but we’re watching you too. And that little shift in perspective is something I don’t think most people think about. You know, during my opening trick, which has been the same for years now, and I can do it, you know, sort of on autopilot.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I don’t have to think very deeply. It helps me establish my rhythm. But in my head, what I’m doing is I am plotting the rest of the show based on the hand I’m dealt. Ooh, these people in the back left have a lot of sight line issues. I’m gonna really need to connect with them to make sure they can see and do that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I don’t have to think very deeply. It helps me establish my rhythm. But in my head, what I’m doing is I am plotting the rest of the show based on the hand I’m dealt. Ooh, these people in the back left have a lot of sight line issues. I’m gonna really need to connect with them to make sure they can see and do that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Or, you know all the waiters are opening this kitchen door in the back of the theater that’s making it really noisy, and so these people are gonna need to be babysat a little more to make sure they’re super engaged. In magic what I’m looking for on stage is somebody who is not going to be afraid.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Or, you know all the waiters are opening this kitchen door in the back of the theater that’s making it really noisy, and so these people are gonna need to be babysat a little more to make sure they’re super engaged. In magic what I’m looking for on stage is somebody who is not going to be afraid.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And so, the first thing I look for before anything else is I’m looking for somebody who is exuding confidence. And a big indicator of confidence is eye contact. You know, it’s so crazy when I say like, “I need someone to help with this next thing,” there are just so many people in an audience who immediately think if they don’t look at me, then somehow, I won’t pick them. And it’s really pronounced when you’re like, as a magician, looking in the audience as you walk through an aisle, left and right. You just see people just totally thinking that they won’t be seen if they’re not… And I’m like, “I can see you even though you’re not looking at me.” But really, you’re looking for somebody who’s got great eye contact and who looks like they’re enjoying the show. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And so, the first thing I look for before anything else is I’m looking for somebody who is exuding confidence. And a big indicator of confidence is eye contact. You know, it’s so crazy when I say like, “I need someone to help with this next thing,” there are just so many people in an audience who immediately think if they don’t look at me, then somehow, I won’t pick them. And it’s really pronounced when you’re like, as a magician, looking in the audience as you walk through an aisle, left and right. You just see people just totally thinking that they won’t be seen if they’re not… And I’m like, “I can see you even though you’re not looking at me.” But really, you’re looking for somebody who’s got great eye contact and who looks like they’re enjoying the show. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And there’s usually like a little test. So, if I can narrow it down to two or three people who I think, “Oh, this person would be just great on stage,” I might say- “Welcome to the show.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And there’s usually like a little test. So, if I can narrow it down to two or three people who I think, “Oh, this person would be just great on stage,” I might say- “Welcome to the show.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I won’t invite them. I might say, “Welcome to the show, sir. Where are you from?” “I’m from Canton, Ohio.” “Okay. And, what’s this? Why are you, traveling with a suitcase to a magic show?” You know. And if they’re stiff, if they’re giving one-word answers, if they’re sort of like a deer in headlights, maybe I can say, “Well, thanks for coming.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I won’t invite them. I might say, “Welcome to the show, sir. Where are you from?” “I’m from Canton, Ohio.” “Okay. And, what’s this? Why are you, traveling with a suitcase to a magic show?” You know. And if they’re stiff, if they’re giving one-word answers, if they’re sort of like a deer in headlights, maybe I can say, “Well, thanks for coming.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I appreciate you being here. And what about you? What’s your story? Who are you here with?” Right? And you’re just looking for somebody to be like, “Well, I wasn’t even supposed to be here tonight, but my friend Janie, she dragged me to the show and now I’m so glad I came.” Well, there’s a chatty person. That sounds fun. So, I might use that person. And similarly, if I need somebody who is a little bit more submissive in the sense that they’re gonna follow my directions and not give me a hard time-… if I say, “Hold out both hands like this. Put one coin in this hand, one coin…” I don’t want that person switching hands with the coins or you know, when I turn around- trying to throw me off. So, in that case, you might do just the opposite. You might choose somebody who is a little afraid. Sounds a little dark, but maybe you do want somebody who’s a little more easily intimidated so that they will follow your directions exactly as you lay them out and not give you a hard time.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I appreciate you being here. And what about you? What’s your story? Who are you here with?” Right? And you’re just looking for somebody to be like, “Well, I wasn’t even supposed to be here tonight, but my friend Janie, she dragged me to the show and now I’m so glad I came.” Well, there’s a chatty person. That sounds fun. So, I might use that person. And similarly, if I need somebody who is a little bit more submissive in the sense that they’re gonna follow my directions and not give me a hard time-… if I say, “Hold out both hands like this. Put one coin in this hand, one coin…” I don’t want that person switching hands with the coins or you know, when I turn around- trying to throw me off. So, in that case, you might do just the opposite. You might choose somebody who is a little afraid. Sounds a little dark, but maybe you do want somebody who’s a little more easily intimidated so that they will follow your directions exactly as you lay them out and not give you a hard time.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So, each trick I have kind of the archetype of what I’m looking for and what would be best, and I’m gonna try and fit that puzzle piece with the piece that fits in the gap there. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So, each trick I have kind of the archetype of what I’m looking for and what would be best, and I’m gonna try and fit that puzzle piece with the piece that fits in the gap there. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Josh says that this notion of reading people correctly, it can be pretty high stakes. These are dynamic encounters that go in very different directions depending on just what kind of energy you’re getting back.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Josh says that this notion of reading people correctly, it can be pretty high stakes. These are dynamic encounters that go in very different directions depending on just what kind of energy you’re getting back.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> I was doing a show a few months ago, I thought I picked the perfect person. There was a woman, who was just giving great eye contact. She looked to be having a blast. She was even a little bit chatty, which I think in the end was what did me in. You know, she just seemed so confident and comfortable on stage, and it was a big crowd. It was more than 1,000 people. So, I thought she’s gonna be perfect. I noted it, and at the right moment, invited her on stage. What I didn’t realize until she came up was, she was loaded drunk. I mean, she was so drunk she could not follow basic instructions. She couldn’t stop talking. She was disruptive. And in the beginning, that’s funny, right?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> I was doing a show a few months ago, I thought I picked the perfect person. There was a woman, who was just giving great eye contact. She looked to be having a blast. She was even a little bit chatty, which I think in the end was what did me in. You know, she just seemed so confident and comfortable on stage, and it was a big crowd. It was more than 1,000 people. So, I thought she’s gonna be perfect. I noted it, and at the right moment, invited her on stage. What I didn’t realize until she came up was, she was loaded drunk. I mean, she was so drunk she could not follow basic instructions. She couldn’t stop talking. She was disruptive. And in the beginning, that’s funny, right?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I’m not a comedy magician, so my purpose isn’t just to make people laugh. It’s to show them, I hope, things that are truly amazing, and if they laugh along the way- awesome. So okay immediately I have to reassess and go, we can make some comedy out of this, but the magic is gonna suffer if she can’t be quiet and follow directions and help us navigate to this amazing moment that’s coming up.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I’m not a comedy magician, so my purpose isn’t just to make people laugh. It’s to show them, I hope, things that are truly amazing, and if they laugh along the way- awesome. So okay immediately I have to reassess and go, we can make some comedy out of this, but the magic is gonna suffer if she can’t be quiet and follow directions and help us navigate to this amazing moment that’s coming up.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> And she couldn’t. Right? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> And she couldn’t. Right? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Oh!\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Oh!\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> She couldn’t. And so, you try and limp to the close and just think, “Next time I won’t make this mistake.” But in this case, I had to do the rarest thing of all, which is dismiss somebody. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> She couldn’t. And so, you try and limp to the close and just think, “Next time I won’t make this mistake.” But in this case, I had to do the rarest thing of all, which is dismiss somebody. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh, my goodness! \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh, my goodness! \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> And you just say, “Do me a favor, grab your seat and I need you to come up now.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> And you just say, “Do me a favor, grab your seat and I need you to come up now.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I actually had to do the switch mid-trick, which I very rarely, I can’t remember the last time, I picked someone so wrong that I had to recalibrate like that. But you know, this is what happens when you are on the road 300 days a year. You’re gonna have nightmare nights at the office. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I actually had to do the switch mid-trick, which I very rarely, I can’t remember the last time, I picked someone so wrong that I had to recalibrate like that. But you know, this is what happens when you are on the road 300 days a year. You’re gonna have nightmare nights at the office. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So, when I hear this, I think, you know, the exception is what proves the rule. You know, the fact that this happens so rarely suggests that you are quite good at reading the room and reading people in ways that they I mean, yeah, I guess somebody who’s had a dozen cocktails probably knows that they’re going to embarrass themselves on stage. But for the most part, you’re picking up on tells that people might not even be aware that they have.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So, when I hear this, I think, you know, the exception is what proves the rule. You know, the fact that this happens so rarely suggests that you are quite good at reading the room and reading people in ways that they I mean, yeah, I guess somebody who’s had a dozen cocktails probably knows that they’re going to embarrass themselves on stage. But for the most part, you’re picking up on tells that people might not even be aware that they have.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I guess I’m harping on this because when I think about machines that aren’t just reading our posture or looking for eye contact or are looking at, you know, beginning the data collection process the second we walk into the room. They learn about us for months, years and they’re able to gather a wide range of data about us.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I guess I’m harping on this because when I think about machines that aren’t just reading our posture or looking for eye contact or are looking at, you know, beginning the data collection process the second we walk into the room. They learn about us for months, years and they’re able to gather a wide range of data about us.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And so, I start wondering, you know, what that starts to look like and I would ask you, are we more manipulable than we realize? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And so, I start wondering, you know, what that starts to look like and I would ask you, are we more manipulable than we realize? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yes, emphatically yes. I think that there are so many insights that are so scary to a magician when you start applying it to real life. Like, there are so many- One of the basic tenets of magic is that if you tell an audience something, it is a tenth as effective if you can find a way to let that audience tell themselves, right?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yes, emphatically yes. I think that there are so many insights that are so scary to a magician when you start applying it to real life. Like, there are so many- One of the basic tenets of magic is that if you tell an audience something, it is a tenth as effective if you can find a way to let that audience tell themselves, right?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So let me give you an example. If I come out, this is like a classic amateur magician’s move. If I come out and I say, “Ladies and gentlemen, a regular deck of cards,” that is wrong for every possible reason. Because if I just said, “Do me a favor, give these a shuffle, and then I want you to take one out that you like and write your name on it.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So let me give you an example. If I come out, this is like a classic amateur magician’s move. If I come out and I say, “Ladies and gentlemen, a regular deck of cards,” that is wrong for every possible reason. Because if I just said, “Do me a favor, give these a shuffle, and then I want you to take one out that you like and write your name on it.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You will never in that interaction question the deck of cards because it’s a deck of cards. I’m handling it like you would handle a deck of cards if you handed it to a friend between rounds of dealing poker, right? Take the deck of cards, shuffle it up, take a card out. You would never think, “Are there 52 in there? Are they all the same shape? Is one shorter than another one? Is there more than one ace of spades in that deck?” You would never ask those questions because I’ve presented it in a casual manner, and I’ve given you a task. But the minute you say, “Ladies and gentlemen, a regulation pack of cards,” instantly you go, “Well, is it?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You will never in that interaction question the deck of cards because it’s a deck of cards. I’m handling it like you would handle a deck of cards if you handed it to a friend between rounds of dealing poker, right? Take the deck of cards, shuffle it up, take a card out. You would never think, “Are there 52 in there? Are they all the same shape? Is one shorter than another one? Is there more than one ace of spades in that deck?” You would never ask those questions because I’ve presented it in a casual manner, and I’ve given you a task. But the minute you say, “Ladies and gentlemen, a regulation pack of cards,” instantly you go, “Well, is it?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Well, I didn’t see it. Can I see it? Do you mind if I shuffle? Can I count those cards? Can I hold them up to a light? Can I shuffle and make sure they’re all the same thickness,” right? But if I give you the deck and I say, “Shuffle them up and take out any one that you like,” I’m letting you tell yourself it’s a regular deck because you put your fingers on it, you shuffle it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Well, I didn’t see it. Can I see it? Do you mind if I shuffle? Can I count those cards? Can I hold them up to a light? Can I shuffle and make sure they’re all the same thickness,” right? But if I give you the deck and I say, “Shuffle them up and take out any one that you like,” I’m letting you tell yourself it’s a regular deck because you put your fingers on it, you shuffle it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Now, you may be shuffling a deck that’s got all sorts of quirky, subtle things wrong with it, but you will be telling yourself it’s a normal deck because it feels right. When I look through to take out a card, nothing looked out of place. And now you’re telling yourself, and that’s a much more effective way to deceive somebody because you’re telling yourself.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Now, you may be shuffling a deck that’s got all sorts of quirky, subtle things wrong with it, but you will be telling yourself it’s a normal deck because it feels right. When I look through to take out a card, nothing looked out of place. And now you’re telling yourself, and that’s a much more effective way to deceive somebody because you’re telling yourself.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Josh says that the best magicians don’t just shape how people experience something in the moment. They can also change what we later remember about a moment. For instance, a magician might appear to drop a coin, and then somehow it vanishes. Cool trick. But the magician doesn’t stop there. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Josh says that the best magicians don’t just shape how people experience something in the moment. They can also change what we later remember about a moment. For instance, a magician might appear to drop a coin, and then somehow it vanishes. Cool trick. But the magician doesn’t stop there. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> And if a minute later I say, “And you watched that coin as it fell from my hand and disintegrated in midair,” well, that’s a really great word, disintegrated, right? And it colors your memory. Maybe I refer to it two or three more times in the show, “And then it just disappeared, and it disintegrated, and when it got to my knee level, it just turned to dust.” And you can have people leaving swearing that they saw a coin vanish down here. And that’s the next frontier of magic is really manipulating memories.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> And if a minute later I say, “And you watched that coin as it fell from my hand and disintegrated in midair,” well, that’s a really great word, disintegrated, right? And it colors your memory. Maybe I refer to it two or three more times in the show, “And then it just disappeared, and it disintegrated, and when it got to my knee level, it just turned to dust.” And you can have people leaving swearing that they saw a coin vanish down here. And that’s the next frontier of magic is really manipulating memories.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> If you were a less ethical person, do you think you could get people to do things against their will? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> If you were a less ethical person, do you think you could get people to do things against their will? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> I mean… I think that the overarching lesson that I’ve, that I’m continually shocked about in magic in this regard is how easily people can be duped into believing things. I mean, it’s so crazy to me that, you know, I do a magic show that is meant to amaze and delight, but in no way is it meant to skirt the line of reality and make people actually believe. You know, there are performers like David Blaine, Uri Geller, and Oz Pearlman, who, you know, people see those performers and sort of go, “So wait, is that a trick or is that person really doing that?” And I don’t have that kind of approach, and still, not sometimes, very often people come up to me after shows and they’ll say really touching but misguided things like, “Hey, can you give me advice on this job I’m about to take? Cause I, you know, that trick you did where you were able to predict the future, I’m just wondering if you…” You know, you just wanna pull them aside and say, “This is pure entertainment. Like, I can’t give you life advice like that. I can’t actually see the future. This is fun.” \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> I mean… I think that the overarching lesson that I’ve, that I’m continually shocked about in magic in this regard is how easily people can be duped into believing things. I mean, it’s so crazy to me that, you know, I do a magic show that is meant to amaze and delight, but in no way is it meant to skirt the line of reality and make people actually believe. You know, there are performers like David Blaine, Uri Geller, and Oz Pearlman, who, you know, people see those performers and sort of go, “So wait, is that a trick or is that person really doing that?” And I don’t have that kind of approach, and still, not sometimes, very often people come up to me after shows and they’ll say really touching but misguided things like, “Hey, can you give me advice on this job I’m about to take? Cause I, you know, that trick you did where you were able to predict the future, I’m just wondering if you…” You know, you just wanna pull them aside and say, “This is pure entertainment. Like, I can’t give you life advice like that. I can’t actually see the future. This is fun.” \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>“But you got my passcode off my phone. I’ve never told anybody that in my life.” “Yes, that’s a trick. I predicted your passcode.” Right. “Well, if you can tell my passcode, can you just tell me just a little advice? Should I take this job and move to Phoenix or not?” And it’s like, you know, you see that with certain people, they’re looking for an excuse to believe. They’re looking for it, and the more you say it’s not real, the more they want to believe it is real, and that’s scary stuff.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>“But you got my passcode off my phone. I’ve never told anybody that in my life.” “Yes, that’s a trick. I predicted your passcode.” Right. “Well, if you can tell my passcode, can you just tell me just a little advice? Should I take this job and move to Phoenix or not?” And it’s like, you know, you see that with certain people, they’re looking for an excuse to believe. They’re looking for it, and the more you say it’s not real, the more they want to believe it is real, and that’s scary stuff.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> My takeaway so far in this conversation, buckle up. We better hope for a rapid learning curve as we adjust to life alongside artificial intelligences that feel real, that have been designed to seem real, but simply aren’t. My worry is that knowing we’re talking to a machine won’t ever be enough. Just like Teller’s baseball, even those rare occasions where we can see what’s happening under the hood won’t stop the illusion, because we want to believe the illusion. Because the illusion doesn’t just come from the machine, it comes from us. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> My takeaway so far in this conversation, buckle up. We better hope for a rapid learning curve as we adjust to life alongside artificial intelligences that feel real, that have been designed to seem real, but simply aren’t. My worry is that knowing we’re talking to a machine won’t ever be enough. Just like Teller’s baseball, even those rare occasions where we can see what’s happening under the hood won’t stop the illusion, because we want to believe the illusion. Because the illusion doesn’t just come from the machine, it comes from us. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>These are early innings. I’ll be very curious about how these chatbots change over time and the many ways they are welcomed or inserted into our lives. After the break, a pivot. I ask my guests, how is technology changing magic? And if you’re thinking, “Not that much,” you would be wrong.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>These are early innings. I’ll be very curious about how these chatbots change over time and the many ways they are welcomed or inserted into our lives. After the break, a pivot. I ask my guests, how is technology changing magic? And if you’re thinking, “Not that much,” you would be wrong.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>That’s after the break.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>That’s after the break.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>You might think that sleight of hand magic hasn’t changed much over the decades. A card trick, cups and balls, these are all pretty analog. Automation shouldn’t have too much of an impact. But the truth is, all performances are interactions between performer and audience. So even when technology doesn’t change the performer, it changes the audience.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>You might think that sleight of hand magic hasn’t changed much over the decades. A card trick, cups and balls, these are all pretty analog. Automation shouldn’t have too much of an impact. But the truth is, all performances are interactions between performer and audience. So even when technology doesn’t change the performer, it changes the audience.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Technology has always had an uneasy relationship to magic, and there are all sorts of tricks that we can’t do anymore for the simple reason that what even 20 years ago people would have gone, “That is the most amazing thing I could imagine you doing.” Now we would go, “Oh, we have an app for that.” I mean, there’s like a great trick where you predict a song that’s playing, right?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Technology has always had an uneasy relationship to magic, and there are all sorts of tricks that we can’t do anymore for the simple reason that what even 20 years ago people would have gone, “That is the most amazing thing I could imagine you doing.” Now we would go, “Oh, we have an app for that.” I mean, there’s like a great trick where you predict a song that’s playing, right?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And now you couldn’t do that trick cause people would go, “Yes, it’s an app. I had it 15 years ago. It’s called Shazam. You press this button and three seconds later it tells you the album and the song and the link to listen to it.” Like, all the tricks along that genre, they’re just out. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And now you couldn’t do that trick cause people would go, “Yes, it’s an app. I had it 15 years ago. It’s called Shazam. You press this button and three seconds later it tells you the album and the song and the link to listen to it.” Like, all the tricks along that genre, they’re just out. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> You told this story about doing one of your famous dollar bill tricks for somebody, and then they immediately took out their phone and they Googled, you know, how did Josh Jay do this dollar bill trick?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> You told this story about doing one of your famous dollar bill tricks for somebody, and then they immediately took out their phone and they Googled, you know, how did Josh Jay do this dollar bill trick?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And then they, like, just played the video in front of everybody, and you said it was not a great moment. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And then they, like, just played the video in front of everybody, and you said it was not a great moment. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Right. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Right. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> How do you deal with that? How do you deal with the fact that the answers so many of these tricks, the ability to watch it again and again and again from any angle that someone might have captured, are available to everybody at every moment?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> How do you deal with that? How do you deal with the fact that the answers so many of these tricks, the ability to watch it again and again and again from any angle that someone might have captured, are available to everybody at every moment?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Well, you’ve hit upon, you know, a really important and sort of topical crisis in our industry, which is that a lot of people are going on YouTube and doing tutorials of tricks that don’t belong to them and classic tricks and really good tricks. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Well, you’ve hit upon, you know, a really important and sort of topical crisis in our industry, which is that a lot of people are going on YouTube and doing tutorials of tricks that don’t belong to them and classic tricks and really good tricks. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> The particular dollar bill trick that got Josh is one of those classics that people can now look up on YouTube.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> The particular dollar bill trick that got Josh is one of those classics that people can now look up on YouTube.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Josh sees two strategies that magicians can use to get around this problem. The first being to avoid the classics altogether. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Josh sees two strategies that magicians can use to get around this problem. The first being to avoid the classics altogether. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> But if you’re doing a trick that thousands of other magicians are doing, you’re at great risk that that trick will be searchable and, you know, easily found online. Whereas if I’m doing something totally original, good luck searching for it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> But if you’re doing a trick that thousands of other magicians are doing, you’re at great risk that that trick will be searchable and, you know, easily found online. Whereas if I’m doing something totally original, good luck searching for it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You’re not gonna find that trick because I created that trick and it’s not published and it’s not anywhere to be found in a searchable way. So that’s one way. Another way is magicians have to get really clever at disguising what it looks like. They have to mesh together several methods and several tricks so that somebody looks at it and goes, “You know, I don’t know. He borrowed my house key, and then he bent it, and then it vanished- … and it appeared in a lock across the room.” You know, that’s not a searchable term, whereas changing a $1 bill into $100 bill is easily searchable. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You’re not gonna find that trick because I created that trick and it’s not published and it’s not anywhere to be found in a searchable way. So that’s one way. Another way is magicians have to get really clever at disguising what it looks like. They have to mesh together several methods and several tricks so that somebody looks at it and goes, “You know, I don’t know. He borrowed my house key, and then he bent it, and then it vanished- … and it appeared in a lock across the room.” You know, that’s not a searchable term, whereas changing a $1 bill into $100 bill is easily searchable. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And yeah, so at the same time as it is making a lot of parts of your life as a magician more difficult, it also might be raising the rewards to true novelty and creativity and innovation.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And yeah, so at the same time as it is making a lot of parts of your life as a magician more difficult, it also might be raising the rewards to true novelty and creativity and innovation.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> That’s how I’m choosing to look at it, and maybe I’m, like, choosing to look at it with rose-tinted glasses because I like that process. But, you know, in my head, the healthiest magic community in the world is one in which everybody’s doing their own material. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> That’s how I’m choosing to look at it, and maybe I’m, like, choosing to look at it with rose-tinted glasses because I like that process. But, you know, in my head, the healthiest magic community in the world is one in which everybody’s doing their own material. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You know, we don’t give much attention to bands that only play covers. They play in bars for 30 people. If you write your own music and you become successful at that, you can tour arenas and have a career that is way more outsized than a cover band ever could. We don’t reward comedians who just repeat the jokes of, you know, a smorgasbord of all their favorite comedians. We reward people who come up with original monologues, and we can’t wait to hear the latest Chappelle or Nate Bargatze or Seinfeld hour because we know it’s gonna be their point of view. So, my ultimate ideal in magic, it would be, you know, all magicians doing their own stuff. Now, magic has developed at a much slower pace than comedy and even songwriting.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You know, we don’t give much attention to bands that only play covers. They play in bars for 30 people. If you write your own music and you become successful at that, you can tour arenas and have a career that is way more outsized than a cover band ever could. We don’t reward comedians who just repeat the jokes of, you know, a smorgasbord of all their favorite comedians. We reward people who come up with original monologues, and we can’t wait to hear the latest Chappelle or Nate Bargatze or Seinfeld hour because we know it’s gonna be their point of view. So, my ultimate ideal in magic, it would be, you know, all magicians doing their own stuff. Now, magic has developed at a much slower pace than comedy and even songwriting.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I mean, it takes years to perfect a really great magic trick. So that’s a high bar indeed, but my hope is that this negative will end up being a positive and that magicians will take a cue from this and start really obscuring what they’re doing in such a way that it’s either mostly original or completely original.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I mean, it takes years to perfect a really great magic trick. So that’s a high bar indeed, but my hope is that this negative will end up being a positive and that magicians will take a cue from this and start really obscuring what they’re doing in such a way that it’s either mostly original or completely original.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So, technology is changing magic, but Josh says it won’t be taking over anytime soon. For instance, most magicians who choose to use AI are using it to help them tweak their script a bit, not to design tricks wholesale. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So, technology is changing magic, but Josh says it won’t be taking over anytime soon. For instance, most magicians who choose to use AI are using it to help them tweak their script a bit, not to design tricks wholesale. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> AI can help you find a moment in history that you would have never turned up that’s the perfect way to theatrically get into a trick on coincidence or a trick on transformation, and now you’ve given it this great context about this amazing thing that happened in Victorian England. And, you know, that’s, I think, a way that AI is really gonna help performers because like so many things, we don’t want AI to dehumanize magic. Magic will be one of the great things left when AI is fully integrated into everything else that people will go to for a truly human experience. I mean, what besides eating and watching movies will be left that isn’t entirely, you know, affected by AI?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> AI can help you find a moment in history that you would have never turned up that’s the perfect way to theatrically get into a trick on coincidence or a trick on transformation, and now you’ve given it this great context about this amazing thing that happened in Victorian England. And, you know, that’s, I think, a way that AI is really gonna help performers because like so many things, we don’t want AI to dehumanize magic. Magic will be one of the great things left when AI is fully integrated into everything else that people will go to for a truly human experience. I mean, what besides eating and watching movies will be left that isn’t entirely, you know, affected by AI?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Let’s talk about this. You describe the period from the 1870s to the 1930s as the “Golden Age of Magic”. Yeah. Could we, you know, see a resurgence to a new Golden Age of Magic? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Let’s talk about this. You describe the period from the 1870s to the 1930s as the “Golden Age of Magic”. Yeah. Could we, you know, see a resurgence to a new Golden Age of Magic? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, there’s a lot of evidence to say that in a sense we are in another golden age. I mean, take some metrics. Because of TikTok and Instagram and just magic being online generally, and add to that the fact that America’s Got Talent and Fool Us are putting magic in front of millions of people in their homes that didn’t used to be there- More people are watching magic than have ever watched it in history.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, there’s a lot of evidence to say that in a sense we are in another golden age. I mean, take some metrics. Because of TikTok and Instagram and just magic being online generally, and add to that the fact that America’s Got Talent and Fool Us are putting magic in front of millions of people in their homes that didn’t used to be there- More people are watching magic than have ever watched it in history.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Fact. Not, and it’s not close. It’s not like marginally more. Like, exponentially more people are watching magic than ever have. Another objective fact is that there are now more venues to perform magic than there have ever been at any point in my life or in the previous 50 years. So, I also have emprivated data because I co-own, a magic shop called Vanishing Inc., where we sell magic and we publish books, and I can tell you that we are selling to a larger group of people than magic shops used to sell to. They used to be quite localized, and thanks to the internet, we can now sell all over the world. And the industry itself is growing. You can just feel that there are more people interested in magic every day and not less. So, in those regards, anecdotally, I would say to you, we might be in a golden age and not know it. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Fact. Not, and it’s not close. It’s not like marginally more. Like, exponentially more people are watching magic than ever have. Another objective fact is that there are now more venues to perform magic than there have ever been at any point in my life or in the previous 50 years. So, I also have emprivated data because I co-own, a magic shop called Vanishing Inc., where we sell magic and we publish books, and I can tell you that we are selling to a larger group of people than magic shops used to sell to. They used to be quite localized, and thanks to the internet, we can now sell all over the world. And the industry itself is growing. You can just feel that there are more people interested in magic every day and not less. So, in those regards, anecdotally, I would say to you, we might be in a golden age and not know it. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> You describe magic as being a product of its time, and you give this great example of the famous trick of sawing a woman in half being the perfect trick when it emerged after World War I. All of a sudden it was hitting an audience that was maybe a little bit more desensitized to violence, more open to women, playing different roles in society, including one where presumably they get chopped in half. And I wanna ask you, what would be the perfect trick for 2026? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> You describe magic as being a product of its time, and you give this great example of the famous trick of sawing a woman in half being the perfect trick when it emerged after World War I. All of a sudden it was hitting an audience that was maybe a little bit more desensitized to violence, more open to women, playing different roles in society, including one where presumably they get chopped in half. And I wanna ask you, what would be the perfect trick for 2026? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Oh. Yeah, that’s a great question. You know, that’s a really tough question. I mean, I would say to zoom out for a second and buy myself a minute to think, I would say that the greatest magic trick, and not just in 2026, ever, is always the trick that is perfect for the situation you’re in at that moment, right?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Oh. Yeah, that’s a great question. You know, that’s a really tough question. I mean, I would say to zoom out for a second and buy myself a minute to think, I would say that the greatest magic trick, and not just in 2026, ever, is always the trick that is perfect for the situation you’re in at that moment, right?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So I talk in the book, you might remember, about the ham sandwich theory, and for those readers who haven’t read my book, like, this is such a great illustration of what magic can be at its ultimate fullest expression, which is that if I reach up behind your ear right now, Jessica, and pull out a ham sandwich from nowhere, and you don’t know how it’s done, you’re gonna look at me and go, “That was random,” because it is.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So I talk in the book, you might remember, about the ham sandwich theory, and for those readers who haven’t read my book, like, this is such a great illustration of what magic can be at its ultimate fullest expression, which is that if I reach up behind your ear right now, Jessica, and pull out a ham sandwich from nowhere, and you don’t know how it’s done, you’re gonna look at me and go, “That was random,” because it is.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>It’s totally random. It’s not interesting. It’s not logical. I just pulled a ham sandwich out. It’s arbitrary. But if instead you said to me, “Gosh, Josh, I am starving. I’m just… I’m really in the mood for a ham sandwich. Is that weird to say?” And I then went, “Oh, yeah?” And now I pull a ham sandwich out of your ear- \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>It’s totally random. It’s not interesting. It’s not logical. I just pulled a ham sandwich out. It’s arbitrary. But if instead you said to me, “Gosh, Josh, I am starving. I’m just… I’m really in the mood for a ham sandwich. Is that weird to say?” And I then went, “Oh, yeah?” And now I pull a ham sandwich out of your ear- \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I have fulfilled a need. I have responded to a need you created, and now that magic is everything to you. It’s personal. It felt directly tailored to something you had. It fulfilled a need, hunger that you were feeling at that moment. So, whatever the answer is to your question, it would have to be something that’s specific to an audience in 2026.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I have fulfilled a need. I have responded to a need you created, and now that magic is everything to you. It’s personal. It felt directly tailored to something you had. It fulfilled a need, hunger that you were feeling at that moment. So, whatever the answer is to your question, it would have to be something that’s specific to an audience in 2026.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I want to push Josh here. What does the perfect trick look like in 2026 with technology constantly shifting the boundaries between that’s awesome and yeah, that’s an app? What happens to an art form so cognizant of the limits of human cognition when everyone carries around a device that seems to know everything and never forget?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I want to push Josh here. What does the perfect trick look like in 2026 with technology constantly shifting the boundaries between that’s awesome and yeah, that’s an app? What happens to an art form so cognizant of the limits of human cognition when everyone carries around a device that seems to know everything and never forget?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Well, maybe it calls attention to that very device. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Well, maybe it calls attention to that very device. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> I always see things through the lens of what I’m working on, and I’m working on a trick where we turn off all the lights in the theater, which is instantly and immediately fascinating to me because it gets to be this change of scenery, right? And I have everybody take out their cell phones and put their light on. So, you get that little concert vibe going where they’re moving their light around, and it looks like twinkling stars in this huge theater, right? And all these people are here. And I’m working on a trick where they are whittled down. So, through a series of choices that the audience makes, I would say, “Okay, if you were born in September, stay standing with your light on. Everybody else sit down, turn your phone off.” And it goes from 1,000 lights to… 30 lights. And you whittle them down all the way until you get one person with a light, and then you predict that person’s phone number, which is the thing that they’re holding- the whole time, and you’re right there, and how could you have known it would be them, and the choices that were made.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> I always see things through the lens of what I’m working on, and I’m working on a trick where we turn off all the lights in the theater, which is instantly and immediately fascinating to me because it gets to be this change of scenery, right? And I have everybody take out their cell phones and put their light on. So, you get that little concert vibe going where they’re moving their light around, and it looks like twinkling stars in this huge theater, right? And all these people are here. And I’m working on a trick where they are whittled down. So, through a series of choices that the audience makes, I would say, “Okay, if you were born in September, stay standing with your light on. Everybody else sit down, turn your phone off.” And it goes from 1,000 lights to… 30 lights. And you whittle them down all the way until you get one person with a light, and then you predict that person’s phone number, which is the thing that they’re holding- the whole time, and you’re right there, and how could you have known it would be them, and the choices that were made.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And then the very light they’re holding has the phone number, and that’s what I’m working on, and that’s what I’ll call the ultimate trick in 2026 cause I haven’t fully figured out how I’m doing it yet. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And then the very light they’re holding has the phone number, and that’s what I’m working on, and that’s what I’ll call the ultimate trick in 2026 cause I haven’t fully figured out how I’m doing it yet. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Oh my gosh. Well, I just love hearing you talk about this knowing that you don’t even fully know how you’re going to do it yet.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Oh my gosh. Well, I just love hearing you talk about this knowing that you don’t even fully know how you’re going to do it yet.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yeah. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yeah. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Like, it seems like as a creator, you think about how do I want the audience to feel, what should they be paying attention to, what should they be thinking about, and then eventually you get back to the mechanism of how you pull this all off. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Like, it seems like as a creator, you think about how do I want the audience to feel, what should they be paying attention to, what should they be thinking about, and then eventually you get back to the mechanism of how you pull this all off. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yes. It’s exactly that. And that was a really important shift for me is not to become obsessed with method, not to get bogged down by well, that would be great, but I don’t know how to do it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yes. It’s exactly that. And that was a really important shift for me is not to become obsessed with method, not to get bogged down by well, that would be great, but I don’t know how to do it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I think that all my best things have come out of me sort of going I’m not gonna think about how this could be done. I just wanna play out in my mind what it would look like if I could do it. And then I need to figure out a way to do it. And, you know, you fall on your face a lot, and you realize, like, well, I can’t do that, but I could do this.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I think that all my best things have come out of me sort of going I’m not gonna think about how this could be done. I just wanna play out in my mind what it would look like if I could do it. And then I need to figure out a way to do it. And, you know, you fall on your face a lot, and you realize, like, well, I can’t do that, but I could do this.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And you might fall short of the ideal, but at least you’re thinking… in the minds of the audience, and I think that’s a really good place to start. You know, empathy is a really important tool for a magician, and I imagine it’s probably a huge focus of everybody who’s helping to design AI is to think empathically, to think like your audience.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And you might fall short of the ideal, but at least you’re thinking… in the minds of the audience, and I think that’s a really good place to start. You know, empathy is a really important tool for a magician, and I imagine it’s probably a huge focus of everybody who’s helping to design AI is to think empathically, to think like your audience.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You know, the first thing you have to do as a magician is get out of your own head and to try to get into the head of the people you’re performing for. What do they wanna see? What would they think if you did this? How would they react if you did this?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You know, the first thing you have to do as a magician is get out of your own head and to try to get into the head of the people you’re performing for. What do they wanna see? What would they think if you did this? How would they react if you did this?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Empathy as one of the ultimate superpowers? Yeah, I buy that. Human creators of all stripes have long recognized its power. Magicians like Joshua Jay rely on empathy to create experiences that delight, and stun, and fill a need. Engineers rely on empathy to imagine how users will engage with confusing or intimidating tools.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Empathy as one of the ultimate superpowers? Yeah, I buy that. Human creators of all stripes have long recognized its power. Magicians like Joshua Jay rely on empathy to create experiences that delight, and stun, and fill a need. Engineers rely on empathy to imagine how users will engage with confusing or intimidating tools.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>What’s different is that now we have machines that empathize, too, or at least convincingly perform empathy. Which brings us right back to where we started, me going to my chatbot three days later to report back on how that email landed, the email we carefully crafted together. As that line between what we perceive to be reality versus magic continues to blur before our eyes, I’m glad to have the occasional magician as a tour guide.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>What’s different is that now we have machines that empathize, too, or at least convincingly perform empathy. Which brings us right back to where we started, me going to my chatbot three days later to report back on how that email landed, the email we carefully crafted together. As that line between what we perceive to be reality versus magic continues to blur before our eyes, I’m glad to have the occasional magician as a tour guide.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED. Our show was produced by Jesse Dukes. Music by Stephen Jackson. Recording help from Will Feeney, George Christensen, and Leila Mohammed. Administrative support, recording, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED. Our show was produced by Jesse Dukes. Music by Stephen Jackson. Recording help from Will Feeney, George Christensen, and Leila Mohammed. Administrative support, recording, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad",
"attrs": {
"format": "floatright"
},
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "",
"innerContent": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
}
],
"excerpt": null,
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1784932817,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 115,
"wordCount": 7257
},
"headData": {
"title": "Chatbots Don’t Fool Us, We Fool Ourselves (With Joshua Jay) | KQED",
"description": "When people go to a magic show, they expect to be fooled. That’s part of the fun. And magician Joshua Jay says much of the magician’s work is helping people fool themselves. Our brains are hardwired to fill in gaps, predict outcomes, and take cognitive shortcuts to process the overwhelming amount of information around us. When interacting with AI chatbots, we may similarly fool ourselves into believing we’re interacting with a human. But unlike at a magic show, it’s not always clear when the trick is over. Plus: how AI is changing magic.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"socialDescription": "When people go to a magic show, they expect to be fooled. That’s part of the fun. And magician Joshua Jay says much of the magician’s work is helping people fool themselves. Our brains are hardwired to fill in gaps, predict outcomes, and take cognitive shortcuts to process the overwhelming amount of information around us. When interacting with AI chatbots, we may similarly fool ourselves into believing we’re interacting with a human. But unlike at a magic show, it’s not always clear when the trick is over. Plus: how AI is changing magic.",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Chatbots Don’t Fool Us, We Fool Ourselves (With Joshua Jay)",
"datePublished": "2026-07-29T03:00:00-07:00",
"dateModified": "2026-07-24T15:40:17-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 33520,
"slug": "podcast",
"name": "Podcast"
},
"audioUrl": "https://traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC7227445335.mp3",
"sticky": false,
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12092457/chatbots-dont-fool-us-we-fool-ourselves-with-joshua-jay",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>When people go to a magic show, they expect to be fooled. That’s part of the fun. And magician \u003ca href=\"https://www.joshuajay.com/\">Joshua Jay\u003c/a> says much of the magician’s work is helping people fool themselves. Our brains are hardwired to fill in gaps, predict outcomes, and take cognitive shortcuts to process the overwhelming amount of information around us. When interacting with AI chatbots, we may similarly fool ourselves into believing we’re interacting with a human. But unlike at a magic show, it’s not always clear when the trick is over. Plus: how AI is changing magic.\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"Transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Welcome to Life Automated, the show where we explore what it means to live, work, and make decisions in a rapidly automating world. I’m Jess Love. I’ve been known, in moments of excitement or confusion or overwhelm, to turn to a chatbot, just to share, “Hey, this is what I’m thinking I’ll do next. Here’s how I want to approach this situation.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’ll even occasionally return to provide an update. Maybe this isn’t ideal. I know how sycophantic chatbots can be, telling me how thoughtful and clever my plans are unless I sternly direct them to act like dream-crushing jerks. But I can’t deny that the experience is pleasant. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Like if your diary could write back. And yes, on some level, I know this is a machine trained to keep me engaging with it, and yet don’t I still feel a little validated when that response comes back? A little heard? There is no precedent for this. In every other moment in history, feeling like you’re talking back and forth with a real person has meant you’re connecting with a real person, someone who understands you, someone offering you their finite attention.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And we’ve evolved to take pleasure in these interactions, to seek them out, because that’s kept our species connected and alive. But with chatbots, this ancient link between the appearance of a mind and an actual mind no longer holds, and it’s really hard to know what to make of that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There are people who obsess over this gap between what we intellectually know to be true and what we experience as real. Only they’re not AI researchers — they’re magicians. Today’s conversation is with one of the finest. Joshua Jay has performed his sleight-of-hand magic all around the world, including on major talk shows and for US presidents, and he’s a total magic nerd, the author of several books about magic, including “How Magicians Think.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And he’s not gonna teach us about algorithms. Instead, he’ll teach us to see ourselves the way he sees us, as people whose attention can be commanded and redirected, whose memories can be shifted, and as active participants in our own deception. We also talk about the surprising ways that technology is changing magic.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>From Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, this is Life Automated, distributed by KQED. Here’s my conversation with Joshua Jay. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, the science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” And I think for a lot of people, sitting down in front of a chatbot for the first time, that was kind of the experience.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Magic. There was this thing, this machine doing something that we didn’t think that machines could do. It was interacting with us in real time, in our own language, in meaningful ways. So, I wanted to ask you, as an actual magician, somebody who thinks about how emotions like awe and surprise are created, what was your first experience using a chatbot like, and did it in any way feel like a magic trick?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yeah. It’s such a great question, and it’s such a relevant question for me as a magician because we are deliverers of certain emotion, which is what you’re talking about, this awe, this like I don’t even know how this is happening, but it’s happening anyway. You know, Teller said so beautifully that magic is the difference between what you see and what you know.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, you’re having a conversation with this entity and you know it’s not a person, and yet you’re having this conversation. So, the crisis is always we are deliverers of this feeling of astonishment, and yet by virtue of the fact that we know how all of this is done, we often don’t get that sense of awe, and we don’t get amazed very often.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, the first time that I engaged with AI and was… You know, that first time you take the plunge and you’re just asking, you’re having a conversation with a thing, I was truly astonished. And I felt like, wow, this is probably what it feels like to watch a magic show and just be amazed at everything. And so yeah, I absolutely was totally and utterly amazed and felt like, as we call you guys, “laypeople”, I felt like a layperson. I felt like a muggle. And, it was really fantastic. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> You just brought up, Teller, of course, of the very famous duo ‘Penn & Teller’, and they have this trick. It’s kind of a classic trick where they’re moving balls in cups as magicians do. We call you guys- magicians, us muggles.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Only they use clear cups, so you can actually see what’s happening. And that really kind of reminds me of what you were just talking about, this idea of knowing without knowing. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yeah. You know, I find myself thinking so often when I’m performing, like, you know, you do something, and hopefully somebody really likes it and they scream in all the right places.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But what I’m thinking most of the time is, “Oh, you guys aren’t even seeing the coolest part. If you could see how this works, you would be even more flipped out.” Because sometimes you’re fooled by something that’s so much simpler than you could expect. And very often, and this is such a beautiful topic that it’s its own deep dive- The magician doesn’t fool you; you fool yourself.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And there is a difference. You know, some things it is the magician. It’s sleight-of-hand. It’s a gizmo you couldn’t possibly anticipate, a technology you’re not aware of. But often, you fool yourself with assumptions you make and the psychology that’s being used on you. So, it is this really interesting thing that you bring up where as great as magic feels to a muggle, to a layperson, you don’t even see the best part often.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And, you know, you bring up this classic Penn and Teller piece, and they have many pieces like this, where they said, “We’re gonna do cups and balls,” but then in the middle of the trick, after they do a classic cups and balls with opaque cups and normal-sized balls, they do it again, but they do it with clear cups.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio Clip from Penn & Teller playing in the background]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>As it goes with breaking a few rules of magic. Now, the first rule of magic is you never do the same trick twice. So, we’re good. Second rule of magic is you never tell an audience how a trick is being done. So, we’re gonna tell you exactly how the trick is being done. The third rule of magic is you never let the audience see your secret preparation.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> And even though if you were to zoom in on the right part, you would see how it works, it’s really a lesson in misdirection because you’re looking at Teller as he’s throwing a ball to the audience, and you’re not watching Penn as he’s placing the cups back down. And in this beautiful chaos of choreography, the lesson, the sort of aesthetic beauty of it, is you’re seeing how it’s done, but you really aren’t seeing how it’s done at all.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> This trick is the ultimate flex. I watched it on YouTube after my conversation with Joshua Jay multiple times.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Eventually, I did see the key move, Teller placing the right ball exactly where it needed to be to make the trick work, in full view of the audience. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio Clip from Penn & Teller playing in the background]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Place it on our hand and show it. Take a third and final ball, pretend to place it in our hand. Pretend to show the cup. We place it in the cup. Then secretly reveal it. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> How did I miss it so many times? How did I see without seeing? It really drove home how easily we can be led to believe something false, even when the truth is right in front of us.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio Clip from Penn & Teller playing in the background]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>…The finish. It’s an American baseball right there. That’s the Penn and Teller Cups and Balls. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Think about this in terms of interacting with a chatbot. It’s like we know that they are machines. We know that we are actively being fooled in some way, and yet we might still feel understood, affirmed, cared for. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> You know, the implicit agreement when you see a magic show is you’re saying when you sit down to watch, I know you’re going to try to fool me and I want to be fooled, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, you know that there is a deception at hand. You know that there’s going to be things that hopefully if they do their job, the magician does that you will not understand how it works. And I think that the uncomfortability comes in real life in that sometimes there’s not that implicit handshake going on.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Look, in a magic show, you’re fooled. There’s no way around it. People don’t like that word. Some people do like that word, but call it whatever you like. We can’t soften it. You’re going to be fooled. You’re going to see something you don’t understand and you’re not supposed to understand it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But that’s what’s beautiful about it is that’s out in the open. That is made explicit. Whereas with some aspects of AI, with some aspects of technology in general, we don’t know where the human element ends and where the AI begins. And that can be really unsettling for people because they may not feel like, hey, look, when I started this conversation, I didn’t know I wasn’t talking to a human, you know.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Of course, none of this “being fooled” is by accident. Chatbots are generally designed to mimic humans. They refer to themselves in the first person as I or me. They act interested in what we’re saying, asking questions to nudge the conversation forward, and they learn about us, first through extensive training on human language and behavior, and then increasingly through interactions with us, adapting to our personal preferences and detecting our mood shifts in real time.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This learning to read human beings, that’s something magicians do too. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> I say that you’re always watching the magician and that’s how you think of a magic show, but we’re watching you too. And that little shift in perspective is something I don’t think most people think about. You know, during my opening trick, which has been the same for years now, and I can do it, you know, sort of on autopilot.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I don’t have to think very deeply. It helps me establish my rhythm. But in my head, what I’m doing is I am plotting the rest of the show based on the hand I’m dealt. Ooh, these people in the back left have a lot of sight line issues. I’m gonna really need to connect with them to make sure they can see and do that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Or, you know all the waiters are opening this kitchen door in the back of the theater that’s making it really noisy, and so these people are gonna need to be babysat a little more to make sure they’re super engaged. In magic what I’m looking for on stage is somebody who is not going to be afraid.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so, the first thing I look for before anything else is I’m looking for somebody who is exuding confidence. And a big indicator of confidence is eye contact. You know, it’s so crazy when I say like, “I need someone to help with this next thing,” there are just so many people in an audience who immediately think if they don’t look at me, then somehow, I won’t pick them. And it’s really pronounced when you’re like, as a magician, looking in the audience as you walk through an aisle, left and right. You just see people just totally thinking that they won’t be seen if they’re not… And I’m like, “I can see you even though you’re not looking at me.” But really, you’re looking for somebody who’s got great eye contact and who looks like they’re enjoying the show. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And there’s usually like a little test. So, if I can narrow it down to two or three people who I think, “Oh, this person would be just great on stage,” I might say- “Welcome to the show.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I won’t invite them. I might say, “Welcome to the show, sir. Where are you from?” “I’m from Canton, Ohio.” “Okay. And, what’s this? Why are you, traveling with a suitcase to a magic show?” You know. And if they’re stiff, if they’re giving one-word answers, if they’re sort of like a deer in headlights, maybe I can say, “Well, thanks for coming.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I appreciate you being here. And what about you? What’s your story? Who are you here with?” Right? And you’re just looking for somebody to be like, “Well, I wasn’t even supposed to be here tonight, but my friend Janie, she dragged me to the show and now I’m so glad I came.” Well, there’s a chatty person. That sounds fun. So, I might use that person. And similarly, if I need somebody who is a little bit more submissive in the sense that they’re gonna follow my directions and not give me a hard time-… if I say, “Hold out both hands like this. Put one coin in this hand, one coin…” I don’t want that person switching hands with the coins or you know, when I turn around- trying to throw me off. So, in that case, you might do just the opposite. You might choose somebody who is a little afraid. Sounds a little dark, but maybe you do want somebody who’s a little more easily intimidated so that they will follow your directions exactly as you lay them out and not give you a hard time.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, each trick I have kind of the archetype of what I’m looking for and what would be best, and I’m gonna try and fit that puzzle piece with the piece that fits in the gap there. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Josh says that this notion of reading people correctly, it can be pretty high stakes. These are dynamic encounters that go in very different directions depending on just what kind of energy you’re getting back.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> I was doing a show a few months ago, I thought I picked the perfect person. There was a woman, who was just giving great eye contact. She looked to be having a blast. She was even a little bit chatty, which I think in the end was what did me in. You know, she just seemed so confident and comfortable on stage, and it was a big crowd. It was more than 1,000 people. So, I thought she’s gonna be perfect. I noted it, and at the right moment, invited her on stage. What I didn’t realize until she came up was, she was loaded drunk. I mean, she was so drunk she could not follow basic instructions. She couldn’t stop talking. She was disruptive. And in the beginning, that’s funny, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I’m not a comedy magician, so my purpose isn’t just to make people laugh. It’s to show them, I hope, things that are truly amazing, and if they laugh along the way- awesome. So okay immediately I have to reassess and go, we can make some comedy out of this, but the magic is gonna suffer if she can’t be quiet and follow directions and help us navigate to this amazing moment that’s coming up.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> And she couldn’t. Right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Oh!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> She couldn’t. And so, you try and limp to the close and just think, “Next time I won’t make this mistake.” But in this case, I had to do the rarest thing of all, which is dismiss somebody. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Oh, my goodness! \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> And you just say, “Do me a favor, grab your seat and I need you to come up now.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I actually had to do the switch mid-trick, which I very rarely, I can’t remember the last time, I picked someone so wrong that I had to recalibrate like that. But you know, this is what happens when you are on the road 300 days a year. You’re gonna have nightmare nights at the office. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So, when I hear this, I think, you know, the exception is what proves the rule. You know, the fact that this happens so rarely suggests that you are quite good at reading the room and reading people in ways that they I mean, yeah, I guess somebody who’s had a dozen cocktails probably knows that they’re going to embarrass themselves on stage. But for the most part, you’re picking up on tells that people might not even be aware that they have.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I guess I’m harping on this because when I think about machines that aren’t just reading our posture or looking for eye contact or are looking at, you know, beginning the data collection process the second we walk into the room. They learn about us for months, years and they’re able to gather a wide range of data about us.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so, I start wondering, you know, what that starts to look like and I would ask you, are we more manipulable than we realize? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yes, emphatically yes. I think that there are so many insights that are so scary to a magician when you start applying it to real life. Like, there are so many- One of the basic tenets of magic is that if you tell an audience something, it is a tenth as effective if you can find a way to let that audience tell themselves, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So let me give you an example. If I come out, this is like a classic amateur magician’s move. If I come out and I say, “Ladies and gentlemen, a regular deck of cards,” that is wrong for every possible reason. Because if I just said, “Do me a favor, give these a shuffle, and then I want you to take one out that you like and write your name on it.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You will never in that interaction question the deck of cards because it’s a deck of cards. I’m handling it like you would handle a deck of cards if you handed it to a friend between rounds of dealing poker, right? Take the deck of cards, shuffle it up, take a card out. You would never think, “Are there 52 in there? Are they all the same shape? Is one shorter than another one? Is there more than one ace of spades in that deck?” You would never ask those questions because I’ve presented it in a casual manner, and I’ve given you a task. But the minute you say, “Ladies and gentlemen, a regulation pack of cards,” instantly you go, “Well, is it?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Well, I didn’t see it. Can I see it? Do you mind if I shuffle? Can I count those cards? Can I hold them up to a light? Can I shuffle and make sure they’re all the same thickness,” right? But if I give you the deck and I say, “Shuffle them up and take out any one that you like,” I’m letting you tell yourself it’s a regular deck because you put your fingers on it, you shuffle it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Now, you may be shuffling a deck that’s got all sorts of quirky, subtle things wrong with it, but you will be telling yourself it’s a normal deck because it feels right. When I look through to take out a card, nothing looked out of place. And now you’re telling yourself, and that’s a much more effective way to deceive somebody because you’re telling yourself.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Josh says that the best magicians don’t just shape how people experience something in the moment. They can also change what we later remember about a moment. For instance, a magician might appear to drop a coin, and then somehow it vanishes. Cool trick. But the magician doesn’t stop there. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> And if a minute later I say, “And you watched that coin as it fell from my hand and disintegrated in midair,” well, that’s a really great word, disintegrated, right? And it colors your memory. Maybe I refer to it two or three more times in the show, “And then it just disappeared, and it disintegrated, and when it got to my knee level, it just turned to dust.” And you can have people leaving swearing that they saw a coin vanish down here. And that’s the next frontier of magic is really manipulating memories.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> If you were a less ethical person, do you think you could get people to do things against their will? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> I mean… I think that the overarching lesson that I’ve, that I’m continually shocked about in magic in this regard is how easily people can be duped into believing things. I mean, it’s so crazy to me that, you know, I do a magic show that is meant to amaze and delight, but in no way is it meant to skirt the line of reality and make people actually believe. You know, there are performers like David Blaine, Uri Geller, and Oz Pearlman, who, you know, people see those performers and sort of go, “So wait, is that a trick or is that person really doing that?” And I don’t have that kind of approach, and still, not sometimes, very often people come up to me after shows and they’ll say really touching but misguided things like, “Hey, can you give me advice on this job I’m about to take? Cause I, you know, that trick you did where you were able to predict the future, I’m just wondering if you…” You know, you just wanna pull them aside and say, “This is pure entertainment. Like, I can’t give you life advice like that. I can’t actually see the future. This is fun.” \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>“But you got my passcode off my phone. I’ve never told anybody that in my life.” “Yes, that’s a trick. I predicted your passcode.” Right. “Well, if you can tell my passcode, can you just tell me just a little advice? Should I take this job and move to Phoenix or not?” And it’s like, you know, you see that with certain people, they’re looking for an excuse to believe. They’re looking for it, and the more you say it’s not real, the more they want to believe it is real, and that’s scary stuff.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> My takeaway so far in this conversation, buckle up. We better hope for a rapid learning curve as we adjust to life alongside artificial intelligences that feel real, that have been designed to seem real, but simply aren’t. My worry is that knowing we’re talking to a machine won’t ever be enough. Just like Teller’s baseball, even those rare occasions where we can see what’s happening under the hood won’t stop the illusion, because we want to believe the illusion. Because the illusion doesn’t just come from the machine, it comes from us. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>These are early innings. I’ll be very curious about how these chatbots change over time and the many ways they are welcomed or inserted into our lives. After the break, a pivot. I ask my guests, how is technology changing magic? And if you’re thinking, “Not that much,” you would be wrong.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>That’s after the break.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>You might think that sleight of hand magic hasn’t changed much over the decades. A card trick, cups and balls, these are all pretty analog. Automation shouldn’t have too much of an impact. But the truth is, all performances are interactions between performer and audience. So even when technology doesn’t change the performer, it changes the audience.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Technology has always had an uneasy relationship to magic, and there are all sorts of tricks that we can’t do anymore for the simple reason that what even 20 years ago people would have gone, “That is the most amazing thing I could imagine you doing.” Now we would go, “Oh, we have an app for that.” I mean, there’s like a great trick where you predict a song that’s playing, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And now you couldn’t do that trick cause people would go, “Yes, it’s an app. I had it 15 years ago. It’s called Shazam. You press this button and three seconds later it tells you the album and the song and the link to listen to it.” Like, all the tricks along that genre, they’re just out. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> You told this story about doing one of your famous dollar bill tricks for somebody, and then they immediately took out their phone and they Googled, you know, how did Josh Jay do this dollar bill trick?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And then they, like, just played the video in front of everybody, and you said it was not a great moment. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Right. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> How do you deal with that? How do you deal with the fact that the answers so many of these tricks, the ability to watch it again and again and again from any angle that someone might have captured, are available to everybody at every moment?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Well, you’ve hit upon, you know, a really important and sort of topical crisis in our industry, which is that a lot of people are going on YouTube and doing tutorials of tricks that don’t belong to them and classic tricks and really good tricks. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> The particular dollar bill trick that got Josh is one of those classics that people can now look up on YouTube.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Josh sees two strategies that magicians can use to get around this problem. The first being to avoid the classics altogether. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> But if you’re doing a trick that thousands of other magicians are doing, you’re at great risk that that trick will be searchable and, you know, easily found online. Whereas if I’m doing something totally original, good luck searching for it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You’re not gonna find that trick because I created that trick and it’s not published and it’s not anywhere to be found in a searchable way. So that’s one way. Another way is magicians have to get really clever at disguising what it looks like. They have to mesh together several methods and several tricks so that somebody looks at it and goes, “You know, I don’t know. He borrowed my house key, and then he bent it, and then it vanished- … and it appeared in a lock across the room.” You know, that’s not a searchable term, whereas changing a $1 bill into $100 bill is easily searchable. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And yeah, so at the same time as it is making a lot of parts of your life as a magician more difficult, it also might be raising the rewards to true novelty and creativity and innovation.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> That’s how I’m choosing to look at it, and maybe I’m, like, choosing to look at it with rose-tinted glasses because I like that process. But, you know, in my head, the healthiest magic community in the world is one in which everybody’s doing their own material. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, we don’t give much attention to bands that only play covers. They play in bars for 30 people. If you write your own music and you become successful at that, you can tour arenas and have a career that is way more outsized than a cover band ever could. We don’t reward comedians who just repeat the jokes of, you know, a smorgasbord of all their favorite comedians. We reward people who come up with original monologues, and we can’t wait to hear the latest Chappelle or Nate Bargatze or Seinfeld hour because we know it’s gonna be their point of view. So, my ultimate ideal in magic, it would be, you know, all magicians doing their own stuff. Now, magic has developed at a much slower pace than comedy and even songwriting.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I mean, it takes years to perfect a really great magic trick. So that’s a high bar indeed, but my hope is that this negative will end up being a positive and that magicians will take a cue from this and start really obscuring what they’re doing in such a way that it’s either mostly original or completely original.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So, technology is changing magic, but Josh says it won’t be taking over anytime soon. For instance, most magicians who choose to use AI are using it to help them tweak their script a bit, not to design tricks wholesale. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> AI can help you find a moment in history that you would have never turned up that’s the perfect way to theatrically get into a trick on coincidence or a trick on transformation, and now you’ve given it this great context about this amazing thing that happened in Victorian England. And, you know, that’s, I think, a way that AI is really gonna help performers because like so many things, we don’t want AI to dehumanize magic. Magic will be one of the great things left when AI is fully integrated into everything else that people will go to for a truly human experience. I mean, what besides eating and watching movies will be left that isn’t entirely, you know, affected by AI?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Let’s talk about this. You describe the period from the 1870s to the 1930s as the “Golden Age of Magic”. Yeah. Could we, you know, see a resurgence to a new Golden Age of Magic? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, there’s a lot of evidence to say that in a sense we are in another golden age. I mean, take some metrics. Because of TikTok and Instagram and just magic being online generally, and add to that the fact that America’s Got Talent and Fool Us are putting magic in front of millions of people in their homes that didn’t used to be there- More people are watching magic than have ever watched it in history.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Fact. Not, and it’s not close. It’s not like marginally more. Like, exponentially more people are watching magic than ever have. Another objective fact is that there are now more venues to perform magic than there have ever been at any point in my life or in the previous 50 years. So, I also have emprivated data because I co-own, a magic shop called Vanishing Inc., where we sell magic and we publish books, and I can tell you that we are selling to a larger group of people than magic shops used to sell to. They used to be quite localized, and thanks to the internet, we can now sell all over the world. And the industry itself is growing. You can just feel that there are more people interested in magic every day and not less. So, in those regards, anecdotally, I would say to you, we might be in a golden age and not know it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> You describe magic as being a product of its time, and you give this great example of the famous trick of sawing a woman in half being the perfect trick when it emerged after World War I. All of a sudden it was hitting an audience that was maybe a little bit more desensitized to violence, more open to women, playing different roles in society, including one where presumably they get chopped in half. And I wanna ask you, what would be the perfect trick for 2026? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Oh. Yeah, that’s a great question. You know, that’s a really tough question. I mean, I would say to zoom out for a second and buy myself a minute to think, I would say that the greatest magic trick, and not just in 2026, ever, is always the trick that is perfect for the situation you’re in at that moment, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I talk in the book, you might remember, about the ham sandwich theory, and for those readers who haven’t read my book, like, this is such a great illustration of what magic can be at its ultimate fullest expression, which is that if I reach up behind your ear right now, Jessica, and pull out a ham sandwich from nowhere, and you don’t know how it’s done, you’re gonna look at me and go, “That was random,” because it is.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>It’s totally random. It’s not interesting. It’s not logical. I just pulled a ham sandwich out. It’s arbitrary. But if instead you said to me, “Gosh, Josh, I am starving. I’m just… I’m really in the mood for a ham sandwich. Is that weird to say?” And I then went, “Oh, yeah?” And now I pull a ham sandwich out of your ear- \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I have fulfilled a need. I have responded to a need you created, and now that magic is everything to you. It’s personal. It felt directly tailored to something you had. It fulfilled a need, hunger that you were feeling at that moment. So, whatever the answer is to your question, it would have to be something that’s specific to an audience in 2026.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I want to push Josh here. What does the perfect trick look like in 2026 with technology constantly shifting the boundaries between that’s awesome and yeah, that’s an app? What happens to an art form so cognizant of the limits of human cognition when everyone carries around a device that seems to know everything and never forget?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Well, maybe it calls attention to that very device. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> I always see things through the lens of what I’m working on, and I’m working on a trick where we turn off all the lights in the theater, which is instantly and immediately fascinating to me because it gets to be this change of scenery, right? And I have everybody take out their cell phones and put their light on. So, you get that little concert vibe going where they’re moving their light around, and it looks like twinkling stars in this huge theater, right? And all these people are here. And I’m working on a trick where they are whittled down. So, through a series of choices that the audience makes, I would say, “Okay, if you were born in September, stay standing with your light on. Everybody else sit down, turn your phone off.” And it goes from 1,000 lights to… 30 lights. And you whittle them down all the way until you get one person with a light, and then you predict that person’s phone number, which is the thing that they’re holding- the whole time, and you’re right there, and how could you have known it would be them, and the choices that were made.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And then the very light they’re holding has the phone number, and that’s what I’m working on, and that’s what I’ll call the ultimate trick in 2026 cause I haven’t fully figured out how I’m doing it yet. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Oh my gosh. Well, I just love hearing you talk about this knowing that you don’t even fully know how you’re going to do it yet.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yeah. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Like, it seems like as a creator, you think about how do I want the audience to feel, what should they be paying attention to, what should they be thinking about, and then eventually you get back to the mechanism of how you pull this all off. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Jay:\u003c/strong> Yes. It’s exactly that. And that was a really important shift for me is not to become obsessed with method, not to get bogged down by well, that would be great, but I don’t know how to do it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I think that all my best things have come out of me sort of going I’m not gonna think about how this could be done. I just wanna play out in my mind what it would look like if I could do it. And then I need to figure out a way to do it. And, you know, you fall on your face a lot, and you realize, like, well, I can’t do that, but I could do this.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And you might fall short of the ideal, but at least you’re thinking… in the minds of the audience, and I think that’s a really good place to start. You know, empathy is a really important tool for a magician, and I imagine it’s probably a huge focus of everybody who’s helping to design AI is to think empathically, to think like your audience.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, the first thing you have to do as a magician is get out of your own head and to try to get into the head of the people you’re performing for. What do they wanna see? What would they think if you did this? How would they react if you did this?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Empathy as one of the ultimate superpowers? Yeah, I buy that. Human creators of all stripes have long recognized its power. Magicians like Joshua Jay rely on empathy to create experiences that delight, and stun, and fill a need. Engineers rely on empathy to imagine how users will engage with confusing or intimidating tools.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>What’s different is that now we have machines that empathize, too, or at least convincingly perform empathy. Which brings us right back to where we started, me going to my chatbot three days later to report back on how that email landed, the email we carefully crafted together. As that line between what we perceive to be reality versus magic continues to blur before our eyes, I’m glad to have the occasional magician as a tour guide.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED. Our show was produced by Jesse Dukes. Music by Stephen Jackson. Recording help from Will Feeney, George Christensen, and Leila Mohammed. Administrative support, recording, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12092457/chatbots-dont-fool-us-we-fool-ourselves-with-joshua-jay",
"authors": [
"12009"
],
"programs": [
"news_37003",
"news_37188"
],
"categories": [
"news_33520",
"news_248"
],
"tags": [
"news_25184",
"news_37236",
"news_1631"
],
"featImg": "news_12092460",
"label": "news_37188"
},
"news_12092008": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12092008",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12092008",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1784714400000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "does-ai-have-to-be-bad-news-for-the-planet-with-meghan-busse-2",
"title": "Does AI Have to Be Bad News for the Planet? (with Meghan Busse)",
"publishDate": 1784714400,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "Does AI Have to Be Bad News for the Planet? (with Meghan Busse) | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 37188,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Are you hurting the planet every time you query a chatbot? \u003ca href=\"https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/academics-research/faculty/busse_meghan/\">Economist Meghan Busse\u003c/a> suggests that may be the wrong question. In this episode, we zoom out from the usual concerns about frivolous queries (and, for that matter, resource‑hungry data centers) to ask an even more basic question: is intense demand for AI locking us into decades of additional fossil fuel use, or is it accelerating investment in clean energy? Busse helps us sort real climate levers from symbolic ones, and explains why AI’s ultimate impact on the planet will likely come down to how we build and power it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Further Reading: \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://apnorc.org/projects/epic-climate-change-2025/?doing_wp_cron=1784231367.3495659828186035156250\">Public attitudes toward climate policy, technology, and the environment\u003c/a> — AP-NORC\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/24/us/j-stuart-adams-utah-senate-data-center.html\">Utah Senate President Loses Primary After Data Center Backlash\u003c/a> — Jack Healy, \u003cem>New York Times\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore how technologies like AI are changing how we live, work, and make decisions.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This episode, we dive into one of the biggest anxieties around AI. What it’s doing to the environment.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[News footage from people protesting data centers…]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You see this anxiety most dramatically in the protests against data centers. It wasn’t that long ago that just a handful of people might show up at town halls to object to a project. These days, communities are getting more organized… and they’re increasingly calling for moratoriums on data center construction. That’s state and local freezes, basically. They’re citing worries about water, noise, pollution, land, and strain on the electrical grid.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[News footage from people protesting data centers…]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I wanted to understand something more basic. Just how bad is AI for the planet? Particularly compared to all the other things we do to the planet? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And what should \u003cem>I \u003c/em>actually do about it? Like me, personally, as an individual.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I have environmentally conscious friends who refuse to use tools like ChatGPT and Claude on principle, particularly for frivolous queries like generating a vacation packing list. I have a suspicion that this might be a little…beside the point? But maybe it isn’t?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I reached out to Meghan Busse. She’s an economist at the Kellogg School of Management. She’s NOT an expert in data centers specifically, but she is an expert on energy, climate, environmental policy and how markets affect those things.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I thought she’d be a great person to zoom out and really help me understand the big picture. How should I, someone who cares about the environment, be thinking about AI?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Meghan helped me separate the problem into two major buckets. The very real local impacts of a data center moving into your neighborhood, and the broader impacts on CO2 emissions that lead to climate change. And that second bucket is where the story gets really interesting. Because Meghan actually sees a future where demand for AI could benefit the planet. \u003cem>If\u003c/em> we stay laser-focused on the right things.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love, and this is Life, Automated, a show from Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, distributed by KQED. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Meghan and I started our conversation discussing a recent AP NORC poll that suggested more than 70 percent of Americans are either somewhat, very, or extremely concerned about the environmental impact of AI. That’s more than the percentages concerned about the impact of air travel or meat production. I wanted to know what she made of this.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse\u003c/strong>: So on the one hand, I’m excited to have that many Americans concerned about the environmental and climate impact of anything. On the other hand, it is consistent with what I think we see in other places, which is that people sometimes have the biggest fears about the things that are either least familiar or the newest, or what I call as a technical term “scary.” And something that’s scary is something that makes a good disaster movie. It’s what makes nuclear power scary. But, coal-fired, air pollution not scary. Even though the coal-fired power pollution is much more dangerous in terms of mortality than nuclear power is. There’s the same kind of thing. I think that AI seems scary in the sense that we can imagine a great disaster movie about it when you don’t imagine a great disaster movie about the CO2 emissions that come from meat production.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I don’t think Meghan’s point here is that climate fears about AI are themselves irrational. But she’s already raising a question that will run through our whole conversation: are we worried about the right things, in the right proportions?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>When it comes to AI, there are big global concerns around CO2 emissions related to energy use, both in terms of the energy required to train the models, and the energy required to run them. We’ll get to those. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But first I wanted to talk about THE thing people are most upset about. And that is what Meghan calls “local proximity issues”: the concerns we might have when we learn a data center is moving in nearby. Which in some ways are like lots of bad neighbor issues people have had with factories in the past….but with some new twists. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> There’s a sense in which the pollution, if you will, that comes from data centers is different from what we have typically thought of when we think about industrial sources. And there we are oftentimes thinking about air pollution or water pollution or things that are contaminants that can harm people’s health because they get into people’s bodies, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> And a data center is much cleaner in that sense. There isn’t smoke, right? There isn’t particulate matter that potentially people are breathing. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But people are worried, and I think with some justification, about other kinds of externality, other kinds of consequences. And one of the things that people have been increasingly talking about is the issue of noise. So you might be near a data center, and it wouldn’t be loud or clattery or things like that, but people describe sort of a hum or a buzz or a vibration- \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Ugh \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> …Or a thrum, that can affect people’s health, not because it bothers them that they hear it, but because it is a low-level vibration that can affect people’s bodies in ways that I’m not sure we understand really well. And part of the challenge is that to the extent that we have noise ordinances… They are to deal with things that are loud, that affect hearing, that disturb quality of life in the way that we’re used to conventionally thinking about noise.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right. It’s almost like we don’t even know enough about this to be able to design the regulations and the agreements that would then satisfy the community.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse\u003c/strong>: The more I read about this, the more I’m coming to believe that near people is just not a good place to put data centers. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So we talked about noise. What are some of the other concerns?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>There are land use kinds of questions. So there is, for example, in northern Utah, in a place called Cache Valley near Logan, there was recently a proposal for an absolutely gigantic data center that would have been just a huge presence in the land there.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> I looked it up. The proposed hyperscale data center she is talking about would be located in Northwest Box Elder County, near Cache Valley. Its size: 40,000 acres. After a public backlash, the size of the proposed project area (that’s the area including both the facilities and the land) was reduced to 20,000 acres–a mere two-thirds the size of San Francisco. Having a neighbor that big…yeah, I can see how that could cause alarm.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And then there’s the question of water. Data centers have a reputation for being real water guzzlers, mostly because they so often rely on evaporative cooling to function. In places where water is scarce, they can compete with households, farms, and other businesses, driving prices way up…or leading to shortages. And while there are some ways to make water use more efficient, these come with their own tradeoffs, like requiring a lot more energy.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Still, as challenging as these “local proximity issues” are to deal with–Meghan says they are NOT what concerns her most about AI’s potential impact on the climate. In part because they SHOULD be solvable.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> I think that many of the proximity concerns could be solved by altering where data centers are built. There’s a lot of parts of this country that don’t have a lot of people in them, right? There are less dense, less populated places that could be chosen for data centers. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> But why aren’t they?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> Well, it’s not as convenient.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> It’ll cost more money.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> I don’t know if the land will cost more money but it’s not as easily connected. It’s not necessarily where the eventual employees that you wanna have running the data center or interacting with the data center are most easily located.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: So I can see why people are so angry about having a data center as a next-door neighbor.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But what makes data centers bad neighbors is not necessarily what makes them so bad for the climate overall. What Meghan Busse–a researcher who studies climate policy–is most concerned about … is energy.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> So I think that the electricity use might be the thing that is most distinctive about AI. And the reason for this is that electricity use in the US and the EU and these sort of high income developed countries, was increasing pretty steadily along with population and GDP from post World War II until about 2000. And then it flattened out. And this isn’t because people didn’t want to use electricity for things. It’s because the devices that they used for electricity became more energy efficient. So we could get more of what economists call energy services without needing as much electricity. But what that meant is that, for about 20 years, there wasn’t a lot of need to greatly expand or to really expand very much at all.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Electricity transmission, electricity distribution, the total amount of electricity generation that we could do. And then all of a sudden along comes AI which is really pretty energy intensive… electricity demand, and it’s coming at the same time that there’s an increase in vehicle electrification and an increase of automation and manufacturing. And it’s putting a real strain on the ability of electricity systems to meet that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: So. Here in the U.S., we have a couple decades where the overall amount of electricity we need to generate basically stays flat. Electricity goes into a lot more THINGS, but all those THINGS get more efficient at about the same rate. That’s two decades of not a lot of pressure to build new power plants. And then…BAM.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And the timing of this new strain on the electrical grid is relevant because there’s been another trend at play.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>Over the last decade or 15 years, the cost of generating electricity with renewable sources, with wind and solar has fallen dramatically. So over the course of about 10 years, the cost of generating electricity with solar went down to about a tenth of what it was, and the cost of generating electricity with wind had gone down to about a third of what it was.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> That’s a tenth. That means if it used to cost a dollar, it costs 10 cents.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> That is right. It’s a phenomenal reduction. It’s a phenomenal achievement for the climate. It might be the single best event to happen for the climate in the last 10 or 15 years. It’s just phenomenal. And it is so phenomenal that what was happening is that basically electricity generators all over the country and also in many places in the world, were in a process of transition, in a process of retiring coal-fired power plants and replacing them with solar and wind – not because they were greener, but because they were actually cheaper.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: Thanks to just how much the economics here have changed, nearly all new electricity generators planned for the future in North America were renewables, with a bit of natural gas, but basically NO coal. This was going to be a huge win for the planet. Even better, coal plants were actively being PHASED OUT. If you cared about CO2 emissions, this was very good news. Everything was headed in the right direction.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Then, out of nowhere, for the first time in forever, demand skyrockets. All those plans…\u003cem>poof\u003c/em>!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Because these data centers – they don’t just need a ton of energy. They need it fast.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>If you’re an AI company, you want to get your new data centers up and running as quickly as possible. You feel like you’re in a race: to create the best models, to capture the market. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Sure, in the long run, over 20 or 25 years, solar and wind are cheaper. But if you need power NOW, keeping an aging coal plant running a few more years is going to be pretty tempting. And that smooth march toward cleaner power just got a lot choppier.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Coming up: the SHORT-run danger to the climate is that AI keeps fossil fuels around longer. But in the long run? Well, the jury is still out. Economist Meghan Busse offers up a scenario where the AI data center boom could actually benefit the planet. That’s after the break.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[ad break]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So I wanna turn now to the future. I think you’re completely right that there is this sense that, you know, we’re straining under today’s demand and everybody is telling us AI is going to be so many times bigger in a couple of years. What the heck happens? How are we gonna keep up? And how does this not like, destroy the planet? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>So if we take the long run view of the climate, many climate scholars would tell you a key component of decarbonization is to electrify as much as we can. And the reason is because we have really good ways of producing electricity without producing carbon. So solar and wind are two of them that we’ve talked about.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But nuclear energy also has the potential to produce a lot of electricity in a decarbonized way. And there’s other possibilities also out there. Things like geothermal that, you know, people are experimenting with and hoping will come up to scale. But, there are, you know, like I say, wind and solar that we already have, nuclear that we also have already, although we need to re-remember how to build it at low cost.\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess\u003c/strong>\u003cstrong> Love:\u003c/strong> Just jumping in here to say, if you’re over 40, and you care about the environment, you might remember a time when environmentalists were dead set against nuclear power. There was that deadly catastrophic meltdown at Chernobyl in 1986, and a scary miss at Three Mile Island a few years earlier. Environmentalists were also concerned about the huge challenge of storing toxic nuclear waste for thousands of years.\u003cbr>\u003cbr>But in the last forty years, many scientists agree that nuclear power and storage have gotten much safer and less unwieldy. And some environmentalists now feel that the benefits of nuclear power–like not spewing carbon into the atmosphere–well outweigh the risks. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse\u003c/strong>: And there’s other kinds of technologies, like carbon capture that might allow us to burn fossil fuels and still capture the carbon and have it be decarbonized. So we’ve got some really great potential for being able to produce decarbonized electricity.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so what that means is that in the long run, I’m not that concerned from a climate perspective about anything that uses electricity. So if there were a new technology to come about that needs a lot more energy and you told me “guess what the energy it needs is electricity”, then I kind of heave a sigh of relief as opposed to saying what we’re gonna need in the future is a lot more steel or what we’re gonna need in the future is a lot more cement. Or what we’re gonna need in the future is a lot more air travel because those are things we don’t yet know how to decarbonize very well or at very low cost. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay. So in the long run, because it can be electrified and because we know that there are renewable ways of getting electricity, less concern. How long is the long run? And I guess how much damage is done along the way?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> It’s a really great question because some of the answer to how long is the long run depends on how we respond in the short run. If the way we respond to the intense increase in demand is the short run, is building new fossil fuel electricity generation, like building new gas plants, those plants have a long life, 20 or 30 years. Things that exist tend to get used. And so if we respond to the short run pressure by making investments in new fossil fuel generation, then that’s gonna push that long run of decarbonization off farther, and so, for the climate, the best news scenario in some ways would be if builders of AI and data centers decided, well, wait a minute, the most reliable and fastest way for us to have the electricity we need is in some sense to be self-sufficient in a green way, to build a data center, to build accompanying, solar or wind generation, to build a battery facility that will help make sure that that power is available to us throughout the day.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, and some of this is happening, so I just read, Google is making plans to purchase Intersect, which is a wind and solar company bringing energy generation in house and almost kind of treating it as a competitive advantage.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. And Microsoft recently made an agreement to reopen one of the reactors at Three Mile Island. Again to do essentially self-supply with nuclear energy. So to the extent that the response to this is self-supply with some kind of green energy, that is number one, good for the climate, but potentially also good for, accelerating storage technologies, for accelerating our relearning how to build nuclear in a competitive way. Those would be the best case scenarios.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Accelerating because it’s really kind of like, forcing people to innovate and act very quickly to do the kinds of things that they might otherwise do gradually over the course of 10, 20 years.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>And what drives down costs in many, many technologies is, increasing the scale of demand, basically increasing the size of the market. When you go from, here’s a technology we have thought of to one we have tested in the lab and demonstrated to one that we have done pilot projects of and works, there is this important phase between that and sort of a large scale deployment, which is increasing the scale of production enough that costs fall. And I totally believe it’s something we’ll get better at as we do it more.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and I think that’s a really, really interesting point. Like there is a world in which we can harness all of this demand and all of this excitement for AI and actually leave the climate in a better place than it would’ve otherwise been.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> And I, you know, and I’m not saying this is guaranteed, I’m not saying that this is obviously what’s gonna happen, but it like, there is a path and it actually has the potential to accelerate you know, green energy and decarbonisation in ways it would be really positive for the climate. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[musical interlude]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong> Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So, Meghan does see a future where demand for AI helps to accelerate deployment of low-cost green energy. But that’s not the only optimistic claim people make about AI and the climate.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Okay. So I wanna do a kind of nerdy lightning round with you. So I’m gonna share some other ways that AI might impact the climate in a positive way. And, we’ll say zero is like, that is all just hand-wavy gobbledygook, and five is like, yeah, actually there could really be something there. Okay, you ready? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>Ready. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> ‘Optimization of the energy grid.’ \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> I’ll give that a four.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: It’s pretty good.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> I’ll give it a four because it is the sort of thing that AI can do. Right. There’s already predictive maintenance being done and AI being applied to in a lot of different, manufacturing and other kinds of things. That said, it’s actually not the most important thing, I think, in the optimization of our energy system. We just need way more transmission in way more places to accommodate renewables generated in places where we historically have not had electricity generation like the Southwest. And just greater supply and greater flexibility. So I’ll give it a four ’cause AI can do it, but it’s actually not the most important thing you could do if you wanted to improve the electricity transmission grid.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: That was very thorough.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>Not very lightning, but very thorough.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: Very thorough. ‘Better climate modeling.’\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> There’s a sense in which I don’t know whether you really want AI climate models. In the sense that part of the trick about AI is that it’s a bit of a black box. Climate models are basically systems of equations. Systems of equations that capture relationships we know about heat and temperature and weather and ocean currents, and then how those translate into economic consequences. Part of the value of climate models is that we know what assumptions we have put in and we can alter those assumptions in ways that allow us to see if this were different, how would that matter for our climate predictions? I’m not sure that sort of turning that over to the more black box nature of AI is gonna improve our confidence. So I’ll give that a one.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> ‘Discovery of more energy efficient materials.’\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> That’s a great question. So there are absolutely applications in which materials matter – Battery chemistry, for example, is one that a lot of people are pushing on. So I’ll give that a three.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: ‘\u003c/strong>Precision agriculture’, which is this idea that with the right sensors and models, we could give crops exactly what they need when they need it, improving yield, reducing waste.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> So I’m gonna give that a one, not because I don’t think AI can do it, but because, doing it more efficiently or more precisely doesn’t do a lot for decarbonization if we’re using the same techniques, in terms of fertilizer, in terms of planting, in terms of those kinds of things. So I think in order to make a big difference in agricultural emissions, we’re gonna need something other than, sort of more precisely, implementing the technologies that we have. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Ok, so Meghan doesn’t see a lot of potential in some of these super optimistic “AI will just create new things that help!” scenarios. But she does see the potential for AI to fuel a clean-energy tech boom. At least…in the future. But how can people like \u003cem>me\u003c/em> make a difference TODAY? SHOULD I feel guilty asking ChatGPT for that packing list?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> So, one of the things, as I teach classes about climate, and as I talk to audiences about climate, I oftentimes get questions about, what can I do that matters?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I don’t think people always have a very good idea of what are the first order things, like what are the big levers they have in their hand, and what are the small levers that they have in their hand? If you ask me, I would tell you that generating a packing list on ChatGPT for your vacation is not a very big climate lever. In fact, it’s a much bigger climate lever how far away you are going on your vacation and how are you going to get there? If you’re taking an airplane, the climate impact of your airplane trip is many, many, many, many, many ChatGPT queries. So I think part of the reason people have fixated on ChatGPT queries as something that is part of their climate virtual signaling, is that it seems like an easy thing to do or not do as opposed to deciding not to drive to work or not to have a furnace in my house, or…\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> – not to go on vacation.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> Not to go on vacation. And so we sometimes get fixated on the things that seem like, well, that just seems like an excessive choice that you are making. But if you wanna know the things that really matter, the things that really matter have to do with your more direct use of fossil fuels. Think about how you set your thermostat. Think about what you drive and where you drive. Think about where you choose to fly. Think about what you eat – Beef is especially carbon intensive. So if people are asking me, what is a marginal choice I could make in my life that would make a difference, using ChatGPT would not be at the top of my list. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Well, what about…joining some sort of collective action effort–like the protests we’re seeing against data centers? That strategy seems to have more potential, at least for those local issues. Because all data centers are not created equal, and being able to shape the kind of neighbor you have, and where it situates itself – that feels big.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Are communities able to get some concessions from these companies that allow the data centers to sort of be built, you know, somewhere in the proximity, but in ways that don’t impact people’s quality of life as much?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> So I think there’s actually a ton of heterogeneity as you go from place to place. I mean, it’s very different if you have something that is federally regulated, something like, you know, pharmaceuticals or those kinds of things, right? The process might be slow, but once a decision gets made for something that’s federally regulated, then that’s the decision, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And when you have something that, that it’s gonna be sort of a location and state by state, it’s just gonna be a lot noisier, it’s gonna be a lot less predictable, and I think that, what’s gonna turn out to be a successful strategy for communities to employ is gonna depend a lot on the particular location where they are.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And perhaps what they want to get out of it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> And perhaps what they wanna get out of it, which may not be the same place to place.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: Yeah, I mean, could this be a good thing, where communities, you know, depending on the tools they have available to them, can sort of look at the situation and in a bespoke way try to come to an agreement that is going to be as much of a win-win as possible?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>I hope so.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[music bump]\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> It’s clear that local opposition to data centers can have an impact. Meghan sent me a newspaper article involving a powerful Utah State Senator. He served as chairman of the agency that approved that giant data center we talked about earlier, the one that was downsized to a mere 20,000 acres. And…he recently lost his Republican primary bid, in what the article called, “one of the most high-profile signs of the voter backlash to data center projects.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Which brings us to the final thing that individuals can do–something that works for these local issues and for the climate more broadly.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> If you care about having an individual impact, by far the most impactful thing you can do is how you vote.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> There you go.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> And that’s because so many of the changes you need are not about our individual consumption or our individual behavior. It’s about the \u003cem>systems\u003c/em> of how we generate energy. The systems of how we use energy, what we use energy for. The things that are really, really hard for individuals to influence with their choices. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So in some sense, I don’t care very much about whether you use ChatGPT, I don’t care very much about whether you eat beef or not. I don’t even care about where you fly on vacation as long as you vote. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So you teach the next generation of CEOs, C-Suite Executives, and you have children of your own. What advice do you have for young people right now?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> The advice that I have for young people now is that while it seems, like on the political front, it might seem like things are discouraging on the technology and economic front, there’s huge potential.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We can \u003cem>absolutely\u003c/em> decarbonize, we can \u003cem>absolutely\u003c/em> avoid the worst effects of climate change. We have many of the technologies and I totally believe that we can invent the technologies that we still need. It is absolutely within our power if we choose to do it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So. In the long run, how will AI impact the climate? It depends. But after my conversation with Meghan, I’m thinking: it doesn’t depend that much on the AI itself. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>It depends more on what we do with demand for the technology. Where and how companies build out their data centers and especially how they choose to power them. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Are we going to live in a world where demand pushes back our transition to clean energy, locking us into fossil fuels for decades? We’re seeing some of that world right now. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But we can also choose a world where this explosion of demand hastens our transition to clean energy. And we’re also seeing some of that right now.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The politics of clean energy can look grim…But as long as clean-energy technologies keep getting cheaper and easier to scale, the optimistic scenario is still on the table.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is Life Automated, a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. Distributed by KQED. I’m Jess Love. Special thanks to today’s guest, Meghan Busse, an economist and associate professor at the Kellogg School of Management.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We’re produced by Jesse Dukes. Music by Steven Jackson. Recording by George Christensen and Will Feeney. Support and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>END\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Are you hurting the planet every time you query a chatbot? \u003ca href=\"https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/academics-research/faculty/busse_meghan/\">Economist Meghan Busse\u003c/a> suggests that may be the wrong question. In this episode, we zoom out from the usual concerns about frivolous queries (and, for that matter, resource‑hungry data centers) to ask an even more basic question: is intense demand for AI locking us into decades of additional fossil fuel use, or is it accelerating investment in clean energy? Busse helps us sort real climate levers from symbolic ones, and explains why AI’s ultimate impact on the planet will likely come down to how we build and power it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Are you hurting the planet every time you query a chatbot? \u003ca href=\"https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/academics-research/faculty/busse_meghan/\">Economist Meghan Busse\u003c/a> suggests that may be the wrong question. In this episode, we zoom out from the usual concerns about frivolous queries (and, for that matter, resource‑hungry data centers) to ask an even more basic question: is intense demand for AI locking us into decades of additional fossil fuel use, or is it accelerating investment in clean energy? Busse helps us sort real climate levers from symbolic ones, and explains why AI’s ultimate impact on the planet will likely come down to how we build and power it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Further Reading: \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Further Reading: \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://apnorc.org/projects/epic-climate-change-2025/?doing_wp_cron=1784231367.3495659828186035156250\">Public attitudes toward climate policy, technology, and the environment\u003c/a> — AP-NORC\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://apnorc.org/projects/epic-climate-change-2025/?doing_wp_cron=1784231367.3495659828186035156250\">Public attitudes toward climate policy, technology, and the environment\u003c/a> — AP-NORC\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/24/us/j-stuart-adams-utah-senate-data-center.html\">Utah Senate President Loses Primary After Data Center Backlash\u003c/a> — Jack Healy, \u003cem>New York Times\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/24/us/j-stuart-adams-utah-senate-data-center.html\">Utah Senate President Loses Primary After Data Center Backlash\u003c/a> — Jack Healy, \u003cem>New York Times\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Episode Transcript",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad",
"attrs": {
"format": "fullwidth"
},
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "",
"innerContent": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore how technologies like AI are changing how we live, work, and make decisions.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore how technologies like AI are changing how we live, work, and make decisions.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This episode, we dive into one of the biggest anxieties around AI. What it’s doing to the environment.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This episode, we dive into one of the biggest anxieties around AI. What it’s doing to the environment.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[News footage from people protesting data centers…]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[News footage from people protesting data centers…]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You see this anxiety most dramatically in the protests against data centers. It wasn’t that long ago that just a handful of people might show up at town halls to object to a project. These days, communities are getting more organized… and they’re increasingly calling for moratoriums on data center construction. That’s state and local freezes, basically. They’re citing worries about water, noise, pollution, land, and strain on the electrical grid.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You see this anxiety most dramatically in the protests against data centers. It wasn’t that long ago that just a handful of people might show up at town halls to object to a project. These days, communities are getting more organized… and they’re increasingly calling for moratoriums on data center construction. That’s state and local freezes, basically. They’re citing worries about water, noise, pollution, land, and strain on the electrical grid.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[News footage from people protesting data centers…]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[News footage from people protesting data centers…]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But I wanted to understand something more basic. Just how bad is AI for the planet? Particularly compared to all the other things we do to the planet? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But I wanted to understand something more basic. Just how bad is AI for the planet? Particularly compared to all the other things we do to the planet? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And what should \u003cem>I \u003c/em>actually do about it? Like me, personally, as an individual.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And what should \u003cem>I \u003c/em>actually do about it? Like me, personally, as an individual.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I have environmentally conscious friends who refuse to use tools like ChatGPT and Claude on principle, particularly for frivolous queries like generating a vacation packing list. I have a suspicion that this might be a little…beside the point? But maybe it isn’t?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I have environmentally conscious friends who refuse to use tools like ChatGPT and Claude on principle, particularly for frivolous queries like generating a vacation packing list. I have a suspicion that this might be a little…beside the point? But maybe it isn’t?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So I reached out to Meghan Busse. She’s an economist at the Kellogg School of Management. She’s NOT an expert in data centers specifically, but she is an expert on energy, climate, environmental policy and how markets affect those things.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So I reached out to Meghan Busse. She’s an economist at the Kellogg School of Management. She’s NOT an expert in data centers specifically, but she is an expert on energy, climate, environmental policy and how markets affect those things.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So I thought she’d be a great person to zoom out and really help me understand the big picture. How should I, someone who cares about the environment, be thinking about AI?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So I thought she’d be a great person to zoom out and really help me understand the big picture. How should I, someone who cares about the environment, be thinking about AI?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Meghan helped me separate the problem into two major buckets. The very real local impacts of a data center moving into your neighborhood, and the broader impacts on CO2 emissions that lead to climate change. And that second bucket is where the story gets really interesting. Because Meghan actually sees a future where demand for AI could benefit the planet. \u003cem>If\u003c/em> we stay laser-focused on the right things.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Meghan helped me separate the problem into two major buckets. The very real local impacts of a data center moving into your neighborhood, and the broader impacts on CO2 emissions that lead to climate change. And that second bucket is where the story gets really interesting. Because Meghan actually sees a future where demand for AI could benefit the planet. \u003cem>If\u003c/em> we stay laser-focused on the right things.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love, and this is Life, Automated, a show from Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, distributed by KQED. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love, and this is Life, Automated, a show from Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, distributed by KQED. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Meghan and I started our conversation discussing a recent AP NORC poll that suggested more than 70 percent of Americans are either somewhat, very, or extremely concerned about the environmental impact of AI. That’s more than the percentages concerned about the impact of air travel or meat production. I wanted to know what she made of this.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Meghan and I started our conversation discussing a recent AP NORC poll that suggested more than 70 percent of Americans are either somewhat, very, or extremely concerned about the environmental impact of AI. That’s more than the percentages concerned about the impact of air travel or meat production. I wanted to know what she made of this.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse\u003c/strong>: So on the one hand, I’m excited to have that many Americans concerned about the environmental and climate impact of anything. On the other hand, it is consistent with what I think we see in other places, which is that people sometimes have the biggest fears about the things that are either least familiar or the newest, or what I call as a technical term “scary.” And something that’s scary is something that makes a good disaster movie. It’s what makes nuclear power scary. But, coal-fired, air pollution not scary. Even though the coal-fired power pollution is much more dangerous in terms of mortality than nuclear power is. There’s the same kind of thing. I think that AI seems scary in the sense that we can imagine a great disaster movie about it when you don’t imagine a great disaster movie about the CO2 emissions that come from meat production.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse\u003c/strong>: So on the one hand, I’m excited to have that many Americans concerned about the environmental and climate impact of anything. On the other hand, it is consistent with what I think we see in other places, which is that people sometimes have the biggest fears about the things that are either least familiar or the newest, or what I call as a technical term “scary.” And something that’s scary is something that makes a good disaster movie. It’s what makes nuclear power scary. But, coal-fired, air pollution not scary. Even though the coal-fired power pollution is much more dangerous in terms of mortality than nuclear power is. There’s the same kind of thing. I think that AI seems scary in the sense that we can imagine a great disaster movie about it when you don’t imagine a great disaster movie about the CO2 emissions that come from meat production.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I don’t think Meghan’s point here is that climate fears about AI are themselves irrational. But she’s already raising a question that will run through our whole conversation: are we worried about the right things, in the right proportions?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I don’t think Meghan’s point here is that climate fears about AI are themselves irrational. But she’s already raising a question that will run through our whole conversation: are we worried about the right things, in the right proportions?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>When it comes to AI, there are big global concerns around CO2 emissions related to energy use, both in terms of the energy required to train the models, and the energy required to run them. We’ll get to those. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>When it comes to AI, there are big global concerns around CO2 emissions related to energy use, both in terms of the energy required to train the models, and the energy required to run them. We’ll get to those. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But first I wanted to talk about THE thing people are most upset about. And that is what Meghan calls “local proximity issues”: the concerns we might have when we learn a data center is moving in nearby. Which in some ways are like lots of bad neighbor issues people have had with factories in the past….but with some new twists. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But first I wanted to talk about THE thing people are most upset about. And that is what Meghan calls “local proximity issues”: the concerns we might have when we learn a data center is moving in nearby. Which in some ways are like lots of bad neighbor issues people have had with factories in the past….but with some new twists. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> There’s a sense in which the pollution, if you will, that comes from data centers is different from what we have typically thought of when we think about industrial sources. And there we are oftentimes thinking about air pollution or water pollution or things that are contaminants that can harm people’s health because they get into people’s bodies, right? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> There’s a sense in which the pollution, if you will, that comes from data centers is different from what we have typically thought of when we think about industrial sources. And there we are oftentimes thinking about air pollution or water pollution or things that are contaminants that can harm people’s health because they get into people’s bodies, right? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> And a data center is much cleaner in that sense. There isn’t smoke, right? There isn’t particulate matter that potentially people are breathing. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> And a data center is much cleaner in that sense. There isn’t smoke, right? There isn’t particulate matter that potentially people are breathing. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But people are worried, and I think with some justification, about other kinds of externality, other kinds of consequences. And one of the things that people have been increasingly talking about is the issue of noise. So you might be near a data center, and it wouldn’t be loud or clattery or things like that, but people describe sort of a hum or a buzz or a vibration- \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But people are worried, and I think with some justification, about other kinds of externality, other kinds of consequences. And one of the things that people have been increasingly talking about is the issue of noise. So you might be near a data center, and it wouldn’t be loud or clattery or things like that, but people describe sort of a hum or a buzz or a vibration- \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Ugh \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Ugh \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> …Or a thrum, that can affect people’s health, not because it bothers them that they hear it, but because it is a low-level vibration that can affect people’s bodies in ways that I’m not sure we understand really well. And part of the challenge is that to the extent that we have noise ordinances… They are to deal with things that are loud, that affect hearing, that disturb quality of life in the way that we’re used to conventionally thinking about noise.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> …Or a thrum, that can affect people’s health, not because it bothers them that they hear it, but because it is a low-level vibration that can affect people’s bodies in ways that I’m not sure we understand really well. And part of the challenge is that to the extent that we have noise ordinances… They are to deal with things that are loud, that affect hearing, that disturb quality of life in the way that we’re used to conventionally thinking about noise.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right. It’s almost like we don’t even know enough about this to be able to design the regulations and the agreements that would then satisfy the community.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right. It’s almost like we don’t even know enough about this to be able to design the regulations and the agreements that would then satisfy the community.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse\u003c/strong>: The more I read about this, the more I’m coming to believe that near people is just not a good place to put data centers. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse\u003c/strong>: The more I read about this, the more I’m coming to believe that near people is just not a good place to put data centers. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So we talked about noise. What are some of the other concerns?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So we talked about noise. What are some of the other concerns?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>There are land use kinds of questions. So there is, for example, in northern Utah, in a place called Cache Valley near Logan, there was recently a proposal for an absolutely gigantic data center that would have been just a huge presence in the land there.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>There are land use kinds of questions. So there is, for example, in northern Utah, in a place called Cache Valley near Logan, there was recently a proposal for an absolutely gigantic data center that would have been just a huge presence in the land there.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> I looked it up. The proposed hyperscale data center she is talking about would be located in Northwest Box Elder County, near Cache Valley. Its size: 40,000 acres. After a public backlash, the size of the proposed project area (that’s the area including both the facilities and the land) was reduced to 20,000 acres–a mere two-thirds the size of San Francisco. Having a neighbor that big…yeah, I can see how that could cause alarm.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> I looked it up. The proposed hyperscale data center she is talking about would be located in Northwest Box Elder County, near Cache Valley. Its size: 40,000 acres. After a public backlash, the size of the proposed project area (that’s the area including both the facilities and the land) was reduced to 20,000 acres–a mere two-thirds the size of San Francisco. Having a neighbor that big…yeah, I can see how that could cause alarm.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And then there’s the question of water. Data centers have a reputation for being real water guzzlers, mostly because they so often rely on evaporative cooling to function. In places where water is scarce, they can compete with households, farms, and other businesses, driving prices way up…or leading to shortages. And while there are some ways to make water use more efficient, these come with their own tradeoffs, like requiring a lot more energy.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And then there’s the question of water. Data centers have a reputation for being real water guzzlers, mostly because they so often rely on evaporative cooling to function. In places where water is scarce, they can compete with households, farms, and other businesses, driving prices way up…or leading to shortages. And while there are some ways to make water use more efficient, these come with their own tradeoffs, like requiring a lot more energy.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Still, as challenging as these “local proximity issues” are to deal with–Meghan says they are NOT what concerns her most about AI’s potential impact on the climate. In part because they SHOULD be solvable.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Still, as challenging as these “local proximity issues” are to deal with–Meghan says they are NOT what concerns her most about AI’s potential impact on the climate. In part because they SHOULD be solvable.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> I think that many of the proximity concerns could be solved by altering where data centers are built. There’s a lot of parts of this country that don’t have a lot of people in them, right? There are less dense, less populated places that could be chosen for data centers. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> I think that many of the proximity concerns could be solved by altering where data centers are built. There’s a lot of parts of this country that don’t have a lot of people in them, right? There are less dense, less populated places that could be chosen for data centers. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> But why aren’t they?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> But why aren’t they?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> Well, it’s not as convenient.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> Well, it’s not as convenient.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> It’ll cost more money.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> It’ll cost more money.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> I don’t know if the land will cost more money but it’s not as easily connected. It’s not necessarily where the eventual employees that you wanna have running the data center or interacting with the data center are most easily located.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> I don’t know if the land will cost more money but it’s not as easily connected. It’s not necessarily where the eventual employees that you wanna have running the data center or interacting with the data center are most easily located.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: So I can see why people are so angry about having a data center as a next-door neighbor.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: So I can see why people are so angry about having a data center as a next-door neighbor.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But what makes data centers bad neighbors is not necessarily what makes them so bad for the climate overall. What Meghan Busse–a researcher who studies climate policy–is most concerned about … is energy.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But what makes data centers bad neighbors is not necessarily what makes them so bad for the climate overall. What Meghan Busse–a researcher who studies climate policy–is most concerned about … is energy.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> So I think that the electricity use might be the thing that is most distinctive about AI. And the reason for this is that electricity use in the US and the EU and these sort of high income developed countries, was increasing pretty steadily along with population and GDP from post World War II until about 2000. And then it flattened out. And this isn’t because people didn’t want to use electricity for things. It’s because the devices that they used for electricity became more energy efficient. So we could get more of what economists call energy services without needing as much electricity. But what that meant is that, for about 20 years, there wasn’t a lot of need to greatly expand or to really expand very much at all.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> So I think that the electricity use might be the thing that is most distinctive about AI. And the reason for this is that electricity use in the US and the EU and these sort of high income developed countries, was increasing pretty steadily along with population and GDP from post World War II until about 2000. And then it flattened out. And this isn’t because people didn’t want to use electricity for things. It’s because the devices that they used for electricity became more energy efficient. So we could get more of what economists call energy services without needing as much electricity. But what that meant is that, for about 20 years, there wasn’t a lot of need to greatly expand or to really expand very much at all.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Electricity transmission, electricity distribution, the total amount of electricity generation that we could do. And then all of a sudden along comes AI which is really pretty energy intensive… electricity demand, and it’s coming at the same time that there’s an increase in vehicle electrification and an increase of automation and manufacturing. And it’s putting a real strain on the ability of electricity systems to meet that. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Electricity transmission, electricity distribution, the total amount of electricity generation that we could do. And then all of a sudden along comes AI which is really pretty energy intensive… electricity demand, and it’s coming at the same time that there’s an increase in vehicle electrification and an increase of automation and manufacturing. And it’s putting a real strain on the ability of electricity systems to meet that. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: So. Here in the U.S., we have a couple decades where the overall amount of electricity we need to generate basically stays flat. Electricity goes into a lot more THINGS, but all those THINGS get more efficient at about the same rate. That’s two decades of not a lot of pressure to build new power plants. And then…BAM.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: So. Here in the U.S., we have a couple decades where the overall amount of electricity we need to generate basically stays flat. Electricity goes into a lot more THINGS, but all those THINGS get more efficient at about the same rate. That’s two decades of not a lot of pressure to build new power plants. And then…BAM.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And the timing of this new strain on the electrical grid is relevant because there’s been another trend at play.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And the timing of this new strain on the electrical grid is relevant because there’s been another trend at play.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>Over the last decade or 15 years, the cost of generating electricity with renewable sources, with wind and solar has fallen dramatically. So over the course of about 10 years, the cost of generating electricity with solar went down to about a tenth of what it was, and the cost of generating electricity with wind had gone down to about a third of what it was.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>Over the last decade or 15 years, the cost of generating electricity with renewable sources, with wind and solar has fallen dramatically. So over the course of about 10 years, the cost of generating electricity with solar went down to about a tenth of what it was, and the cost of generating electricity with wind had gone down to about a third of what it was.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> That’s a tenth. That means if it used to cost a dollar, it costs 10 cents.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> That’s a tenth. That means if it used to cost a dollar, it costs 10 cents.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> That is right. It’s a phenomenal reduction. It’s a phenomenal achievement for the climate. It might be the single best event to happen for the climate in the last 10 or 15 years. It’s just phenomenal. And it is so phenomenal that what was happening is that basically electricity generators all over the country and also in many places in the world, were in a process of transition, in a process of retiring coal-fired power plants and replacing them with solar and wind – not because they were greener, but because they were actually cheaper.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> That is right. It’s a phenomenal reduction. It’s a phenomenal achievement for the climate. It might be the single best event to happen for the climate in the last 10 or 15 years. It’s just phenomenal. And it is so phenomenal that what was happening is that basically electricity generators all over the country and also in many places in the world, were in a process of transition, in a process of retiring coal-fired power plants and replacing them with solar and wind – not because they were greener, but because they were actually cheaper.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: Thanks to just how much the economics here have changed, nearly all new electricity generators planned for the future in North America were renewables, with a bit of natural gas, but basically NO coal. This was going to be a huge win for the planet. Even better, coal plants were actively being PHASED OUT. If you cared about CO2 emissions, this was very good news. Everything was headed in the right direction.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: Thanks to just how much the economics here have changed, nearly all new electricity generators planned for the future in North America were renewables, with a bit of natural gas, but basically NO coal. This was going to be a huge win for the planet. Even better, coal plants were actively being PHASED OUT. If you cared about CO2 emissions, this was very good news. Everything was headed in the right direction.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Then, out of nowhere, for the first time in forever, demand skyrockets. All those plans…\u003cem>poof\u003c/em>!\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Then, out of nowhere, for the first time in forever, demand skyrockets. All those plans…\u003cem>poof\u003c/em>!\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Because these data centers – they don’t just need a ton of energy. They need it fast.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Because these data centers – they don’t just need a ton of energy. They need it fast.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>If you’re an AI company, you want to get your new data centers up and running as quickly as possible. You feel like you’re in a race: to create the best models, to capture the market. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>If you’re an AI company, you want to get your new data centers up and running as quickly as possible. You feel like you’re in a race: to create the best models, to capture the market. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Sure, in the long run, over 20 or 25 years, solar and wind are cheaper. But if you need power NOW, keeping an aging coal plant running a few more years is going to be pretty tempting. And that smooth march toward cleaner power just got a lot choppier.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Sure, in the long run, over 20 or 25 years, solar and wind are cheaper. But if you need power NOW, keeping an aging coal plant running a few more years is going to be pretty tempting. And that smooth march toward cleaner power just got a lot choppier.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Coming up: the SHORT-run danger to the climate is that AI keeps fossil fuels around longer. But in the long run? Well, the jury is still out. Economist Meghan Busse offers up a scenario where the AI data center boom could actually benefit the planet. That’s after the break.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Coming up: the SHORT-run danger to the climate is that AI keeps fossil fuels around longer. But in the long run? Well, the jury is still out. Economist Meghan Busse offers up a scenario where the AI data center boom could actually benefit the planet. That’s after the break.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[ad break]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[ad break]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So I wanna turn now to the future. I think you’re completely right that there is this sense that, you know, we’re straining under today’s demand and everybody is telling us AI is going to be so many times bigger in a couple of years. What the heck happens? How are we gonna keep up? And how does this not like, destroy the planet? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So I wanna turn now to the future. I think you’re completely right that there is this sense that, you know, we’re straining under today’s demand and everybody is telling us AI is going to be so many times bigger in a couple of years. What the heck happens? How are we gonna keep up? And how does this not like, destroy the planet? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>So if we take the long run view of the climate, many climate scholars would tell you a key component of decarbonization is to electrify as much as we can. And the reason is because we have really good ways of producing electricity without producing carbon. So solar and wind are two of them that we’ve talked about.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>So if we take the long run view of the climate, many climate scholars would tell you a key component of decarbonization is to electrify as much as we can. And the reason is because we have really good ways of producing electricity without producing carbon. So solar and wind are two of them that we’ve talked about.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But nuclear energy also has the potential to produce a lot of electricity in a decarbonized way. And there’s other possibilities also out there. Things like geothermal that, you know, people are experimenting with and hoping will come up to scale. But, there are, you know, like I say, wind and solar that we already have, nuclear that we also have already, although we need to re-remember how to build it at low cost.\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But nuclear energy also has the potential to produce a lot of electricity in a decarbonized way. And there’s other possibilities also out there. Things like geothermal that, you know, people are experimenting with and hoping will come up to scale. But, there are, you know, like I say, wind and solar that we already have, nuclear that we also have already, although we need to re-remember how to build it at low cost.\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess\u003c/strong>\u003cstrong> Love:\u003c/strong> Just jumping in here to say, if you’re over 40, and you care about the environment, you might remember a time when environmentalists were dead set against nuclear power. There was that deadly catastrophic meltdown at Chernobyl in 1986, and a scary miss at Three Mile Island a few years earlier. Environmentalists were also concerned about the huge challenge of storing toxic nuclear waste for thousands of years.\u003cbr>\u003cbr>But in the last forty years, many scientists agree that nuclear power and storage have gotten much safer and less unwieldy. And some environmentalists now feel that the benefits of nuclear power–like not spewing carbon into the atmosphere–well outweigh the risks. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess\u003c/strong>\u003cstrong> Love:\u003c/strong> Just jumping in here to say, if you’re over 40, and you care about the environment, you might remember a time when environmentalists were dead set against nuclear power. There was that deadly catastrophic meltdown at Chernobyl in 1986, and a scary miss at Three Mile Island a few years earlier. Environmentalists were also concerned about the huge challenge of storing toxic nuclear waste for thousands of years.\u003cbr>\u003cbr>But in the last forty years, many scientists agree that nuclear power and storage have gotten much safer and less unwieldy. And some environmentalists now feel that the benefits of nuclear power–like not spewing carbon into the atmosphere–well outweigh the risks. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse\u003c/strong>: And there’s other kinds of technologies, like carbon capture that might allow us to burn fossil fuels and still capture the carbon and have it be decarbonized. So we’ve got some really great potential for being able to produce decarbonized electricity.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse\u003c/strong>: And there’s other kinds of technologies, like carbon capture that might allow us to burn fossil fuels and still capture the carbon and have it be decarbonized. So we’ve got some really great potential for being able to produce decarbonized electricity.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And so what that means is that in the long run, I’m not that concerned from a climate perspective about anything that uses electricity. So if there were a new technology to come about that needs a lot more energy and you told me “guess what the energy it needs is electricity”, then I kind of heave a sigh of relief as opposed to saying what we’re gonna need in the future is a lot more steel or what we’re gonna need in the future is a lot more cement. Or what we’re gonna need in the future is a lot more air travel because those are things we don’t yet know how to decarbonize very well or at very low cost. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And so what that means is that in the long run, I’m not that concerned from a climate perspective about anything that uses electricity. So if there were a new technology to come about that needs a lot more energy and you told me “guess what the energy it needs is electricity”, then I kind of heave a sigh of relief as opposed to saying what we’re gonna need in the future is a lot more steel or what we’re gonna need in the future is a lot more cement. Or what we’re gonna need in the future is a lot more air travel because those are things we don’t yet know how to decarbonize very well or at very low cost. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay. So in the long run, because it can be electrified and because we know that there are renewable ways of getting electricity, less concern. How long is the long run? And I guess how much damage is done along the way?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay. So in the long run, because it can be electrified and because we know that there are renewable ways of getting electricity, less concern. How long is the long run? And I guess how much damage is done along the way?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> It’s a really great question because some of the answer to how long is the long run depends on how we respond in the short run. If the way we respond to the intense increase in demand is the short run, is building new fossil fuel electricity generation, like building new gas plants, those plants have a long life, 20 or 30 years. Things that exist tend to get used. And so if we respond to the short run pressure by making investments in new fossil fuel generation, then that’s gonna push that long run of decarbonization off farther, and so, for the climate, the best news scenario in some ways would be if builders of AI and data centers decided, well, wait a minute, the most reliable and fastest way for us to have the electricity we need is in some sense to be self-sufficient in a green way, to build a data center, to build accompanying, solar or wind generation, to build a battery facility that will help make sure that that power is available to us throughout the day.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> It’s a really great question because some of the answer to how long is the long run depends on how we respond in the short run. If the way we respond to the intense increase in demand is the short run, is building new fossil fuel electricity generation, like building new gas plants, those plants have a long life, 20 or 30 years. Things that exist tend to get used. And so if we respond to the short run pressure by making investments in new fossil fuel generation, then that’s gonna push that long run of decarbonization off farther, and so, for the climate, the best news scenario in some ways would be if builders of AI and data centers decided, well, wait a minute, the most reliable and fastest way for us to have the electricity we need is in some sense to be self-sufficient in a green way, to build a data center, to build accompanying, solar or wind generation, to build a battery facility that will help make sure that that power is available to us throughout the day.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, and some of this is happening, so I just read, Google is making plans to purchase Intersect, which is a wind and solar company bringing energy generation in house and almost kind of treating it as a competitive advantage.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, and some of this is happening, so I just read, Google is making plans to purchase Intersect, which is a wind and solar company bringing energy generation in house and almost kind of treating it as a competitive advantage.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. And Microsoft recently made an agreement to reopen one of the reactors at Three Mile Island. Again to do essentially self-supply with nuclear energy. So to the extent that the response to this is self-supply with some kind of green energy, that is number one, good for the climate, but potentially also good for, accelerating storage technologies, for accelerating our relearning how to build nuclear in a competitive way. Those would be the best case scenarios.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. And Microsoft recently made an agreement to reopen one of the reactors at Three Mile Island. Again to do essentially self-supply with nuclear energy. So to the extent that the response to this is self-supply with some kind of green energy, that is number one, good for the climate, but potentially also good for, accelerating storage technologies, for accelerating our relearning how to build nuclear in a competitive way. Those would be the best case scenarios.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Accelerating because it’s really kind of like, forcing people to innovate and act very quickly to do the kinds of things that they might otherwise do gradually over the course of 10, 20 years.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Accelerating because it’s really kind of like, forcing people to innovate and act very quickly to do the kinds of things that they might otherwise do gradually over the course of 10, 20 years.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>And what drives down costs in many, many technologies is, increasing the scale of demand, basically increasing the size of the market. When you go from, here’s a technology we have thought of to one we have tested in the lab and demonstrated to one that we have done pilot projects of and works, there is this important phase between that and sort of a large scale deployment, which is increasing the scale of production enough that costs fall. And I totally believe it’s something we’ll get better at as we do it more.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>And what drives down costs in many, many technologies is, increasing the scale of demand, basically increasing the size of the market. When you go from, here’s a technology we have thought of to one we have tested in the lab and demonstrated to one that we have done pilot projects of and works, there is this important phase between that and sort of a large scale deployment, which is increasing the scale of production enough that costs fall. And I totally believe it’s something we’ll get better at as we do it more.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and I think that’s a really, really interesting point. Like there is a world in which we can harness all of this demand and all of this excitement for AI and actually leave the climate in a better place than it would’ve otherwise been.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and I think that’s a really, really interesting point. Like there is a world in which we can harness all of this demand and all of this excitement for AI and actually leave the climate in a better place than it would’ve otherwise been.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> And I, you know, and I’m not saying this is guaranteed, I’m not saying that this is obviously what’s gonna happen, but it like, there is a path and it actually has the potential to accelerate you know, green energy and decarbonisation in ways it would be really positive for the climate. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> And I, you know, and I’m not saying this is guaranteed, I’m not saying that this is obviously what’s gonna happen, but it like, there is a path and it actually has the potential to accelerate you know, green energy and decarbonisation in ways it would be really positive for the climate. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[musical interlude]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[musical interlude]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong> Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So, Meghan does see a future where demand for AI helps to accelerate deployment of low-cost green energy. But that’s not the only optimistic claim people make about AI and the climate.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong> Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So, Meghan does see a future where demand for AI helps to accelerate deployment of low-cost green energy. But that’s not the only optimistic claim people make about AI and the climate.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Okay. So I wanna do a kind of nerdy lightning round with you. So I’m gonna share some other ways that AI might impact the climate in a positive way. And, we’ll say zero is like, that is all just hand-wavy gobbledygook, and five is like, yeah, actually there could really be something there. Okay, you ready? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Okay. So I wanna do a kind of nerdy lightning round with you. So I’m gonna share some other ways that AI might impact the climate in a positive way. And, we’ll say zero is like, that is all just hand-wavy gobbledygook, and five is like, yeah, actually there could really be something there. Okay, you ready? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>Ready. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>Ready. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> ‘Optimization of the energy grid.’ \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> ‘Optimization of the energy grid.’ \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> I’ll give that a four.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> I’ll give that a four.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: It’s pretty good.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: It’s pretty good.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> I’ll give it a four because it is the sort of thing that AI can do. Right. There’s already predictive maintenance being done and AI being applied to in a lot of different, manufacturing and other kinds of things. That said, it’s actually not the most important thing, I think, in the optimization of our energy system. We just need way more transmission in way more places to accommodate renewables generated in places where we historically have not had electricity generation like the Southwest. And just greater supply and greater flexibility. So I’ll give it a four ’cause AI can do it, but it’s actually not the most important thing you could do if you wanted to improve the electricity transmission grid.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> I’ll give it a four because it is the sort of thing that AI can do. Right. There’s already predictive maintenance being done and AI being applied to in a lot of different, manufacturing and other kinds of things. That said, it’s actually not the most important thing, I think, in the optimization of our energy system. We just need way more transmission in way more places to accommodate renewables generated in places where we historically have not had electricity generation like the Southwest. And just greater supply and greater flexibility. So I’ll give it a four ’cause AI can do it, but it’s actually not the most important thing you could do if you wanted to improve the electricity transmission grid.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: That was very thorough.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: That was very thorough.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>Not very lightning, but very thorough.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>Not very lightning, but very thorough.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: Very thorough. ‘Better climate modeling.’\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: Very thorough. ‘Better climate modeling.’\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> There’s a sense in which I don’t know whether you really want AI climate models. In the sense that part of the trick about AI is that it’s a bit of a black box. Climate models are basically systems of equations. Systems of equations that capture relationships we know about heat and temperature and weather and ocean currents, and then how those translate into economic consequences. Part of the value of climate models is that we know what assumptions we have put in and we can alter those assumptions in ways that allow us to see if this were different, how would that matter for our climate predictions? I’m not sure that sort of turning that over to the more black box nature of AI is gonna improve our confidence. So I’ll give that a one.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> There’s a sense in which I don’t know whether you really want AI climate models. In the sense that part of the trick about AI is that it’s a bit of a black box. Climate models are basically systems of equations. Systems of equations that capture relationships we know about heat and temperature and weather and ocean currents, and then how those translate into economic consequences. Part of the value of climate models is that we know what assumptions we have put in and we can alter those assumptions in ways that allow us to see if this were different, how would that matter for our climate predictions? I’m not sure that sort of turning that over to the more black box nature of AI is gonna improve our confidence. So I’ll give that a one.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> ‘Discovery of more energy efficient materials.’\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> ‘Discovery of more energy efficient materials.’\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> That’s a great question. So there are absolutely applications in which materials matter – Battery chemistry, for example, is one that a lot of people are pushing on. So I’ll give that a three.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> That’s a great question. So there are absolutely applications in which materials matter – Battery chemistry, for example, is one that a lot of people are pushing on. So I’ll give that a three.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: ‘\u003c/strong>Precision agriculture’, which is this idea that with the right sensors and models, we could give crops exactly what they need when they need it, improving yield, reducing waste.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: ‘\u003c/strong>Precision agriculture’, which is this idea that with the right sensors and models, we could give crops exactly what they need when they need it, improving yield, reducing waste.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> So I’m gonna give that a one, not because I don’t think AI can do it, but because, doing it more efficiently or more precisely doesn’t do a lot for decarbonization if we’re using the same techniques, in terms of fertilizer, in terms of planting, in terms of those kinds of things. So I think in order to make a big difference in agricultural emissions, we’re gonna need something other than, sort of more precisely, implementing the technologies that we have. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> So I’m gonna give that a one, not because I don’t think AI can do it, but because, doing it more efficiently or more precisely doesn’t do a lot for decarbonization if we’re using the same techniques, in terms of fertilizer, in terms of planting, in terms of those kinds of things. So I think in order to make a big difference in agricultural emissions, we’re gonna need something other than, sort of more precisely, implementing the technologies that we have. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Ok, so Meghan doesn’t see a lot of potential in some of these super optimistic “AI will just create new things that help!” scenarios. But she does see the potential for AI to fuel a clean-energy tech boom. At least…in the future. But how can people like \u003cem>me\u003c/em> make a difference TODAY? SHOULD I feel guilty asking ChatGPT for that packing list?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Ok, so Meghan doesn’t see a lot of potential in some of these super optimistic “AI will just create new things that help!” scenarios. But she does see the potential for AI to fuel a clean-energy tech boom. At least…in the future. But how can people like \u003cem>me\u003c/em> make a difference TODAY? SHOULD I feel guilty asking ChatGPT for that packing list?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> So, one of the things, as I teach classes about climate, and as I talk to audiences about climate, I oftentimes get questions about, what can I do that matters?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> So, one of the things, as I teach classes about climate, and as I talk to audiences about climate, I oftentimes get questions about, what can I do that matters?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I don’t think people always have a very good idea of what are the first order things, like what are the big levers they have in their hand, and what are the small levers that they have in their hand? If you ask me, I would tell you that generating a packing list on ChatGPT for your vacation is not a very big climate lever. In fact, it’s a much bigger climate lever how far away you are going on your vacation and how are you going to get there? If you’re taking an airplane, the climate impact of your airplane trip is many, many, many, many, many ChatGPT queries. So I think part of the reason people have fixated on ChatGPT queries as something that is part of their climate virtual signaling, is that it seems like an easy thing to do or not do as opposed to deciding not to drive to work or not to have a furnace in my house, or…\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I don’t think people always have a very good idea of what are the first order things, like what are the big levers they have in their hand, and what are the small levers that they have in their hand? If you ask me, I would tell you that generating a packing list on ChatGPT for your vacation is not a very big climate lever. In fact, it’s a much bigger climate lever how far away you are going on your vacation and how are you going to get there? If you’re taking an airplane, the climate impact of your airplane trip is many, many, many, many, many ChatGPT queries. So I think part of the reason people have fixated on ChatGPT queries as something that is part of their climate virtual signaling, is that it seems like an easy thing to do or not do as opposed to deciding not to drive to work or not to have a furnace in my house, or…\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> – not to go on vacation.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> – not to go on vacation.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> Not to go on vacation. And so we sometimes get fixated on the things that seem like, well, that just seems like an excessive choice that you are making. But if you wanna know the things that really matter, the things that really matter have to do with your more direct use of fossil fuels. Think about how you set your thermostat. Think about what you drive and where you drive. Think about where you choose to fly. Think about what you eat – Beef is especially carbon intensive. So if people are asking me, what is a marginal choice I could make in my life that would make a difference, using ChatGPT would not be at the top of my list. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> Not to go on vacation. And so we sometimes get fixated on the things that seem like, well, that just seems like an excessive choice that you are making. But if you wanna know the things that really matter, the things that really matter have to do with your more direct use of fossil fuels. Think about how you set your thermostat. Think about what you drive and where you drive. Think about where you choose to fly. Think about what you eat – Beef is especially carbon intensive. So if people are asking me, what is a marginal choice I could make in my life that would make a difference, using ChatGPT would not be at the top of my list. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Well, what about…joining some sort of collective action effort–like the protests we’re seeing against data centers? That strategy seems to have more potential, at least for those local issues. Because all data centers are not created equal, and being able to shape the kind of neighbor you have, and where it situates itself – that feels big.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Well, what about…joining some sort of collective action effort–like the protests we’re seeing against data centers? That strategy seems to have more potential, at least for those local issues. Because all data centers are not created equal, and being able to shape the kind of neighbor you have, and where it situates itself – that feels big.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Are communities able to get some concessions from these companies that allow the data centers to sort of be built, you know, somewhere in the proximity, but in ways that don’t impact people’s quality of life as much?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Are communities able to get some concessions from these companies that allow the data centers to sort of be built, you know, somewhere in the proximity, but in ways that don’t impact people’s quality of life as much?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> So I think there’s actually a ton of heterogeneity as you go from place to place. I mean, it’s very different if you have something that is federally regulated, something like, you know, pharmaceuticals or those kinds of things, right? The process might be slow, but once a decision gets made for something that’s federally regulated, then that’s the decision, right?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> So I think there’s actually a ton of heterogeneity as you go from place to place. I mean, it’s very different if you have something that is federally regulated, something like, you know, pharmaceuticals or those kinds of things, right? The process might be slow, but once a decision gets made for something that’s federally regulated, then that’s the decision, right?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And when you have something that, that it’s gonna be sort of a location and state by state, it’s just gonna be a lot noisier, it’s gonna be a lot less predictable, and I think that, what’s gonna turn out to be a successful strategy for communities to employ is gonna depend a lot on the particular location where they are.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And when you have something that, that it’s gonna be sort of a location and state by state, it’s just gonna be a lot noisier, it’s gonna be a lot less predictable, and I think that, what’s gonna turn out to be a successful strategy for communities to employ is gonna depend a lot on the particular location where they are.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And perhaps what they want to get out of it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And perhaps what they want to get out of it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> And perhaps what they wanna get out of it, which may not be the same place to place.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> And perhaps what they wanna get out of it, which may not be the same place to place.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: Yeah, I mean, could this be a good thing, where communities, you know, depending on the tools they have available to them, can sort of look at the situation and in a bespoke way try to come to an agreement that is going to be as much of a win-win as possible?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: Yeah, I mean, could this be a good thing, where communities, you know, depending on the tools they have available to them, can sort of look at the situation and in a bespoke way try to come to an agreement that is going to be as much of a win-win as possible?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>I hope so.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>I hope so.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[music bump]\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[music bump]\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> It’s clear that local opposition to data centers can have an impact. Meghan sent me a newspaper article involving a powerful Utah State Senator. He served as chairman of the agency that approved that giant data center we talked about earlier, the one that was downsized to a mere 20,000 acres. And…he recently lost his Republican primary bid, in what the article called, “one of the most high-profile signs of the voter backlash to data center projects.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> It’s clear that local opposition to data centers can have an impact. Meghan sent me a newspaper article involving a powerful Utah State Senator. He served as chairman of the agency that approved that giant data center we talked about earlier, the one that was downsized to a mere 20,000 acres. And…he recently lost his Republican primary bid, in what the article called, “one of the most high-profile signs of the voter backlash to data center projects.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Which brings us to the final thing that individuals can do–something that works for these local issues and for the climate more broadly.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Which brings us to the final thing that individuals can do–something that works for these local issues and for the climate more broadly.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> If you care about having an individual impact, by far the most impactful thing you can do is how you vote.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> If you care about having an individual impact, by far the most impactful thing you can do is how you vote.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> There you go.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> There you go.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> And that’s because so many of the changes you need are not about our individual consumption or our individual behavior. It’s about the \u003cem>systems\u003c/em> of how we generate energy. The systems of how we use energy, what we use energy for. The things that are really, really hard for individuals to influence with their choices. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> And that’s because so many of the changes you need are not about our individual consumption or our individual behavior. It’s about the \u003cem>systems\u003c/em> of how we generate energy. The systems of how we use energy, what we use energy for. The things that are really, really hard for individuals to influence with their choices. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So in some sense, I don’t care very much about whether you use ChatGPT, I don’t care very much about whether you eat beef or not. I don’t even care about where you fly on vacation as long as you vote. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So in some sense, I don’t care very much about whether you use ChatGPT, I don’t care very much about whether you eat beef or not. I don’t even care about where you fly on vacation as long as you vote. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So you teach the next generation of CEOs, C-Suite Executives, and you have children of your own. What advice do you have for young people right now?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So you teach the next generation of CEOs, C-Suite Executives, and you have children of your own. What advice do you have for young people right now?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> The advice that I have for young people now is that while it seems, like on the political front, it might seem like things are discouraging on the technology and economic front, there’s huge potential.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> The advice that I have for young people now is that while it seems, like on the political front, it might seem like things are discouraging on the technology and economic front, there’s huge potential.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>We can \u003cem>absolutely\u003c/em> decarbonize, we can \u003cem>absolutely\u003c/em> avoid the worst effects of climate change. We have many of the technologies and I totally believe that we can invent the technologies that we still need. It is absolutely within our power if we choose to do it. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>We can \u003cem>absolutely\u003c/em> decarbonize, we can \u003cem>absolutely\u003c/em> avoid the worst effects of climate change. We have many of the technologies and I totally believe that we can invent the technologies that we still need. It is absolutely within our power if we choose to do it. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So. In the long run, how will AI impact the climate? It depends. But after my conversation with Meghan, I’m thinking: it doesn’t depend that much on the AI itself. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So. In the long run, how will AI impact the climate? It depends. But after my conversation with Meghan, I’m thinking: it doesn’t depend that much on the AI itself. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>It depends more on what we do with demand for the technology. Where and how companies build out their data centers and especially how they choose to power them. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>It depends more on what we do with demand for the technology. Where and how companies build out their data centers and especially how they choose to power them. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Are we going to live in a world where demand pushes back our transition to clean energy, locking us into fossil fuels for decades? We’re seeing some of that world right now. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Are we going to live in a world where demand pushes back our transition to clean energy, locking us into fossil fuels for decades? We’re seeing some of that world right now. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But we can also choose a world where this explosion of demand hastens our transition to clean energy. And we’re also seeing some of that right now.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But we can also choose a world where this explosion of demand hastens our transition to clean energy. And we’re also seeing some of that right now.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>The politics of clean energy can look grim…But as long as clean-energy technologies keep getting cheaper and easier to scale, the optimistic scenario is still on the table.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>The politics of clean energy can look grim…But as long as clean-energy technologies keep getting cheaper and easier to scale, the optimistic scenario is still on the table.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This is Life Automated, a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. Distributed by KQED. I’m Jess Love. Special thanks to today’s guest, Meghan Busse, an economist and associate professor at the Kellogg School of Management.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This is Life Automated, a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. Distributed by KQED. I’m Jess Love. Special thanks to today’s guest, Meghan Busse, an economist and associate professor at the Kellogg School of Management.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>We’re produced by Jesse Dukes. Music by Steven Jackson. Recording by George Christensen and Will Feeney. Support and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>We’re produced by Jesse Dukes. Music by Steven Jackson. Recording by George Christensen and Will Feeney. Support and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>END\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>END\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad",
"attrs": {
"format": "floatright"
},
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "",
"innerContent": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
}
],
"excerpt": null,
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1784849566,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 120,
"wordCount": 5584
},
"headData": {
"title": "Does AI Have to Be Bad News for the Planet? (with Meghan Busse) | KQED",
"description": "Are you hurting the planet every time you query a chatbot? Economist Meghan Busse suggests that may be the wrong question. In this episode, we zoom out from the usual concerns about frivolous queries (and, for that matter, resource‑hungry data centers) to ask an even more basic question: is intense demand for AI locking us into decades of additional fossil fuel use, or is it accelerating investment in clean energy? Busse helps us sort real climate levers from symbolic ones, and explains why AI’s ultimate impact on the planet will likely come down to how we build and power it.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"socialDescription": "Are you hurting the planet every time you query a chatbot? Economist Meghan Busse suggests that may be the wrong question. In this episode, we zoom out from the usual concerns about frivolous queries (and, for that matter, resource‑hungry data centers) to ask an even more basic question: is intense demand for AI locking us into decades of additional fossil fuel use, or is it accelerating investment in clean energy? Busse helps us sort real climate levers from symbolic ones, and explains why AI’s ultimate impact on the planet will likely come down to how we build and power it.",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Does AI Have to Be Bad News for the Planet? (with Meghan Busse)",
"datePublished": "2026-07-22T03:00:00-07:00",
"dateModified": "2026-07-23T16:32:46-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 248,
"slug": "technology",
"name": "Technology"
},
"audioUrl": "https://traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC3980788469.mp3",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12092008",
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12092008/does-ai-have-to-be-bad-news-for-the-planet-with-meghan-busse-2",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#transcript\">View Full Episode Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Are you hurting the planet every time you query a chatbot? \u003ca href=\"https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/academics-research/faculty/busse_meghan/\">Economist Meghan Busse\u003c/a> suggests that may be the wrong question. In this episode, we zoom out from the usual concerns about frivolous queries (and, for that matter, resource‑hungry data centers) to ask an even more basic question: is intense demand for AI locking us into decades of additional fossil fuel use, or is it accelerating investment in clean energy? Busse helps us sort real climate levers from symbolic ones, and explains why AI’s ultimate impact on the planet will likely come down to how we build and power it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Further Reading: \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://apnorc.org/projects/epic-climate-change-2025/?doing_wp_cron=1784231367.3495659828186035156250\">Public attitudes toward climate policy, technology, and the environment\u003c/a> — AP-NORC\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/24/us/j-stuart-adams-utah-senate-data-center.html\">Utah Senate President Loses Primary After Data Center Backlash\u003c/a> — Jack Healy, \u003cem>New York Times\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> This is Life, Automated, the show where we explore how technologies like AI are changing how we live, work, and make decisions.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This episode, we dive into one of the biggest anxieties around AI. What it’s doing to the environment.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[News footage from people protesting data centers…]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You see this anxiety most dramatically in the protests against data centers. It wasn’t that long ago that just a handful of people might show up at town halls to object to a project. These days, communities are getting more organized… and they’re increasingly calling for moratoriums on data center construction. That’s state and local freezes, basically. They’re citing worries about water, noise, pollution, land, and strain on the electrical grid.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[News footage from people protesting data centers…]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I wanted to understand something more basic. Just how bad is AI for the planet? Particularly compared to all the other things we do to the planet? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And what should \u003cem>I \u003c/em>actually do about it? Like me, personally, as an individual.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I have environmentally conscious friends who refuse to use tools like ChatGPT and Claude on principle, particularly for frivolous queries like generating a vacation packing list. I have a suspicion that this might be a little…beside the point? But maybe it isn’t?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I reached out to Meghan Busse. She’s an economist at the Kellogg School of Management. She’s NOT an expert in data centers specifically, but she is an expert on energy, climate, environmental policy and how markets affect those things.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I thought she’d be a great person to zoom out and really help me understand the big picture. How should I, someone who cares about the environment, be thinking about AI?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Meghan helped me separate the problem into two major buckets. The very real local impacts of a data center moving into your neighborhood, and the broader impacts on CO2 emissions that lead to climate change. And that second bucket is where the story gets really interesting. Because Meghan actually sees a future where demand for AI could benefit the planet. \u003cem>If\u003c/em> we stay laser-focused on the right things.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love, and this is Life, Automated, a show from Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, distributed by KQED. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Meghan and I started our conversation discussing a recent AP NORC poll that suggested more than 70 percent of Americans are either somewhat, very, or extremely concerned about the environmental impact of AI. That’s more than the percentages concerned about the impact of air travel or meat production. I wanted to know what she made of this.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse\u003c/strong>: So on the one hand, I’m excited to have that many Americans concerned about the environmental and climate impact of anything. On the other hand, it is consistent with what I think we see in other places, which is that people sometimes have the biggest fears about the things that are either least familiar or the newest, or what I call as a technical term “scary.” And something that’s scary is something that makes a good disaster movie. It’s what makes nuclear power scary. But, coal-fired, air pollution not scary. Even though the coal-fired power pollution is much more dangerous in terms of mortality than nuclear power is. There’s the same kind of thing. I think that AI seems scary in the sense that we can imagine a great disaster movie about it when you don’t imagine a great disaster movie about the CO2 emissions that come from meat production.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>I don’t think Meghan’s point here is that climate fears about AI are themselves irrational. But she’s already raising a question that will run through our whole conversation: are we worried about the right things, in the right proportions?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>When it comes to AI, there are big global concerns around CO2 emissions related to energy use, both in terms of the energy required to train the models, and the energy required to run them. We’ll get to those. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But first I wanted to talk about THE thing people are most upset about. And that is what Meghan calls “local proximity issues”: the concerns we might have when we learn a data center is moving in nearby. Which in some ways are like lots of bad neighbor issues people have had with factories in the past….but with some new twists. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> There’s a sense in which the pollution, if you will, that comes from data centers is different from what we have typically thought of when we think about industrial sources. And there we are oftentimes thinking about air pollution or water pollution or things that are contaminants that can harm people’s health because they get into people’s bodies, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> And a data center is much cleaner in that sense. There isn’t smoke, right? There isn’t particulate matter that potentially people are breathing. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But people are worried, and I think with some justification, about other kinds of externality, other kinds of consequences. And one of the things that people have been increasingly talking about is the issue of noise. So you might be near a data center, and it wouldn’t be loud or clattery or things like that, but people describe sort of a hum or a buzz or a vibration- \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Ugh \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> …Or a thrum, that can affect people’s health, not because it bothers them that they hear it, but because it is a low-level vibration that can affect people’s bodies in ways that I’m not sure we understand really well. And part of the challenge is that to the extent that we have noise ordinances… They are to deal with things that are loud, that affect hearing, that disturb quality of life in the way that we’re used to conventionally thinking about noise.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right. It’s almost like we don’t even know enough about this to be able to design the regulations and the agreements that would then satisfy the community.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse\u003c/strong>: The more I read about this, the more I’m coming to believe that near people is just not a good place to put data centers. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So we talked about noise. What are some of the other concerns?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>There are land use kinds of questions. So there is, for example, in northern Utah, in a place called Cache Valley near Logan, there was recently a proposal for an absolutely gigantic data center that would have been just a huge presence in the land there.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> I looked it up. The proposed hyperscale data center she is talking about would be located in Northwest Box Elder County, near Cache Valley. Its size: 40,000 acres. After a public backlash, the size of the proposed project area (that’s the area including both the facilities and the land) was reduced to 20,000 acres–a mere two-thirds the size of San Francisco. Having a neighbor that big…yeah, I can see how that could cause alarm.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And then there’s the question of water. Data centers have a reputation for being real water guzzlers, mostly because they so often rely on evaporative cooling to function. In places where water is scarce, they can compete with households, farms, and other businesses, driving prices way up…or leading to shortages. And while there are some ways to make water use more efficient, these come with their own tradeoffs, like requiring a lot more energy.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Still, as challenging as these “local proximity issues” are to deal with–Meghan says they are NOT what concerns her most about AI’s potential impact on the climate. In part because they SHOULD be solvable.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> I think that many of the proximity concerns could be solved by altering where data centers are built. There’s a lot of parts of this country that don’t have a lot of people in them, right? There are less dense, less populated places that could be chosen for data centers. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> But why aren’t they?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> Well, it’s not as convenient.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> It’ll cost more money.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> I don’t know if the land will cost more money but it’s not as easily connected. It’s not necessarily where the eventual employees that you wanna have running the data center or interacting with the data center are most easily located.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: So I can see why people are so angry about having a data center as a next-door neighbor.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But what makes data centers bad neighbors is not necessarily what makes them so bad for the climate overall. What Meghan Busse–a researcher who studies climate policy–is most concerned about … is energy.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> So I think that the electricity use might be the thing that is most distinctive about AI. And the reason for this is that electricity use in the US and the EU and these sort of high income developed countries, was increasing pretty steadily along with population and GDP from post World War II until about 2000. And then it flattened out. And this isn’t because people didn’t want to use electricity for things. It’s because the devices that they used for electricity became more energy efficient. So we could get more of what economists call energy services without needing as much electricity. But what that meant is that, for about 20 years, there wasn’t a lot of need to greatly expand or to really expand very much at all.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Electricity transmission, electricity distribution, the total amount of electricity generation that we could do. And then all of a sudden along comes AI which is really pretty energy intensive… electricity demand, and it’s coming at the same time that there’s an increase in vehicle electrification and an increase of automation and manufacturing. And it’s putting a real strain on the ability of electricity systems to meet that. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: So. Here in the U.S., we have a couple decades where the overall amount of electricity we need to generate basically stays flat. Electricity goes into a lot more THINGS, but all those THINGS get more efficient at about the same rate. That’s two decades of not a lot of pressure to build new power plants. And then…BAM.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And the timing of this new strain on the electrical grid is relevant because there’s been another trend at play.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>Over the last decade or 15 years, the cost of generating electricity with renewable sources, with wind and solar has fallen dramatically. So over the course of about 10 years, the cost of generating electricity with solar went down to about a tenth of what it was, and the cost of generating electricity with wind had gone down to about a third of what it was.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> That’s a tenth. That means if it used to cost a dollar, it costs 10 cents.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> That is right. It’s a phenomenal reduction. It’s a phenomenal achievement for the climate. It might be the single best event to happen for the climate in the last 10 or 15 years. It’s just phenomenal. And it is so phenomenal that what was happening is that basically electricity generators all over the country and also in many places in the world, were in a process of transition, in a process of retiring coal-fired power plants and replacing them with solar and wind – not because they were greener, but because they were actually cheaper.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]\u003c/strong>: Thanks to just how much the economics here have changed, nearly all new electricity generators planned for the future in North America were renewables, with a bit of natural gas, but basically NO coal. This was going to be a huge win for the planet. Even better, coal plants were actively being PHASED OUT. If you cared about CO2 emissions, this was very good news. Everything was headed in the right direction.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Then, out of nowhere, for the first time in forever, demand skyrockets. All those plans…\u003cem>poof\u003c/em>!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Because these data centers – they don’t just need a ton of energy. They need it fast.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>If you’re an AI company, you want to get your new data centers up and running as quickly as possible. You feel like you’re in a race: to create the best models, to capture the market. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Sure, in the long run, over 20 or 25 years, solar and wind are cheaper. But if you need power NOW, keeping an aging coal plant running a few more years is going to be pretty tempting. And that smooth march toward cleaner power just got a lot choppier.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Coming up: the SHORT-run danger to the climate is that AI keeps fossil fuels around longer. But in the long run? Well, the jury is still out. Economist Meghan Busse offers up a scenario where the AI data center boom could actually benefit the planet. That’s after the break.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "break"
},
"numeric": [
"break"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So I wanna turn now to the future. I think you’re completely right that there is this sense that, you know, we’re straining under today’s demand and everybody is telling us AI is going to be so many times bigger in a couple of years. What the heck happens? How are we gonna keep up? And how does this not like, destroy the planet? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>So if we take the long run view of the climate, many climate scholars would tell you a key component of decarbonization is to electrify as much as we can. And the reason is because we have really good ways of producing electricity without producing carbon. So solar and wind are two of them that we’ve talked about.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But nuclear energy also has the potential to produce a lot of electricity in a decarbonized way. And there’s other possibilities also out there. Things like geothermal that, you know, people are experimenting with and hoping will come up to scale. But, there are, you know, like I say, wind and solar that we already have, nuclear that we also have already, although we need to re-remember how to build it at low cost.\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess\u003c/strong>\u003cstrong> Love:\u003c/strong> Just jumping in here to say, if you’re over 40, and you care about the environment, you might remember a time when environmentalists were dead set against nuclear power. There was that deadly catastrophic meltdown at Chernobyl in 1986, and a scary miss at Three Mile Island a few years earlier. Environmentalists were also concerned about the huge challenge of storing toxic nuclear waste for thousands of years.\u003cbr>\u003cbr>But in the last forty years, many scientists agree that nuclear power and storage have gotten much safer and less unwieldy. And some environmentalists now feel that the benefits of nuclear power–like not spewing carbon into the atmosphere–well outweigh the risks. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse\u003c/strong>: And there’s other kinds of technologies, like carbon capture that might allow us to burn fossil fuels and still capture the carbon and have it be decarbonized. So we’ve got some really great potential for being able to produce decarbonized electricity.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so what that means is that in the long run, I’m not that concerned from a climate perspective about anything that uses electricity. So if there were a new technology to come about that needs a lot more energy and you told me “guess what the energy it needs is electricity”, then I kind of heave a sigh of relief as opposed to saying what we’re gonna need in the future is a lot more steel or what we’re gonna need in the future is a lot more cement. Or what we’re gonna need in the future is a lot more air travel because those are things we don’t yet know how to decarbonize very well or at very low cost. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay. So in the long run, because it can be electrified and because we know that there are renewable ways of getting electricity, less concern. How long is the long run? And I guess how much damage is done along the way?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> It’s a really great question because some of the answer to how long is the long run depends on how we respond in the short run. If the way we respond to the intense increase in demand is the short run, is building new fossil fuel electricity generation, like building new gas plants, those plants have a long life, 20 or 30 years. Things that exist tend to get used. And so if we respond to the short run pressure by making investments in new fossil fuel generation, then that’s gonna push that long run of decarbonization off farther, and so, for the climate, the best news scenario in some ways would be if builders of AI and data centers decided, well, wait a minute, the most reliable and fastest way for us to have the electricity we need is in some sense to be self-sufficient in a green way, to build a data center, to build accompanying, solar or wind generation, to build a battery facility that will help make sure that that power is available to us throughout the day.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Well, and some of this is happening, so I just read, Google is making plans to purchase Intersect, which is a wind and solar company bringing energy generation in house and almost kind of treating it as a competitive advantage.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. And Microsoft recently made an agreement to reopen one of the reactors at Three Mile Island. Again to do essentially self-supply with nuclear energy. So to the extent that the response to this is self-supply with some kind of green energy, that is number one, good for the climate, but potentially also good for, accelerating storage technologies, for accelerating our relearning how to build nuclear in a competitive way. Those would be the best case scenarios.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Accelerating because it’s really kind of like, forcing people to innovate and act very quickly to do the kinds of things that they might otherwise do gradually over the course of 10, 20 years.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>And what drives down costs in many, many technologies is, increasing the scale of demand, basically increasing the size of the market. When you go from, here’s a technology we have thought of to one we have tested in the lab and demonstrated to one that we have done pilot projects of and works, there is this important phase between that and sort of a large scale deployment, which is increasing the scale of production enough that costs fall. And I totally believe it’s something we’ll get better at as we do it more.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and I think that’s a really, really interesting point. Like there is a world in which we can harness all of this demand and all of this excitement for AI and actually leave the climate in a better place than it would’ve otherwise been.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> And I, you know, and I’m not saying this is guaranteed, I’m not saying that this is obviously what’s gonna happen, but it like, there is a path and it actually has the potential to accelerate you know, green energy and decarbonisation in ways it would be really positive for the climate. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[musical interlude]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong> Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So, Meghan does see a future where demand for AI helps to accelerate deployment of low-cost green energy. But that’s not the only optimistic claim people make about AI and the climate.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Okay. So I wanna do a kind of nerdy lightning round with you. So I’m gonna share some other ways that AI might impact the climate in a positive way. And, we’ll say zero is like, that is all just hand-wavy gobbledygook, and five is like, yeah, actually there could really be something there. Okay, you ready? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>Ready. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> ‘Optimization of the energy grid.’ \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> I’ll give that a four.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: It’s pretty good.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> I’ll give it a four because it is the sort of thing that AI can do. Right. There’s already predictive maintenance being done and AI being applied to in a lot of different, manufacturing and other kinds of things. That said, it’s actually not the most important thing, I think, in the optimization of our energy system. We just need way more transmission in way more places to accommodate renewables generated in places where we historically have not had electricity generation like the Southwest. And just greater supply and greater flexibility. So I’ll give it a four ’cause AI can do it, but it’s actually not the most important thing you could do if you wanted to improve the electricity transmission grid.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: That was very thorough.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>Not very lightning, but very thorough.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: Very thorough. ‘Better climate modeling.’\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> There’s a sense in which I don’t know whether you really want AI climate models. In the sense that part of the trick about AI is that it’s a bit of a black box. Climate models are basically systems of equations. Systems of equations that capture relationships we know about heat and temperature and weather and ocean currents, and then how those translate into economic consequences. Part of the value of climate models is that we know what assumptions we have put in and we can alter those assumptions in ways that allow us to see if this were different, how would that matter for our climate predictions? I’m not sure that sort of turning that over to the more black box nature of AI is gonna improve our confidence. So I’ll give that a one.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> ‘Discovery of more energy efficient materials.’\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> That’s a great question. So there are absolutely applications in which materials matter – Battery chemistry, for example, is one that a lot of people are pushing on. So I’ll give that a three.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: ‘\u003c/strong>Precision agriculture’, which is this idea that with the right sensors and models, we could give crops exactly what they need when they need it, improving yield, reducing waste.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> So I’m gonna give that a one, not because I don’t think AI can do it, but because, doing it more efficiently or more precisely doesn’t do a lot for decarbonization if we’re using the same techniques, in terms of fertilizer, in terms of planting, in terms of those kinds of things. So I think in order to make a big difference in agricultural emissions, we’re gonna need something other than, sort of more precisely, implementing the technologies that we have. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Ok, so Meghan doesn’t see a lot of potential in some of these super optimistic “AI will just create new things that help!” scenarios. But she does see the potential for AI to fuel a clean-energy tech boom. At least…in the future. But how can people like \u003cem>me\u003c/em> make a difference TODAY? SHOULD I feel guilty asking ChatGPT for that packing list?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> So, one of the things, as I teach classes about climate, and as I talk to audiences about climate, I oftentimes get questions about, what can I do that matters?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I don’t think people always have a very good idea of what are the first order things, like what are the big levers they have in their hand, and what are the small levers that they have in their hand? If you ask me, I would tell you that generating a packing list on ChatGPT for your vacation is not a very big climate lever. In fact, it’s a much bigger climate lever how far away you are going on your vacation and how are you going to get there? If you’re taking an airplane, the climate impact of your airplane trip is many, many, many, many, many ChatGPT queries. So I think part of the reason people have fixated on ChatGPT queries as something that is part of their climate virtual signaling, is that it seems like an easy thing to do or not do as opposed to deciding not to drive to work or not to have a furnace in my house, or…\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> – not to go on vacation.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> Not to go on vacation. And so we sometimes get fixated on the things that seem like, well, that just seems like an excessive choice that you are making. But if you wanna know the things that really matter, the things that really matter have to do with your more direct use of fossil fuels. Think about how you set your thermostat. Think about what you drive and where you drive. Think about where you choose to fly. Think about what you eat – Beef is especially carbon intensive. So if people are asking me, what is a marginal choice I could make in my life that would make a difference, using ChatGPT would not be at the top of my list. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>Well, what about…joining some sort of collective action effort–like the protests we’re seeing against data centers? That strategy seems to have more potential, at least for those local issues. Because all data centers are not created equal, and being able to shape the kind of neighbor you have, and where it situates itself – that feels big.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Are communities able to get some concessions from these companies that allow the data centers to sort of be built, you know, somewhere in the proximity, but in ways that don’t impact people’s quality of life as much?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> So I think there’s actually a ton of heterogeneity as you go from place to place. I mean, it’s very different if you have something that is federally regulated, something like, you know, pharmaceuticals or those kinds of things, right? The process might be slow, but once a decision gets made for something that’s federally regulated, then that’s the decision, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And when you have something that, that it’s gonna be sort of a location and state by state, it’s just gonna be a lot noisier, it’s gonna be a lot less predictable, and I think that, what’s gonna turn out to be a successful strategy for communities to employ is gonna depend a lot on the particular location where they are.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>And perhaps what they want to get out of it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> And perhaps what they wanna get out of it, which may not be the same place to place.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love\u003c/strong>: Yeah, I mean, could this be a good thing, where communities, you know, depending on the tools they have available to them, can sort of look at the situation and in a bespoke way try to come to an agreement that is going to be as much of a win-win as possible?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse: \u003c/strong>I hope so.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[music bump]\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]:\u003c/strong> It’s clear that local opposition to data centers can have an impact. Meghan sent me a newspaper article involving a powerful Utah State Senator. He served as chairman of the agency that approved that giant data center we talked about earlier, the one that was downsized to a mere 20,000 acres. And…he recently lost his Republican primary bid, in what the article called, “one of the most high-profile signs of the voter backlash to data center projects.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Which brings us to the final thing that individuals can do–something that works for these local issues and for the climate more broadly.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> If you care about having an individual impact, by far the most impactful thing you can do is how you vote.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> There you go.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> And that’s because so many of the changes you need are not about our individual consumption or our individual behavior. It’s about the \u003cem>systems\u003c/em> of how we generate energy. The systems of how we use energy, what we use energy for. The things that are really, really hard for individuals to influence with their choices. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So in some sense, I don’t care very much about whether you use ChatGPT, I don’t care very much about whether you eat beef or not. I don’t even care about where you fly on vacation as long as you vote. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So you teach the next generation of CEOs, C-Suite Executives, and you have children of your own. What advice do you have for young people right now?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meghan Busse:\u003c/strong> The advice that I have for young people now is that while it seems, like on the political front, it might seem like things are discouraging on the technology and economic front, there’s huge potential.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We can \u003cem>absolutely\u003c/em> decarbonize, we can \u003cem>absolutely\u003c/em> avoid the worst effects of climate change. We have many of the technologies and I totally believe that we can invent the technologies that we still need. It is absolutely within our power if we choose to do it. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love [Voiceover]: \u003c/strong>So. In the long run, how will AI impact the climate? It depends. But after my conversation with Meghan, I’m thinking: it doesn’t depend that much on the AI itself. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>It depends more on what we do with demand for the technology. Where and how companies build out their data centers and especially how they choose to power them. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Are we going to live in a world where demand pushes back our transition to clean energy, locking us into fossil fuels for decades? We’re seeing some of that world right now. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But we can also choose a world where this explosion of demand hastens our transition to clean energy. And we’re also seeing some of that right now.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The politics of clean energy can look grim…But as long as clean-energy technologies keep getting cheaper and easier to scale, the optimistic scenario is still on the table.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is Life Automated, a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. Distributed by KQED. I’m Jess Love. Special thanks to today’s guest, Meghan Busse, an economist and associate professor at the Kellogg School of Management.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We’re produced by Jesse Dukes. Music by Steven Jackson. Recording by George Christensen and Will Feeney. Support and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>END\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12092008/does-ai-have-to-be-bad-news-for-the-planet-with-meghan-busse-2",
"authors": [
"12009"
],
"programs": [
"news_37188"
],
"categories": [
"news_248"
],
"tags": [
"news_25184",
"news_18545",
"news_20023",
"news_1631"
],
"featImg": "news_12091393",
"label": "news_37188"
},
"news_12091093": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12091093",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12091093",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1784132838000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "to-thrive-alongside-ai-find-the-bottlenecks-with-ben-jones",
"title": "To Thrive Alongside AI, Find the Bottlenecks (with Ben Jones)",
"publishDate": 1784132838,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "To Thrive Alongside AI, Find the Bottlenecks (with Ben Jones) | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 37188,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003ca href=\"#transcript\">View the full episode transcript.\u003c/a>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Will AI actually take over every job ever? \u003ca href=\"https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/academics-research/faculty/jones_benjamin_f/\">Economist Ben Jones\u003c/a> doesn’t think so. Drawing from historical evidence around innovation, Jones argues that automation never conquers \u003cem>everything \u003c/em>— it inevitably creates operational bottlenecks that only humans can solve. By leaning into these bottlenecks, we can protect meaningful, well-paid work. But his optimism comes with a stark caveat: there is one nightmare scenario where this historical pattern breaks down entirely. And it doesn’t involve superintelligence. It involves mediocre AI.\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Further Reading: \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://ai-frontiers.org/articles/how-ai-could-benefit-the-workers-it-displaces\">How AI Could Benefit Workers, Even If It Displaces Most Jobs\u003c/a> — Benjamin Jones, \u003cem>AI Frontiers\u003c/em>\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I’m Jess Love. This is Life Automated. For generations of Americans, the question was, where were you when JFK was shot? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Breaking news bulletin announcing the death of John F. Kennedy]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem> Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. You’ll excuse the fact that I’m out of breath, but about 10 or 15 minutes ago, a tragic thing from all indications at this point has happened to this city.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> When Neil Armstrong walked on the moon?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio Clip of Neil Armstrong on the moon]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>That’s one small step for man, one giant- \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Or the towers fell on 9/11?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[News bulletin from September 11, 2001]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>There’s smoke \u003c/em>\u003cem>billowing out of the World Trade Center.\u003c/em>\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> These are moments seared into our collective psyche, and now we have a new moment, only this one arrived a bit differently, a browser at a time.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Where were you when you first used ChatGPT?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is Life, Automated. I’m Jess Love, and I can tell you exactly where I was. The year was 2022, and I was visiting my in-laws in Florida. It was that lazy week between Christmas and New Year’s that I usually spend in a food coma. I sat on my sister-in-law’s childhood bed and signed up for a free subscription to ChatGPT.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I started asking the machine questions, easy ones at first. What did it know about butterflies native to Chicago or the most common tourist attractions in Italy? But it wasn’t too long before I asked what I really wanted to know. Could it do my job? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>See, much of the work I’ve done over the past decade is in science communication, essentially translating original research written by and for experts into something comprehensible to most people.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, I asked ChatGPT to summarize some papers I was familiar with, and it did okay. But what it lacked in finesse, and especially in those earlier iterations, accurate citations, it more than made up for in sheer efficiency. In just seconds, it could do work that would take a human the better part of a day.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>If I didn’t like the first draft that was conjured, I could just tell it to try again from a different perspective now. Write it shorter. Write it longer. Write it for a fifth grader. Write it with sports metaphors. I was stunned. It seemed clear we were entering a new era of science communication where all the world’s knowledge was not only available, but personally customizable on demand.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>If you wanted a given study to be relayed in the style of Mr. Darcy flirting with Elizabeth Bennet, you were now suddenly in luck. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[AI-generated summary of Pride and Prejudice in style of research article]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Darcy’s mouth tightened in a way that suggested the accusation had landed, but he proceeded anyway. My dear Miss Bennet, said Mr. Darcy with an air of careful restraint, I have been reading “AIG in Hindsight.” It is an instructive account of how a firm may appear a paragon of prudence until one… \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> The thing I did to make my living that made me special, that made me employable, that I loved to do, was now available to anybody. How could I possibly compete? What did all of my expertise even mean anymore?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And the more I thought about ChatGPT, and the more its implications for a lot of other professions became clear, the more I started wondering about all of us. I have a seven-year-old daughter. What opportunities are gonna be available to her? I’m not alone here. The majority of Americans feel pretty anxious about AI.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And it’s not just jobs. Public polling data suggests Americans are really concerned about how AI will affect education, democracy, our environment, our information ecosystem, and just how we relate to each other. But even as I share all these concerns, I gotta say, over time, a big part of me did start rooting for this technology.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Partly, this is because I now work at a research institute, the Ryan Institute on Complexity. I use AI tools every day, and so do the people around me. I see firsthand how useful they can be. But there’s a bigger reason. I have another daughter, an 11-year-old. She was born with a rare neurological disorder, so rare that it doesn’t actually have a name.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You can currently count the number of people in the world with her specific genetic mutation on two fingers. And this genetic difference, it affects how she talks, how she moves, how she uses objects like forks and scissors, how she thinks and learns. My daughter lives in a world that wasn’t made for her, with a brain that science doesn’t really understand.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, technology that can harness the world’s cumulative knowledge in order to make her life a little easier sounds pretty incredible. AI that can predict which medications might be useful or offer step-by-step directions on how to operate household appliances, and then wait for her to finish each step.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of AI Microwave]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>First, press the button above the handle and open the door. Your food will go inside that box when it’s ready. Now close the door. Did it click? \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Or AI that can adapt educational materials to her specifically, on demand, maybe in the voice of her favorite Moana character. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Maui from Moana]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>You’re welcome. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Sign me up. So yeah, that’s me. One person, one employee, one parent, reckoning with this technology. But of course, it isn’t just me. There are millions, billions of us wondering what AI and other kinds of automation really mean for our lives and our businesses and our communities, and what we should be doing to prepare. If you are one of these people, I’d like to invite you on a journey.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Because nobody can predict the future, nobody has all the answers about where we’re headed, but there are a lot of people with some answers, and I’ll be speaking with them on Life, Automated, a new podcast from Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, distributed by KQED. I’ll talk with scientists and philosophers, business leaders and engineers and artists, all with unique insights into the world we’re collectively building.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m not gonna try to freak you out. I’m not gonna try to sell you anything. I am gonna get nerdy. I’m gonna try to understand, as best I can, where we’re headed. And you’re invited.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Shortly after I had my initial ChatGPT moment several years ago, I tracked down Ben Jones. He’s an economist and a co-director here at the Ryan Institute where he studies economic development, innovation, entrepreneurship, and the scientific process. And it turns out, Ben has been paying attention to new developments in generative AI for much longer than me.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>When we talked three and a half years ago, I was kind of at peak anxiety; but Ben, he’d had a head start. Speaking with him helped me feel better about where we were headed, in part because he gave me a helpful way of thinking about AI. So, I wanted to bring him back for another conversation, this time in a recording studio. I started off by getting him talking about the first moment he realized AI had the potential to bring about big changes.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Did you have an AI moment, kind of a single moment that sort of shook you to the core and made you think, wow, something about these newest models is really fundamentally different? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> I did. I’ve had several AI moments along the way. I think many people, you know, when you see what AI can do, it’s uncanny.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Sometimes the hair stands up on the back of my neck. But my first AI moment where the hair stood up on the back of my neck was in 2017, and I was in Toronto for a conference that mixed economists and technologists, people from Geoff Hinton’s lab, who would go on to lead many of the top AI groups at the top companies.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And we were shown over dinner, it was a very nice dinner, a video. The video was of an AI learning how to play a first-person shooter game. And as you may know, with first-person shooter games, the experience is if you’re looking through the eyes of the player. So, we’re sort of looking through the eyes of the AI.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And without any particular directives, except to sort of survive as long as possible, the AI was training itself to play this game better and better. And at first, you’re sitting there looking through the AI’s eyes, and you’re kind of like a drunken sailor. You’re, like, stumbling around, you’re banging into walls, you’re getting trapped in corners.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You never pick up health or a weapon. You just don’t last very long. The video showed us the AI’s progression kind of in a fast-forward, high speed over maybe 24 hours. And so around the middle of the training, over, maybe 12 hours, it started running around the maze extremely effectively, but it wasn’t always picking up things on the floor, and it was no longer falling off bridges.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>By the end of the day, it was not only picking everything up and firing the weapons accurately, it was killing every single person in the game, all the real players. It didn’t miss. It didn’t miss in any way. And just watching this progression from this AI algorithm was a really uncanny moment, and to me, opened my mind to how powerful but also potentially worrisome AI is.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and I think, you know, on some level it’s not that surprising that a computer can learn to master a computer game. But what makes this story so incredible is just that the computer had no instructions that told us what it was supposed to be doing or what it was supposed to be optimizing other than just, like, live.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And it was able to just learn all of those techniques just via trial and error. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Right. Just the certain algorithms for training AI with fairly simple objectives lead to this incredible set of capabilities, which are truly uncanny. Many people have probably had that first moment now with AI, I think a lot with ChatGPT, where you ask it a question and you can’t believe the answer.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You’re like, “How could it possibly be coming up with this?” And AI absolutely has that quality. So, for me, it kind of happened a bit earlier, and so I started writing about it a bit earlier than most because I’d had that experience a bit earlier than most. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, which was very convenient for me personally because it meant that, when I was still in my AI freak-out phase, you were somebody who had been doing research on this for years, and were able to kind of be this, calming presence, in order to give me some concrete information about this technology.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, you have kind of an interesting perspective, which is that AI, the current generative AI that we’re talking about with ChatGPT, it’s really just part of a long process of automation. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Correct. And it’s true that certain technologies for a long time, and AI is one of them, are just hands down amazing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>They do things that are just amazing. But that doesn’t mean that they disemploy everybody.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Phew.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And, how can those two things be true? Well, let me just give you another example. You know, obviously computers have been around for a long time now, and their capacity to do sort of certain kinds of calculations are just, more or less infinitely, virtually infinitely better than humans.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, in my field and in many research fields, you use data and statistical regressions. If I were to run a regression by hand, with a large number of observations, it would take me literally my entire life. And I would make mistakes. You know, my computer can do a regression with a million data points in a minute.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so, we have these technologies that basically are infinitely better than us to do these tasks that are really important to what we do. And then you can ask, okay, well, has our understanding of economics or astronomy or physics multiplied by a similar factor? And you’d say no, because although we can do certain things really, really, really incredibly well, other things are holding us back.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But that doesn’t mean that you don’t have these other tasks, which I would call bottlenecks.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay, and this is the thing that I have thought about so often since our conversation. It kind of blew my mind. So, can you talk to us about what a bottleneck is and why it’s so important?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Well, of course, it’s a metaphor from a bottle, and what do we know about bottles? We know that the speed at which water or wine will flow from the bottle depends on the width of the neck. Doesn’t really depend on how big the bottle is otherwise, how much wine there is in it, how big the base is. It really just depends on the neck.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And in many processes in the economy and in the economy overall, it looks like there are certain things that have to happen that act as bottlenecks. Let’s say you’re going out to see your cousins for Thanksgiving dinner, and you’ve gotta get everyone in your house into the car, and you’ve gotta pack up the pies that you’re bringing and contributing to the festivities.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Well, everyone in the house could have gotten up early, gotten dressed, put on their Thanksgiving sweaters, gotten the pies into the car. But you’re not leaving the house until everyone has their shoes on and their socks. And maybe there’s someone in the family who just is getting real slow about getting their socks and their shoes on.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>How fast is it that you leave the house? It doesn’t really depend on how fast everyone is. It depends on how slow the slowest person is. That person becomes a bottleneck. Maybe an example we can all relate to. Much of the economy has that flavor, where it’s not how good you are at a lot of things. What’s really sort of determining the rate of the economy is the things we’re quite slow at, the things we’re not very good at.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So basically, it’s this task that is slowing down the speed with which the entire overall goal or objective can be met. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Correct. And the reason that’s important is because often in innovation, we get really focused on the shiny thing that’s going really fast, and we’re really excited about how fast it can compute things and these kinds of new technologies.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But often what really matters is the thing we’re not looking at. It’s the things that we’re quite bad at. The things that we’re really bad at are actually going to slow down the whole system, and if we can’t improve those, the gains from these kind of shiny new objects and new technologies won’t be as great as we hope.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I thought about these bottlenecks a lot after our initial conversation. Like, whenever I heard a tech leader say AI was going to be ready to colonize the galaxy in five years, or whenever I started spiraling about whether AI was going to take over every job ever. Now, about that. Overall, Ben, like many economists, is bullish on AI.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>He says that automation is generally good for workers. Sure, it causes some job loss and dislocation in the short term. But in the long term, it raises the quality of life for everybody, in part because it lowers the price of things we need and want. But that doesn’t mean people don’t get harmed along the way.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> So, one of the fears people have is that these automation technologies take jobs.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And of course, this goes back to the early years of the Industrial Revolution and the Luddites. You know, when you have handcrafts people who are silversmiths and blacksmiths, and you’re making clothes by hand, and then suddenly you have, say, the loom, you’re going to put out of work a lot of hand clothes makers.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But they’re going to migrate into other jobs, right? Over the long run, we’re going to see people do many other things, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Think about the real economy. Think about farming. I don’t know if anyone in the audience has ever had a chance to ride around in a combine harvester.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But, that’s one of the most incredible pieces of machinery you can imagine. I think a single combine harvester with a bunch of trucks driving up and around it, was able to harvest something like four or five million pounds of corn in twelve hours. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> That’s insane. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Right? And certainly, agricultural technology is one of those areas where we’ve had massive productivity growth.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We have better seeds and irrigation systems. We have a lot more knowledge. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Fertilizer. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>Fertilizers… All sorts of pesticides, depending how you feel about that. And those together have made for very high productivity, meaning, one hour of labor working with those machines can produce an enormous amount of food.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And the end result of that is that instead of having half our workforce in the US, you know, be in agriculture- \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And that’s what it would have been, like- two hundred years ago.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And that’s what it is in many very low-income countries today, which still struggle to put in place even more basic agricultural technologies.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, if fifty percent of the American workforce was in agriculture, now it’s, say, two percent of the American workforce working with an enormous amount of machines. But of course, that’s why many people have gone on to find other careers in other parts of the country. And overall, that process, while it’s not incidental, it can be quite painful. This process of what we call creative destruction, in the long run is what allows us to be far more productive, have higher standards of living.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Coming up, Ben Jones explains why he wants AI to be really good at every job it automates, and why the bigger risk is mediocre AI.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I do want to point out a very important difference that I think a lot of people are feeling, which is that what is happening with artificial intelligence right now, it’s that the most desirable jobs seem to be the ones that are most at risk. So, I don’t think many people grow up and think, “Boy, I really want to spend all day turning a knob again and again and again.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But a lot of people really do want to do things like animate, or people want to become journalists. People are accepting giant salary reductions already, to position themselves in these fields. And it seems like those jobs are also at risk. So, there does almost seem to be an emotional difference with the jobs that are being lost right now, that puts kids growing up today in a really hard spot in terms of, follow your dreams.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Well, so, I mean, this is a bit too soon to tell, I think. But, you’re right that if you think of a job as not a task, but a bundle of tasks, that doesn’t mean that you don’t like some of the tasks more than others. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> If you’re a chef, I presume you think about the menu and, and some of the cooking is more fun than washing the dishes, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes, that’s exactly right.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Maybe I’m wrong. And I don’t think people are the same. So, I think people have different preferences, even in the same job, about different kinds of tasks that they have to do. But to the extent that, you know, AI replaces, it’s just lower cost for how good it is at the tasks that you like, I think that’s not gonna feel so great.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, what if it’s really good at creativity and then all you’re doing is editing? But you’d rather do the creative part. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Exactly. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> But on the other hand, you know, it’s also the case that when you bring in… Like, let’s go back to regressions. I like to do statistical analysis. I think it’s really interesting.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I’m mostly interested in the output. I have no interest in the calculation, and it’s boring. So, this makes me get to the interesting part much faster. And maybe when you’re writing, it’s a collaborator, right? I mean, maybe it’s not a replacement. It’s like another voice on your team.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And suddenly you’re getting a higher quality product, and it could be that you’re making a screenplay or writing an article, you’re writing a song, and suddenly it’s better for your collaboration with the AI, but they’re not actually taking kind of full control. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> That’s the optimistic version here.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>That at least for a lot of jobs, some tasks will be automated, but other tasks won’t. And those tasks, those bottlenecks, will keep us humans busy and employed and maybe even fulfilled. And looking for these bottlenecks in our own jobs or industries, that is something that feels actionable. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Naturally, if there’s some bottleneck tasks that are slowing up the whole system, those are gonna have a lot of value.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>If you can continue to do those or do them relatively well, people will value that. You’ll get a lot of income, you’ll get a sustained job, based on those kinds of tasks. So, the question I think is, are there tasks that are bottleneck tasks that computers can’t do very well yet? That’s really where you should focus.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And in Ben’s view, assuming there will always be some role for humans, we should actually be rooting for AI to get really, really good at whatever it automates. To understand why, we first need to understand two opposing forces. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> So, the first is automation. Automation would be when a machine starts doing a task that we used to do as labor, humans.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and I think this is the force that a lot of people think of. They think about, okay, this machine can do more and more and more work, and so there’s obviously going to be just, like, less and less and less of the income or the share of the economy that’s going to be available to us non-machines.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Correct. That’s the sort of obvious force that most people get. But there’s another force which is a little bit more subtle, and it has to do with the fact that if machines are taking over tasks, and they are really good at those tasks, right… And at some level they have to be good at those tasks, otherwise they wouldn’t be taking them over from labor.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But if they get very, very good at those tasks, then what happens is those tasks become very cheap, in the sense that whenever you flood a market with something, right? If I made anything abundant, its price will fall. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so what’s gonna happen if machines are really, really good at those tasks is the kinds of services they produce will become very inexpensive.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so, what we really want if AI is gonna take over a lot of tasks, it’s very important that it not just slightly beat labor at those tasks. We want AI, if it’s gonna take over those tasks, to be really great at it, because then we’re gonna have an abundance of that output, and actually the prices fall and people end up being much better off in a real income sense.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So, I was trying to come up with an example, and instead of it being, quite as theoretical, I was trying to think of something that maybe is already happening in the economy today so that we could sort of play out this idea, this thought experiment, and really understand why even us mere laborers really ought to be working, rooting for AI to get quite good at the tasks of ours that it takes over.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, I’m gonna read an example to you, and I am hoping that you can respond to it. Give me a sense of whether this is correct, and if so, what it means. If not, where I went wrong. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>‘Imagine that companies start replacing customer service professionals at call centers with AI. This is something that we already know is happening, like when you call your health insurance company to ask about coverage, or you ask your bank why a deposit hasn’t gone through, what have you.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The person you talk to gets automated. They’re replaced by AI, and even if the AI isn’t cheap, they still cost a lot less than paying the salaries of fluent English speakers trained in customer service. So, one scenario is the AI is just ‘okay’ at this. It provides worse customer service than humans. People don’t always get their problems resolved.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Maybe they get frustrated, maybe they even get angry at the company. But the AI is still good enough that even though the company’s reputation might suffer a bit, the money they’re saving kind of makes it worth it. Maybe they come out a bit ahead. And this is your nightmare scenario as I understand it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, all these call center jobs get eliminated. Nobody really benefits except for the companies that might save a little money every year. Is that a fair depiction of the nightmare scenario?’\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Yes, because if the companies are only just saving a little bit of money, that’s a sign that the computers aren’t that much better at the task.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We get bad services. People lose their jobs. That’s an accurate version of the kind of nightmare scenario one would have in mind. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay. Now, if the AI is really, really good at customer service, then eventually most of us do benefit. So, some people do lose their jobs, but they are able to move into others.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And meanwhile, the rest of us get our questions answered really quickly, really easily. We have more time in our day to do other things, and hopefully the products and the services from that company become less expensive because the firm is able to pass along those savings. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Correct. And as long as those workers who are displaced are able to find other kinds of jobs in this new economy, everyone’s income will eventually, be going up.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So, if I want to go back to this farming example, it’s very easy for me to see that, you know, in the last two hundred years, let’s say, since half of America was a farmer, it’s very easy for me to see that life is a lot better now. You’re gonna live if you are born — you stand a much higher likelihood, you’re just going to enjoy a lot of things that our ancestors would not have been able to. But I think right now, a lot of people are feeling like life in general is not getting better. They’re kind of feeling like, the chances that my kid is going to have a better life than me are not that great.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, houses are getting more expensive. It’s more expensive to go to college. Like, I think a lot of people are feeling like they are just treading water. And so how does that square with this idea of incremental progress? Is it just that we are imagining the past to be better than it was? Or is it that maybe some of the things that are real pain points are because of these bottlenecks or something else?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> I would say that’s more to do with inequality, and where the benefits have been felt in this economy. And this goes way before artificial intelligence. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Going back to the ’70s for quite a long time, the median real household income was kind of stagnating in the United States.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so, we had a lot of growth, but as I think people know, a lot of that increased value added in the economy every year has been captured by people who are pretty well off already. One of the concerns with AI, as we see, these billionaires, trillionaires starting to emerge, is that too much of the added value will be captured by those who own the companies or own the capital. So, I think that’s a real question. The other kind of inequality, which is actually the major kind of inequality that’s been at work in the United States, is within labor. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And what we’ve seen over time since the ’70s is a spreading where people who are in the upper educated professional classes have been capturing a lot of the growth, in income per capita\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>for themselves. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Oh, interesting.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>Whereas the median household has been struggling. Compared to history, we’ve seen relatively slow growth in real standards of living among the median household. I think when you think about why, Americans maybe not necessarily fully seeing these facts, but feeling them right? Feeling that maybe they put it on globalization, but that’s maybe not the right… But there’s some globalization, there’s a lot of automation, there’s a lot of technological change within the country. But feeling that somehow, these advances or this participation in the world economy, doesn’t seem like it’s making their lives better. And I think for many people, at least going back to the ’70s, there’s some truth in that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> In Ben’s view, much of the pessimism Americans feel about technological progress comes not from the technology itself but from how its gains have been distributed. But he thinks that at least some of this inequality, not the kind driven by tech billionaires, but the inequality within workers might actually decrease as AI automates white collar work. And to be very blunt, he does not share the average American’s concerns about AI making human labor obsolete.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So, I mean, a stat I ran across earlier this year, just 6% of Americans say workplace AI use will lead to more jobs in the long run, and you would just wholeheartedly disagree with that and say that, this might just be kind of a failure of imagination.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Correct. I mean, you wouldn’t have imagined there was an ATM technician or a satellite engineer or a pilot before those things were created. And, I think it’s very hard to predict what’s gonna become easier, what’s gonna become hard, and that’s for the future to tell us. It’s gonna be unexpected and pretty interesting.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But there’s nothing so far in history that would suggest that suddenly all labor could be replaced. And even if it were, I mean, just to be clear, I mean, if it were, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes, let’s go there! \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Then the amount of output would be enormous, right? So, if you actually replaced all human labor and you had these efficient machines that could do everything, the amount of consumption you could have would be incredibly high. It would at that point become entirely an issue of equity and access to that income. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And, you know, that’s where governments can step in, right? And we can have redistributive policies. I mean, do you wanna just let a few capitalists own everything? I doubt that is a political equilibrium- with everyone starving and, like, three people are, you know, quadrillionaires. Maybe, this gets into dystopian scenarios —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes, it does\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And it gets into various other things. And I’m not saying that’s not possible. We certainly see authoritarian behavior around the world that is problematic. It’s ultimately a question of our political process and the representation of voices who are being left out, or doing much worse because of technological change.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And, you know, if you’re making the pie much bigger through this kind of churn and technological advance, there’s more resources around. You should be able to compensate those who lost in some way and not have them live a life that is much harder for virtue of having been replaced by machines.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I think, you know, in the United States, you have to be careful in both directions. Technological progress is inevitably about creative destruction, right? I mean, think of what Amazon has done, right? E-tail destroyed bricks-and-mortar bookstores first and a whole lot of other kinds of bricks and mortar, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But it is more efficient for a lot of people. Consumers like it. They get things delivered. It’s cheaper. You know, they get things faster. But if you owned a bookstore, it was terrible, right? And, so, how do we think about that as a society? Well, on one hand, if we let the people who are already kind of in charge resist creative destruction, then we don’t grow and we don’t advance, and then those people are kind of holding us back, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>On the other hand, if you just let creative destruction go with no kind of willy-nilly, with no compensation, which is pretty close to the American model, right? You got a lotta progress. You got a lotta churn. You get a lotta technological advance, but you’re gonna displace a lotta people. And so, at that point, you definitely need a very, at minimum, a very flexible labor market which allows people to reallocate into other jobs, and there are ways to have policy to facilitate that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Retraining, et cetera. But that’s not to sugarcoat anything here. I mean, if you’re in a rural area and the main employer goes down, reallocating to a new job probably means reallocating to a new place, leaving your family, leaving the region you know and all the culture that goes with that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>That’s an extraordinarily painful experience. And whether that’s because of technological change or trade, you know, I think it’s on all of us and as citizens in a country to take that extremely seriously.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I think this question of how we as a society deploy and adapt to automation is one of the most important questions today. But before we can adapt, we need to understand. That’s what this show is trying to do, help more people, including me, make sense of things. So we have a lot more great conversations coming up with economists, scientists, experts in design and media, people whose work can help us understand this moment and maybe even peek into the future.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED. Our show is produced by Jesse Dukes with help from Nathan Ray and Steven Jackson. Music by Steven Jackson, Q Shop, and Neutral Propulsion Laboratory.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Recording help from Will Feeney and George Christensen. Administrative support, recording, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003ca href=\"#transcript\">View the full episode transcript.\u003c/a>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003ca href=\"#transcript\">View the full episode transcript.\u003c/a>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Will AI actually take over every job ever? \u003ca href=\"https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/academics-research/faculty/jones_benjamin_f/\">Economist Ben Jones\u003c/a> doesn’t think so. Drawing from historical evidence around innovation, Jones argues that automation never conquers \u003cem>everything \u003c/em>— it inevitably creates operational bottlenecks that only humans can solve. By leaning into these bottlenecks, we can protect meaningful, well-paid work. But his optimism comes with a stark caveat: there is one nightmare scenario where this historical pattern breaks down entirely. And it doesn’t involve superintelligence. It involves mediocre AI.\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Will AI actually take over every job ever? \u003ca href=\"https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/academics-research/faculty/jones_benjamin_f/\">Economist Ben Jones\u003c/a> doesn’t think so. Drawing from historical evidence around innovation, Jones argues that automation never conquers \u003cem>everything \u003c/em>— it inevitably creates operational bottlenecks that only humans can solve. By leaning into these bottlenecks, we can protect meaningful, well-paid work. But his optimism comes with a stark caveat: there is one nightmare scenario where this historical pattern breaks down entirely. And it doesn’t involve superintelligence. It involves mediocre AI.\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Further Reading: \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Further Reading: \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://ai-frontiers.org/articles/how-ai-could-benefit-the-workers-it-displaces\">How AI Could Benefit Workers, Even If It Displaces Most Jobs\u003c/a> — Benjamin Jones, \u003cem>AI Frontiers\u003c/em>\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://ai-frontiers.org/articles/how-ai-could-benefit-the-workers-it-displaces\">How AI Could Benefit Workers, Even If It Displaces Most Jobs\u003c/a> — Benjamin Jones, \u003cem>AI Frontiers\u003c/em>\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Episode Transcript",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad",
"attrs": {
"format": "fullwidth"
},
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "",
"innerContent": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I’m Jess Love. This is Life Automated. For generations of Americans, the question was, where were you when JFK was shot? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I’m Jess Love. This is Life Automated. For generations of Americans, the question was, where were you when JFK was shot? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Breaking news bulletin announcing the death of John F. Kennedy]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Breaking news bulletin announcing the death of John F. Kennedy]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem> Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. You’ll excuse the fact that I’m out of breath, but about 10 or 15 minutes ago, a tragic thing from all indications at this point has happened to this city.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem> Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. You’ll excuse the fact that I’m out of breath, but about 10 or 15 minutes ago, a tragic thing from all indications at this point has happened to this city.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> When Neil Armstrong walked on the moon?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> When Neil Armstrong walked on the moon?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio Clip of Neil Armstrong on the moon]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio Clip of Neil Armstrong on the moon]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>That’s one small step for man, one giant- \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>That’s one small step for man, one giant- \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Or the towers fell on 9/11?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Or the towers fell on 9/11?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[News bulletin from September 11, 2001]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[News bulletin from September 11, 2001]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>There’s smoke \u003c/em>\u003cem>billowing out of the World Trade Center.\u003c/em>\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>There’s smoke \u003c/em>\u003cem>billowing out of the World Trade Center.\u003c/em>\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> These are moments seared into our collective psyche, and now we have a new moment, only this one arrived a bit differently, a browser at a time.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> These are moments seared into our collective psyche, and now we have a new moment, only this one arrived a bit differently, a browser at a time.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Where were you when you first used ChatGPT?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Where were you when you first used ChatGPT?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This is Life, Automated. I’m Jess Love, and I can tell you exactly where I was. The year was 2022, and I was visiting my in-laws in Florida. It was that lazy week between Christmas and New Year’s that I usually spend in a food coma. I sat on my sister-in-law’s childhood bed and signed up for a free subscription to ChatGPT.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This is Life, Automated. I’m Jess Love, and I can tell you exactly where I was. The year was 2022, and I was visiting my in-laws in Florida. It was that lazy week between Christmas and New Year’s that I usually spend in a food coma. I sat on my sister-in-law’s childhood bed and signed up for a free subscription to ChatGPT.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I started asking the machine questions, easy ones at first. What did it know about butterflies native to Chicago or the most common tourist attractions in Italy? But it wasn’t too long before I asked what I really wanted to know. Could it do my job? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I started asking the machine questions, easy ones at first. What did it know about butterflies native to Chicago or the most common tourist attractions in Italy? But it wasn’t too long before I asked what I really wanted to know. Could it do my job? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>See, much of the work I’ve done over the past decade is in science communication, essentially translating original research written by and for experts into something comprehensible to most people.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>See, much of the work I’ve done over the past decade is in science communication, essentially translating original research written by and for experts into something comprehensible to most people.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So, I asked ChatGPT to summarize some papers I was familiar with, and it did okay. But what it lacked in finesse, and especially in those earlier iterations, accurate citations, it more than made up for in sheer efficiency. In just seconds, it could do work that would take a human the better part of a day.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So, I asked ChatGPT to summarize some papers I was familiar with, and it did okay. But what it lacked in finesse, and especially in those earlier iterations, accurate citations, it more than made up for in sheer efficiency. In just seconds, it could do work that would take a human the better part of a day.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>If I didn’t like the first draft that was conjured, I could just tell it to try again from a different perspective now. Write it shorter. Write it longer. Write it for a fifth grader. Write it with sports metaphors. I was stunned. It seemed clear we were entering a new era of science communication where all the world’s knowledge was not only available, but personally customizable on demand.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>If I didn’t like the first draft that was conjured, I could just tell it to try again from a different perspective now. Write it shorter. Write it longer. Write it for a fifth grader. Write it with sports metaphors. I was stunned. It seemed clear we were entering a new era of science communication where all the world’s knowledge was not only available, but personally customizable on demand.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>If you wanted a given study to be relayed in the style of Mr. Darcy flirting with Elizabeth Bennet, you were now suddenly in luck. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>If you wanted a given study to be relayed in the style of Mr. Darcy flirting with Elizabeth Bennet, you were now suddenly in luck. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[AI-generated summary of Pride and Prejudice in style of research article]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[AI-generated summary of Pride and Prejudice in style of research article]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Darcy’s mouth tightened in a way that suggested the accusation had landed, but he proceeded anyway. My dear Miss Bennet, said Mr. Darcy with an air of careful restraint, I have been reading “AIG in Hindsight.” It is an instructive account of how a firm may appear a paragon of prudence until one… \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Darcy’s mouth tightened in a way that suggested the accusation had landed, but he proceeded anyway. My dear Miss Bennet, said Mr. Darcy with an air of careful restraint, I have been reading “AIG in Hindsight.” It is an instructive account of how a firm may appear a paragon of prudence until one… \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> The thing I did to make my living that made me special, that made me employable, that I loved to do, was now available to anybody. How could I possibly compete? What did all of my expertise even mean anymore?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> The thing I did to make my living that made me special, that made me employable, that I loved to do, was now available to anybody. How could I possibly compete? What did all of my expertise even mean anymore?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And the more I thought about ChatGPT, and the more its implications for a lot of other professions became clear, the more I started wondering about all of us. I have a seven-year-old daughter. What opportunities are gonna be available to her? I’m not alone here. The majority of Americans feel pretty anxious about AI.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And the more I thought about ChatGPT, and the more its implications for a lot of other professions became clear, the more I started wondering about all of us. I have a seven-year-old daughter. What opportunities are gonna be available to her? I’m not alone here. The majority of Americans feel pretty anxious about AI.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And it’s not just jobs. Public polling data suggests Americans are really concerned about how AI will affect education, democracy, our environment, our information ecosystem, and just how we relate to each other. But even as I share all these concerns, I gotta say, over time, a big part of me did start rooting for this technology.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And it’s not just jobs. Public polling data suggests Americans are really concerned about how AI will affect education, democracy, our environment, our information ecosystem, and just how we relate to each other. But even as I share all these concerns, I gotta say, over time, a big part of me did start rooting for this technology.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Partly, this is because I now work at a research institute, the Ryan Institute on Complexity. I use AI tools every day, and so do the people around me. I see firsthand how useful they can be. But there’s a bigger reason. I have another daughter, an 11-year-old. She was born with a rare neurological disorder, so rare that it doesn’t actually have a name.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Partly, this is because I now work at a research institute, the Ryan Institute on Complexity. I use AI tools every day, and so do the people around me. I see firsthand how useful they can be. But there’s a bigger reason. I have another daughter, an 11-year-old. She was born with a rare neurological disorder, so rare that it doesn’t actually have a name.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You can currently count the number of people in the world with her specific genetic mutation on two fingers. And this genetic difference, it affects how she talks, how she moves, how she uses objects like forks and scissors, how she thinks and learns. My daughter lives in a world that wasn’t made for her, with a brain that science doesn’t really understand.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You can currently count the number of people in the world with her specific genetic mutation on two fingers. And this genetic difference, it affects how she talks, how she moves, how she uses objects like forks and scissors, how she thinks and learns. My daughter lives in a world that wasn’t made for her, with a brain that science doesn’t really understand.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So, technology that can harness the world’s cumulative knowledge in order to make her life a little easier sounds pretty incredible. AI that can predict which medications might be useful or offer step-by-step directions on how to operate household appliances, and then wait for her to finish each step.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So, technology that can harness the world’s cumulative knowledge in order to make her life a little easier sounds pretty incredible. AI that can predict which medications might be useful or offer step-by-step directions on how to operate household appliances, and then wait for her to finish each step.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of AI Microwave]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of AI Microwave]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>First, press the button above the handle and open the door. Your food will go inside that box when it’s ready. Now close the door. Did it click? \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>First, press the button above the handle and open the door. Your food will go inside that box when it’s ready. Now close the door. Did it click? \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Or AI that can adapt educational materials to her specifically, on demand, maybe in the voice of her favorite Moana character. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Or AI that can adapt educational materials to her specifically, on demand, maybe in the voice of her favorite Moana character. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Maui from Moana]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Maui from Moana]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>You’re welcome. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>You’re welcome. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Sign me up. So yeah, that’s me. One person, one employee, one parent, reckoning with this technology. But of course, it isn’t just me. There are millions, billions of us wondering what AI and other kinds of automation really mean for our lives and our businesses and our communities, and what we should be doing to prepare. If you are one of these people, I’d like to invite you on a journey.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Sign me up. So yeah, that’s me. One person, one employee, one parent, reckoning with this technology. But of course, it isn’t just me. There are millions, billions of us wondering what AI and other kinds of automation really mean for our lives and our businesses and our communities, and what we should be doing to prepare. If you are one of these people, I’d like to invite you on a journey.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Because nobody can predict the future, nobody has all the answers about where we’re headed, but there are a lot of people with some answers, and I’ll be speaking with them on Life, Automated, a new podcast from Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, distributed by KQED. I’ll talk with scientists and philosophers, business leaders and engineers and artists, all with unique insights into the world we’re collectively building.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Because nobody can predict the future, nobody has all the answers about where we’re headed, but there are a lot of people with some answers, and I’ll be speaking with them on Life, Automated, a new podcast from Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, distributed by KQED. I’ll talk with scientists and philosophers, business leaders and engineers and artists, all with unique insights into the world we’re collectively building.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I’m not gonna try to freak you out. I’m not gonna try to sell you anything. I am gonna get nerdy. I’m gonna try to understand, as best I can, where we’re headed. And you’re invited.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I’m not gonna try to freak you out. I’m not gonna try to sell you anything. I am gonna get nerdy. I’m gonna try to understand, as best I can, where we’re headed. And you’re invited.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Shortly after I had my initial ChatGPT moment several years ago, I tracked down Ben Jones. He’s an economist and a co-director here at the Ryan Institute where he studies economic development, innovation, entrepreneurship, and the scientific process. And it turns out, Ben has been paying attention to new developments in generative AI for much longer than me.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Shortly after I had my initial ChatGPT moment several years ago, I tracked down Ben Jones. He’s an economist and a co-director here at the Ryan Institute where he studies economic development, innovation, entrepreneurship, and the scientific process. And it turns out, Ben has been paying attention to new developments in generative AI for much longer than me.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>When we talked three and a half years ago, I was kind of at peak anxiety; but Ben, he’d had a head start. Speaking with him helped me feel better about where we were headed, in part because he gave me a helpful way of thinking about AI. So, I wanted to bring him back for another conversation, this time in a recording studio. I started off by getting him talking about the first moment he realized AI had the potential to bring about big changes.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>When we talked three and a half years ago, I was kind of at peak anxiety; but Ben, he’d had a head start. Speaking with him helped me feel better about where we were headed, in part because he gave me a helpful way of thinking about AI. So, I wanted to bring him back for another conversation, this time in a recording studio. I started off by getting him talking about the first moment he realized AI had the potential to bring about big changes.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Did you have an AI moment, kind of a single moment that sort of shook you to the core and made you think, wow, something about these newest models is really fundamentally different? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Did you have an AI moment, kind of a single moment that sort of shook you to the core and made you think, wow, something about these newest models is really fundamentally different? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> I did. I’ve had several AI moments along the way. I think many people, you know, when you see what AI can do, it’s uncanny.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> I did. I’ve had several AI moments along the way. I think many people, you know, when you see what AI can do, it’s uncanny.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Sometimes the hair stands up on the back of my neck. But my first AI moment where the hair stood up on the back of my neck was in 2017, and I was in Toronto for a conference that mixed economists and technologists, people from Geoff Hinton’s lab, who would go on to lead many of the top AI groups at the top companies.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Sometimes the hair stands up on the back of my neck. But my first AI moment where the hair stood up on the back of my neck was in 2017, and I was in Toronto for a conference that mixed economists and technologists, people from Geoff Hinton’s lab, who would go on to lead many of the top AI groups at the top companies.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And we were shown over dinner, it was a very nice dinner, a video. The video was of an AI learning how to play a first-person shooter game. And as you may know, with first-person shooter games, the experience is if you’re looking through the eyes of the player. So, we’re sort of looking through the eyes of the AI.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And we were shown over dinner, it was a very nice dinner, a video. The video was of an AI learning how to play a first-person shooter game. And as you may know, with first-person shooter games, the experience is if you’re looking through the eyes of the player. So, we’re sort of looking through the eyes of the AI.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And without any particular directives, except to sort of survive as long as possible, the AI was training itself to play this game better and better. And at first, you’re sitting there looking through the AI’s eyes, and you’re kind of like a drunken sailor. You’re, like, stumbling around, you’re banging into walls, you’re getting trapped in corners.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And without any particular directives, except to sort of survive as long as possible, the AI was training itself to play this game better and better. And at first, you’re sitting there looking through the AI’s eyes, and you’re kind of like a drunken sailor. You’re, like, stumbling around, you’re banging into walls, you’re getting trapped in corners.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You never pick up health or a weapon. You just don’t last very long. The video showed us the AI’s progression kind of in a fast-forward, high speed over maybe 24 hours. And so around the middle of the training, over, maybe 12 hours, it started running around the maze extremely effectively, but it wasn’t always picking up things on the floor, and it was no longer falling off bridges.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You never pick up health or a weapon. You just don’t last very long. The video showed us the AI’s progression kind of in a fast-forward, high speed over maybe 24 hours. And so around the middle of the training, over, maybe 12 hours, it started running around the maze extremely effectively, but it wasn’t always picking up things on the floor, and it was no longer falling off bridges.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>By the end of the day, it was not only picking everything up and firing the weapons accurately, it was killing every single person in the game, all the real players. It didn’t miss. It didn’t miss in any way. And just watching this progression from this AI algorithm was a really uncanny moment, and to me, opened my mind to how powerful but also potentially worrisome AI is.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>By the end of the day, it was not only picking everything up and firing the weapons accurately, it was killing every single person in the game, all the real players. It didn’t miss. It didn’t miss in any way. And just watching this progression from this AI algorithm was a really uncanny moment, and to me, opened my mind to how powerful but also potentially worrisome AI is.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and I think, you know, on some level it’s not that surprising that a computer can learn to master a computer game. But what makes this story so incredible is just that the computer had no instructions that told us what it was supposed to be doing or what it was supposed to be optimizing other than just, like, live.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and I think, you know, on some level it’s not that surprising that a computer can learn to master a computer game. But what makes this story so incredible is just that the computer had no instructions that told us what it was supposed to be doing or what it was supposed to be optimizing other than just, like, live.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And it was able to just learn all of those techniques just via trial and error. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And it was able to just learn all of those techniques just via trial and error. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Right. Just the certain algorithms for training AI with fairly simple objectives lead to this incredible set of capabilities, which are truly uncanny. Many people have probably had that first moment now with AI, I think a lot with ChatGPT, where you ask it a question and you can’t believe the answer.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Right. Just the certain algorithms for training AI with fairly simple objectives lead to this incredible set of capabilities, which are truly uncanny. Many people have probably had that first moment now with AI, I think a lot with ChatGPT, where you ask it a question and you can’t believe the answer.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You’re like, “How could it possibly be coming up with this?” And AI absolutely has that quality. So, for me, it kind of happened a bit earlier, and so I started writing about it a bit earlier than most because I’d had that experience a bit earlier than most. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You’re like, “How could it possibly be coming up with this?” And AI absolutely has that quality. So, for me, it kind of happened a bit earlier, and so I started writing about it a bit earlier than most because I’d had that experience a bit earlier than most. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, which was very convenient for me personally because it meant that, when I was still in my AI freak-out phase, you were somebody who had been doing research on this for years, and were able to kind of be this, calming presence, in order to give me some concrete information about this technology.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, which was very convenient for me personally because it meant that, when I was still in my AI freak-out phase, you were somebody who had been doing research on this for years, and were able to kind of be this, calming presence, in order to give me some concrete information about this technology.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So, you have kind of an interesting perspective, which is that AI, the current generative AI that we’re talking about with ChatGPT, it’s really just part of a long process of automation. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So, you have kind of an interesting perspective, which is that AI, the current generative AI that we’re talking about with ChatGPT, it’s really just part of a long process of automation. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Correct. And it’s true that certain technologies for a long time, and AI is one of them, are just hands down amazing.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Correct. And it’s true that certain technologies for a long time, and AI is one of them, are just hands down amazing.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>They do things that are just amazing. But that doesn’t mean that they disemploy everybody.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>They do things that are just amazing. But that doesn’t mean that they disemploy everybody.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Phew.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Phew.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And, how can those two things be true? Well, let me just give you another example. You know, obviously computers have been around for a long time now, and their capacity to do sort of certain kinds of calculations are just, more or less infinitely, virtually infinitely better than humans.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And, how can those two things be true? Well, let me just give you another example. You know, obviously computers have been around for a long time now, and their capacity to do sort of certain kinds of calculations are just, more or less infinitely, virtually infinitely better than humans.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You know, in my field and in many research fields, you use data and statistical regressions. If I were to run a regression by hand, with a large number of observations, it would take me literally my entire life. And I would make mistakes. You know, my computer can do a regression with a million data points in a minute.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You know, in my field and in many research fields, you use data and statistical regressions. If I were to run a regression by hand, with a large number of observations, it would take me literally my entire life. And I would make mistakes. You know, my computer can do a regression with a million data points in a minute.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And so, we have these technologies that basically are infinitely better than us to do these tasks that are really important to what we do. And then you can ask, okay, well, has our understanding of economics or astronomy or physics multiplied by a similar factor? And you’d say no, because although we can do certain things really, really, really incredibly well, other things are holding us back.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And so, we have these technologies that basically are infinitely better than us to do these tasks that are really important to what we do. And then you can ask, okay, well, has our understanding of economics or astronomy or physics multiplied by a similar factor? And you’d say no, because although we can do certain things really, really, really incredibly well, other things are holding us back.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But that doesn’t mean that you don’t have these other tasks, which I would call bottlenecks.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But that doesn’t mean that you don’t have these other tasks, which I would call bottlenecks.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay, and this is the thing that I have thought about so often since our conversation. It kind of blew my mind. So, can you talk to us about what a bottleneck is and why it’s so important?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay, and this is the thing that I have thought about so often since our conversation. It kind of blew my mind. So, can you talk to us about what a bottleneck is and why it’s so important?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Well, of course, it’s a metaphor from a bottle, and what do we know about bottles? We know that the speed at which water or wine will flow from the bottle depends on the width of the neck. Doesn’t really depend on how big the bottle is otherwise, how much wine there is in it, how big the base is. It really just depends on the neck.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Well, of course, it’s a metaphor from a bottle, and what do we know about bottles? We know that the speed at which water or wine will flow from the bottle depends on the width of the neck. Doesn’t really depend on how big the bottle is otherwise, how much wine there is in it, how big the base is. It really just depends on the neck.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And in many processes in the economy and in the economy overall, it looks like there are certain things that have to happen that act as bottlenecks. Let’s say you’re going out to see your cousins for Thanksgiving dinner, and you’ve gotta get everyone in your house into the car, and you’ve gotta pack up the pies that you’re bringing and contributing to the festivities.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And in many processes in the economy and in the economy overall, it looks like there are certain things that have to happen that act as bottlenecks. Let’s say you’re going out to see your cousins for Thanksgiving dinner, and you’ve gotta get everyone in your house into the car, and you’ve gotta pack up the pies that you’re bringing and contributing to the festivities.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Well, everyone in the house could have gotten up early, gotten dressed, put on their Thanksgiving sweaters, gotten the pies into the car. But you’re not leaving the house until everyone has their shoes on and their socks. And maybe there’s someone in the family who just is getting real slow about getting their socks and their shoes on.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Well, everyone in the house could have gotten up early, gotten dressed, put on their Thanksgiving sweaters, gotten the pies into the car. But you’re not leaving the house until everyone has their shoes on and their socks. And maybe there’s someone in the family who just is getting real slow about getting their socks and their shoes on.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>How fast is it that you leave the house? It doesn’t really depend on how fast everyone is. It depends on how slow the slowest person is. That person becomes a bottleneck. Maybe an example we can all relate to. Much of the economy has that flavor, where it’s not how good you are at a lot of things. What’s really sort of determining the rate of the economy is the things we’re quite slow at, the things we’re not very good at.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>How fast is it that you leave the house? It doesn’t really depend on how fast everyone is. It depends on how slow the slowest person is. That person becomes a bottleneck. Maybe an example we can all relate to. Much of the economy has that flavor, where it’s not how good you are at a lot of things. What’s really sort of determining the rate of the economy is the things we’re quite slow at, the things we’re not very good at.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So basically, it’s this task that is slowing down the speed with which the entire overall goal or objective can be met. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So basically, it’s this task that is slowing down the speed with which the entire overall goal or objective can be met. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Correct. And the reason that’s important is because often in innovation, we get really focused on the shiny thing that’s going really fast, and we’re really excited about how fast it can compute things and these kinds of new technologies.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Correct. And the reason that’s important is because often in innovation, we get really focused on the shiny thing that’s going really fast, and we’re really excited about how fast it can compute things and these kinds of new technologies.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But often what really matters is the thing we’re not looking at. It’s the things that we’re quite bad at. The things that we’re really bad at are actually going to slow down the whole system, and if we can’t improve those, the gains from these kind of shiny new objects and new technologies won’t be as great as we hope.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But often what really matters is the thing we’re not looking at. It’s the things that we’re quite bad at. The things that we’re really bad at are actually going to slow down the whole system, and if we can’t improve those, the gains from these kind of shiny new objects and new technologies won’t be as great as we hope.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I thought about these bottlenecks a lot after our initial conversation. Like, whenever I heard a tech leader say AI was going to be ready to colonize the galaxy in five years, or whenever I started spiraling about whether AI was going to take over every job ever. Now, about that. Overall, Ben, like many economists, is bullish on AI.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I thought about these bottlenecks a lot after our initial conversation. Like, whenever I heard a tech leader say AI was going to be ready to colonize the galaxy in five years, or whenever I started spiraling about whether AI was going to take over every job ever. Now, about that. Overall, Ben, like many economists, is bullish on AI.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>He says that automation is generally good for workers. Sure, it causes some job loss and dislocation in the short term. But in the long term, it raises the quality of life for everybody, in part because it lowers the price of things we need and want. But that doesn’t mean people don’t get harmed along the way.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>He says that automation is generally good for workers. Sure, it causes some job loss and dislocation in the short term. But in the long term, it raises the quality of life for everybody, in part because it lowers the price of things we need and want. But that doesn’t mean people don’t get harmed along the way.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> So, one of the fears people have is that these automation technologies take jobs.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> So, one of the fears people have is that these automation technologies take jobs.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And of course, this goes back to the early years of the Industrial Revolution and the Luddites. You know, when you have handcrafts people who are silversmiths and blacksmiths, and you’re making clothes by hand, and then suddenly you have, say, the loom, you’re going to put out of work a lot of hand clothes makers.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And of course, this goes back to the early years of the Industrial Revolution and the Luddites. You know, when you have handcrafts people who are silversmiths and blacksmiths, and you’re making clothes by hand, and then suddenly you have, say, the loom, you’re going to put out of work a lot of hand clothes makers.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But they’re going to migrate into other jobs, right? Over the long run, we’re going to see people do many other things, right? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But they’re going to migrate into other jobs, right? Over the long run, we’re going to see people do many other things, right? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Think about the real economy. Think about farming. I don’t know if anyone in the audience has ever had a chance to ride around in a combine harvester.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Think about the real economy. Think about farming. I don’t know if anyone in the audience has ever had a chance to ride around in a combine harvester.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But, that’s one of the most incredible pieces of machinery you can imagine. I think a single combine harvester with a bunch of trucks driving up and around it, was able to harvest something like four or five million pounds of corn in twelve hours. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But, that’s one of the most incredible pieces of machinery you can imagine. I think a single combine harvester with a bunch of trucks driving up and around it, was able to harvest something like four or five million pounds of corn in twelve hours. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> That’s insane. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> That’s insane. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Right? And certainly, agricultural technology is one of those areas where we’ve had massive productivity growth.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Right? And certainly, agricultural technology is one of those areas where we’ve had massive productivity growth.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>We have better seeds and irrigation systems. We have a lot more knowledge. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>We have better seeds and irrigation systems. We have a lot more knowledge. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Fertilizer. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Fertilizer. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>Fertilizers… All sorts of pesticides, depending how you feel about that. And those together have made for very high productivity, meaning, one hour of labor working with those machines can produce an enormous amount of food.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>Fertilizers… All sorts of pesticides, depending how you feel about that. And those together have made for very high productivity, meaning, one hour of labor working with those machines can produce an enormous amount of food.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And the end result of that is that instead of having half our workforce in the US, you know, be in agriculture- \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And the end result of that is that instead of having half our workforce in the US, you know, be in agriculture- \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And that’s what it would have been, like- two hundred years ago.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And that’s what it would have been, like- two hundred years ago.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And that’s what it is in many very low-income countries today, which still struggle to put in place even more basic agricultural technologies.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And that’s what it is in many very low-income countries today, which still struggle to put in place even more basic agricultural technologies.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So, if fifty percent of the American workforce was in agriculture, now it’s, say, two percent of the American workforce working with an enormous amount of machines. But of course, that’s why many people have gone on to find other careers in other parts of the country. And overall, that process, while it’s not incidental, it can be quite painful. This process of what we call creative destruction, in the long run is what allows us to be far more productive, have higher standards of living.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So, if fifty percent of the American workforce was in agriculture, now it’s, say, two percent of the American workforce working with an enormous amount of machines. But of course, that’s why many people have gone on to find other careers in other parts of the country. And overall, that process, while it’s not incidental, it can be quite painful. This process of what we call creative destruction, in the long run is what allows us to be far more productive, have higher standards of living.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Coming up, Ben Jones explains why he wants AI to be really good at every job it automates, and why the bigger risk is mediocre AI.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Coming up, Ben Jones explains why he wants AI to be really good at every job it automates, and why the bigger risk is mediocre AI.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I do want to point out a very important difference that I think a lot of people are feeling, which is that what is happening with artificial intelligence right now, it’s that the most desirable jobs seem to be the ones that are most at risk. So, I don’t think many people grow up and think, “Boy, I really want to spend all day turning a knob again and again and again.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I do want to point out a very important difference that I think a lot of people are feeling, which is that what is happening with artificial intelligence right now, it’s that the most desirable jobs seem to be the ones that are most at risk. So, I don’t think many people grow up and think, “Boy, I really want to spend all day turning a knob again and again and again.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But a lot of people really do want to do things like animate, or people want to become journalists. People are accepting giant salary reductions already, to position themselves in these fields. And it seems like those jobs are also at risk. So, there does almost seem to be an emotional difference with the jobs that are being lost right now, that puts kids growing up today in a really hard spot in terms of, follow your dreams.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But a lot of people really do want to do things like animate, or people want to become journalists. People are accepting giant salary reductions already, to position themselves in these fields. And it seems like those jobs are also at risk. So, there does almost seem to be an emotional difference with the jobs that are being lost right now, that puts kids growing up today in a really hard spot in terms of, follow your dreams.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Well, so, I mean, this is a bit too soon to tell, I think. But, you’re right that if you think of a job as not a task, but a bundle of tasks, that doesn’t mean that you don’t like some of the tasks more than others. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Well, so, I mean, this is a bit too soon to tell, I think. But, you’re right that if you think of a job as not a task, but a bundle of tasks, that doesn’t mean that you don’t like some of the tasks more than others. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> If you’re a chef, I presume you think about the menu and, and some of the cooking is more fun than washing the dishes, right? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> If you’re a chef, I presume you think about the menu and, and some of the cooking is more fun than washing the dishes, right? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes, that’s exactly right.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes, that’s exactly right.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Maybe I’m wrong. And I don’t think people are the same. So, I think people have different preferences, even in the same job, about different kinds of tasks that they have to do. But to the extent that, you know, AI replaces, it’s just lower cost for how good it is at the tasks that you like, I think that’s not gonna feel so great.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Maybe I’m wrong. And I don’t think people are the same. So, I think people have different preferences, even in the same job, about different kinds of tasks that they have to do. But to the extent that, you know, AI replaces, it’s just lower cost for how good it is at the tasks that you like, I think that’s not gonna feel so great.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You know, what if it’s really good at creativity and then all you’re doing is editing? But you’d rather do the creative part. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You know, what if it’s really good at creativity and then all you’re doing is editing? But you’d rather do the creative part. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Exactly. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Exactly. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> But on the other hand, you know, it’s also the case that when you bring in… Like, let’s go back to regressions. I like to do statistical analysis. I think it’s really interesting.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> But on the other hand, you know, it’s also the case that when you bring in… Like, let’s go back to regressions. I like to do statistical analysis. I think it’s really interesting.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But I’m mostly interested in the output. I have no interest in the calculation, and it’s boring. So, this makes me get to the interesting part much faster. And maybe when you’re writing, it’s a collaborator, right? I mean, maybe it’s not a replacement. It’s like another voice on your team.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But I’m mostly interested in the output. I have no interest in the calculation, and it’s boring. So, this makes me get to the interesting part much faster. And maybe when you’re writing, it’s a collaborator, right? I mean, maybe it’s not a replacement. It’s like another voice on your team.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And suddenly you’re getting a higher quality product, and it could be that you’re making a screenplay or writing an article, you’re writing a song, and suddenly it’s better for your collaboration with the AI, but they’re not actually taking kind of full control. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And suddenly you’re getting a higher quality product, and it could be that you’re making a screenplay or writing an article, you’re writing a song, and suddenly it’s better for your collaboration with the AI, but they’re not actually taking kind of full control. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> That’s the optimistic version here.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> That’s the optimistic version here.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>That at least for a lot of jobs, some tasks will be automated, but other tasks won’t. And those tasks, those bottlenecks, will keep us humans busy and employed and maybe even fulfilled. And looking for these bottlenecks in our own jobs or industries, that is something that feels actionable. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>That at least for a lot of jobs, some tasks will be automated, but other tasks won’t. And those tasks, those bottlenecks, will keep us humans busy and employed and maybe even fulfilled. And looking for these bottlenecks in our own jobs or industries, that is something that feels actionable. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Naturally, if there’s some bottleneck tasks that are slowing up the whole system, those are gonna have a lot of value.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Naturally, if there’s some bottleneck tasks that are slowing up the whole system, those are gonna have a lot of value.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>If you can continue to do those or do them relatively well, people will value that. You’ll get a lot of income, you’ll get a sustained job, based on those kinds of tasks. So, the question I think is, are there tasks that are bottleneck tasks that computers can’t do very well yet? That’s really where you should focus.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>If you can continue to do those or do them relatively well, people will value that. You’ll get a lot of income, you’ll get a sustained job, based on those kinds of tasks. So, the question I think is, are there tasks that are bottleneck tasks that computers can’t do very well yet? That’s really where you should focus.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And in Ben’s view, assuming there will always be some role for humans, we should actually be rooting for AI to get really, really good at whatever it automates. To understand why, we first need to understand two opposing forces. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And in Ben’s view, assuming there will always be some role for humans, we should actually be rooting for AI to get really, really good at whatever it automates. To understand why, we first need to understand two opposing forces. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> So, the first is automation. Automation would be when a machine starts doing a task that we used to do as labor, humans.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> So, the first is automation. Automation would be when a machine starts doing a task that we used to do as labor, humans.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and I think this is the force that a lot of people think of. They think about, okay, this machine can do more and more and more work, and so there’s obviously going to be just, like, less and less and less of the income or the share of the economy that’s going to be available to us non-machines.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and I think this is the force that a lot of people think of. They think about, okay, this machine can do more and more and more work, and so there’s obviously going to be just, like, less and less and less of the income or the share of the economy that’s going to be available to us non-machines.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Correct. That’s the sort of obvious force that most people get. But there’s another force which is a little bit more subtle, and it has to do with the fact that if machines are taking over tasks, and they are really good at those tasks, right… And at some level they have to be good at those tasks, otherwise they wouldn’t be taking them over from labor.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Correct. That’s the sort of obvious force that most people get. But there’s another force which is a little bit more subtle, and it has to do with the fact that if machines are taking over tasks, and they are really good at those tasks, right… And at some level they have to be good at those tasks, otherwise they wouldn’t be taking them over from labor.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But if they get very, very good at those tasks, then what happens is those tasks become very cheap, in the sense that whenever you flood a market with something, right? If I made anything abundant, its price will fall. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But if they get very, very good at those tasks, then what happens is those tasks become very cheap, in the sense that whenever you flood a market with something, right? If I made anything abundant, its price will fall. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And so what’s gonna happen if machines are really, really good at those tasks is the kinds of services they produce will become very inexpensive.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And so what’s gonna happen if machines are really, really good at those tasks is the kinds of services they produce will become very inexpensive.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And so, what we really want if AI is gonna take over a lot of tasks, it’s very important that it not just slightly beat labor at those tasks. We want AI, if it’s gonna take over those tasks, to be really great at it, because then we’re gonna have an abundance of that output, and actually the prices fall and people end up being much better off in a real income sense.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And so, what we really want if AI is gonna take over a lot of tasks, it’s very important that it not just slightly beat labor at those tasks. We want AI, if it’s gonna take over those tasks, to be really great at it, because then we’re gonna have an abundance of that output, and actually the prices fall and people end up being much better off in a real income sense.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So, I was trying to come up with an example, and instead of it being, quite as theoretical, I was trying to think of something that maybe is already happening in the economy today so that we could sort of play out this idea, this thought experiment, and really understand why even us mere laborers really ought to be working, rooting for AI to get quite good at the tasks of ours that it takes over.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So, I was trying to come up with an example, and instead of it being, quite as theoretical, I was trying to think of something that maybe is already happening in the economy today so that we could sort of play out this idea, this thought experiment, and really understand why even us mere laborers really ought to be working, rooting for AI to get quite good at the tasks of ours that it takes over.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So, I’m gonna read an example to you, and I am hoping that you can respond to it. Give me a sense of whether this is correct, and if so, what it means. If not, where I went wrong. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So, I’m gonna read an example to you, and I am hoping that you can respond to it. Give me a sense of whether this is correct, and if so, what it means. If not, where I went wrong. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>‘Imagine that companies start replacing customer service professionals at call centers with AI. This is something that we already know is happening, like when you call your health insurance company to ask about coverage, or you ask your bank why a deposit hasn’t gone through, what have you.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>‘Imagine that companies start replacing customer service professionals at call centers with AI. This is something that we already know is happening, like when you call your health insurance company to ask about coverage, or you ask your bank why a deposit hasn’t gone through, what have you.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>The person you talk to gets automated. They’re replaced by AI, and even if the AI isn’t cheap, they still cost a lot less than paying the salaries of fluent English speakers trained in customer service. So, one scenario is the AI is just ‘okay’ at this. It provides worse customer service than humans. People don’t always get their problems resolved.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>The person you talk to gets automated. They’re replaced by AI, and even if the AI isn’t cheap, they still cost a lot less than paying the salaries of fluent English speakers trained in customer service. So, one scenario is the AI is just ‘okay’ at this. It provides worse customer service than humans. People don’t always get their problems resolved.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Maybe they get frustrated, maybe they even get angry at the company. But the AI is still good enough that even though the company’s reputation might suffer a bit, the money they’re saving kind of makes it worth it. Maybe they come out a bit ahead. And this is your nightmare scenario as I understand it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Maybe they get frustrated, maybe they even get angry at the company. But the AI is still good enough that even though the company’s reputation might suffer a bit, the money they’re saving kind of makes it worth it. Maybe they come out a bit ahead. And this is your nightmare scenario as I understand it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So, all these call center jobs get eliminated. Nobody really benefits except for the companies that might save a little money every year. Is that a fair depiction of the nightmare scenario?’\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So, all these call center jobs get eliminated. Nobody really benefits except for the companies that might save a little money every year. Is that a fair depiction of the nightmare scenario?’\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Yes, because if the companies are only just saving a little bit of money, that’s a sign that the computers aren’t that much better at the task.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Yes, because if the companies are only just saving a little bit of money, that’s a sign that the computers aren’t that much better at the task.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>We get bad services. People lose their jobs. That’s an accurate version of the kind of nightmare scenario one would have in mind. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>We get bad services. People lose their jobs. That’s an accurate version of the kind of nightmare scenario one would have in mind. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay. Now, if the AI is really, really good at customer service, then eventually most of us do benefit. So, some people do lose their jobs, but they are able to move into others.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay. Now, if the AI is really, really good at customer service, then eventually most of us do benefit. So, some people do lose their jobs, but they are able to move into others.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And meanwhile, the rest of us get our questions answered really quickly, really easily. We have more time in our day to do other things, and hopefully the products and the services from that company become less expensive because the firm is able to pass along those savings. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And meanwhile, the rest of us get our questions answered really quickly, really easily. We have more time in our day to do other things, and hopefully the products and the services from that company become less expensive because the firm is able to pass along those savings. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Correct. And as long as those workers who are displaced are able to find other kinds of jobs in this new economy, everyone’s income will eventually, be going up.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Correct. And as long as those workers who are displaced are able to find other kinds of jobs in this new economy, everyone’s income will eventually, be going up.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So, if I want to go back to this farming example, it’s very easy for me to see that, you know, in the last two hundred years, let’s say, since half of America was a farmer, it’s very easy for me to see that life is a lot better now. You’re gonna live if you are born — you stand a much higher likelihood, you’re just going to enjoy a lot of things that our ancestors would not have been able to. But I think right now, a lot of people are feeling like life in general is not getting better. They’re kind of feeling like, the chances that my kid is going to have a better life than me are not that great.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So, if I want to go back to this farming example, it’s very easy for me to see that, you know, in the last two hundred years, let’s say, since half of America was a farmer, it’s very easy for me to see that life is a lot better now. You’re gonna live if you are born — you stand a much higher likelihood, you’re just going to enjoy a lot of things that our ancestors would not have been able to. But I think right now, a lot of people are feeling like life in general is not getting better. They’re kind of feeling like, the chances that my kid is going to have a better life than me are not that great.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You know, houses are getting more expensive. It’s more expensive to go to college. Like, I think a lot of people are feeling like they are just treading water. And so how does that square with this idea of incremental progress? Is it just that we are imagining the past to be better than it was? Or is it that maybe some of the things that are real pain points are because of these bottlenecks or something else?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You know, houses are getting more expensive. It’s more expensive to go to college. Like, I think a lot of people are feeling like they are just treading water. And so how does that square with this idea of incremental progress? Is it just that we are imagining the past to be better than it was? Or is it that maybe some of the things that are real pain points are because of these bottlenecks or something else?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> I would say that’s more to do with inequality, and where the benefits have been felt in this economy. And this goes way before artificial intelligence. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> I would say that’s more to do with inequality, and where the benefits have been felt in this economy. And this goes way before artificial intelligence. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Going back to the ’70s for quite a long time, the median real household income was kind of stagnating in the United States.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Going back to the ’70s for quite a long time, the median real household income was kind of stagnating in the United States.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And so, we had a lot of growth, but as I think people know, a lot of that increased value added in the economy every year has been captured by people who are pretty well off already. One of the concerns with AI, as we see, these billionaires, trillionaires starting to emerge, is that too much of the added value will be captured by those who own the companies or own the capital. So, I think that’s a real question. The other kind of inequality, which is actually the major kind of inequality that’s been at work in the United States, is within labor. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And so, we had a lot of growth, but as I think people know, a lot of that increased value added in the economy every year has been captured by people who are pretty well off already. One of the concerns with AI, as we see, these billionaires, trillionaires starting to emerge, is that too much of the added value will be captured by those who own the companies or own the capital. So, I think that’s a real question. The other kind of inequality, which is actually the major kind of inequality that’s been at work in the United States, is within labor. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And what we’ve seen over time since the ’70s is a spreading where people who are in the upper educated professional classes have been capturing a lot of the growth, in income per capita\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>for themselves. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And what we’ve seen over time since the ’70s is a spreading where people who are in the upper educated professional classes have been capturing a lot of the growth, in income per capita\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>for themselves. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Oh, interesting.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Oh, interesting.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>Whereas the median household has been struggling. Compared to history, we’ve seen relatively slow growth in real standards of living among the median household. I think when you think about why, Americans maybe not necessarily fully seeing these facts, but feeling them right? Feeling that maybe they put it on globalization, but that’s maybe not the right… But there’s some globalization, there’s a lot of automation, there’s a lot of technological change within the country. But feeling that somehow, these advances or this participation in the world economy, doesn’t seem like it’s making their lives better. And I think for many people, at least going back to the ’70s, there’s some truth in that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>Whereas the median household has been struggling. Compared to history, we’ve seen relatively slow growth in real standards of living among the median household. I think when you think about why, Americans maybe not necessarily fully seeing these facts, but feeling them right? Feeling that maybe they put it on globalization, but that’s maybe not the right… But there’s some globalization, there’s a lot of automation, there’s a lot of technological change within the country. But feeling that somehow, these advances or this participation in the world economy, doesn’t seem like it’s making their lives better. And I think for many people, at least going back to the ’70s, there’s some truth in that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> In Ben’s view, much of the pessimism Americans feel about technological progress comes not from the technology itself but from how its gains have been distributed. But he thinks that at least some of this inequality, not the kind driven by tech billionaires, but the inequality within workers might actually decrease as AI automates white collar work. And to be very blunt, he does not share the average American’s concerns about AI making human labor obsolete.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> In Ben’s view, much of the pessimism Americans feel about technological progress comes not from the technology itself but from how its gains have been distributed. But he thinks that at least some of this inequality, not the kind driven by tech billionaires, but the inequality within workers might actually decrease as AI automates white collar work. And to be very blunt, he does not share the average American’s concerns about AI making human labor obsolete.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So, I mean, a stat I ran across earlier this year, just 6% of Americans say workplace AI use will lead to more jobs in the long run, and you would just wholeheartedly disagree with that and say that, this might just be kind of a failure of imagination.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So, I mean, a stat I ran across earlier this year, just 6% of Americans say workplace AI use will lead to more jobs in the long run, and you would just wholeheartedly disagree with that and say that, this might just be kind of a failure of imagination.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Correct. I mean, you wouldn’t have imagined there was an ATM technician or a satellite engineer or a pilot before those things were created. And, I think it’s very hard to predict what’s gonna become easier, what’s gonna become hard, and that’s for the future to tell us. It’s gonna be unexpected and pretty interesting.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Correct. I mean, you wouldn’t have imagined there was an ATM technician or a satellite engineer or a pilot before those things were created. And, I think it’s very hard to predict what’s gonna become easier, what’s gonna become hard, and that’s for the future to tell us. It’s gonna be unexpected and pretty interesting.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But there’s nothing so far in history that would suggest that suddenly all labor could be replaced. And even if it were, I mean, just to be clear, I mean, if it were, right? \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But there’s nothing so far in history that would suggest that suddenly all labor could be replaced. And even if it were, I mean, just to be clear, I mean, if it were, right? \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes, let’s go there! \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes, let’s go there! \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Then the amount of output would be enormous, right? So, if you actually replaced all human labor and you had these efficient machines that could do everything, the amount of consumption you could have would be incredibly high. It would at that point become entirely an issue of equity and access to that income. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Then the amount of output would be enormous, right? So, if you actually replaced all human labor and you had these efficient machines that could do everything, the amount of consumption you could have would be incredibly high. It would at that point become entirely an issue of equity and access to that income. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right. \u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right. \u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And, you know, that’s where governments can step in, right? And we can have redistributive policies. I mean, do you wanna just let a few capitalists own everything? I doubt that is a political equilibrium- with everyone starving and, like, three people are, you know, quadrillionaires. Maybe, this gets into dystopian scenarios —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And, you know, that’s where governments can step in, right? And we can have redistributive policies. I mean, do you wanna just let a few capitalists own everything? I doubt that is a political equilibrium- with everyone starving and, like, three people are, you know, quadrillionaires. Maybe, this gets into dystopian scenarios —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes, it does\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes, it does\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And it gets into various other things. And I’m not saying that’s not possible. We certainly see authoritarian behavior around the world that is problematic. It’s ultimately a question of our political process and the representation of voices who are being left out, or doing much worse because of technological change.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And it gets into various other things. And I’m not saying that’s not possible. We certainly see authoritarian behavior around the world that is problematic. It’s ultimately a question of our political process and the representation of voices who are being left out, or doing much worse because of technological change.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And, you know, if you’re making the pie much bigger through this kind of churn and technological advance, there’s more resources around. You should be able to compensate those who lost in some way and not have them live a life that is much harder for virtue of having been replaced by machines.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And, you know, if you’re making the pie much bigger through this kind of churn and technological advance, there’s more resources around. You should be able to compensate those who lost in some way and not have them live a life that is much harder for virtue of having been replaced by machines.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I think, you know, in the United States, you have to be careful in both directions. Technological progress is inevitably about creative destruction, right? I mean, think of what Amazon has done, right? E-tail destroyed bricks-and-mortar bookstores first and a whole lot of other kinds of bricks and mortar, right?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I think, you know, in the United States, you have to be careful in both directions. Technological progress is inevitably about creative destruction, right? I mean, think of what Amazon has done, right? E-tail destroyed bricks-and-mortar bookstores first and a whole lot of other kinds of bricks and mortar, right?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But it is more efficient for a lot of people. Consumers like it. They get things delivered. It’s cheaper. You know, they get things faster. But if you owned a bookstore, it was terrible, right? And, so, how do we think about that as a society? Well, on one hand, if we let the people who are already kind of in charge resist creative destruction, then we don’t grow and we don’t advance, and then those people are kind of holding us back, right?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But it is more efficient for a lot of people. Consumers like it. They get things delivered. It’s cheaper. You know, they get things faster. But if you owned a bookstore, it was terrible, right? And, so, how do we think about that as a society? Well, on one hand, if we let the people who are already kind of in charge resist creative destruction, then we don’t grow and we don’t advance, and then those people are kind of holding us back, right?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>On the other hand, if you just let creative destruction go with no kind of willy-nilly, with no compensation, which is pretty close to the American model, right? You got a lotta progress. You got a lotta churn. You get a lotta technological advance, but you’re gonna displace a lotta people. And so, at that point, you definitely need a very, at minimum, a very flexible labor market which allows people to reallocate into other jobs, and there are ways to have policy to facilitate that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>On the other hand, if you just let creative destruction go with no kind of willy-nilly, with no compensation, which is pretty close to the American model, right? You got a lotta progress. You got a lotta churn. You get a lotta technological advance, but you’re gonna displace a lotta people. And so, at that point, you definitely need a very, at minimum, a very flexible labor market which allows people to reallocate into other jobs, and there are ways to have policy to facilitate that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Retraining, et cetera. But that’s not to sugarcoat anything here. I mean, if you’re in a rural area and the main employer goes down, reallocating to a new job probably means reallocating to a new place, leaving your family, leaving the region you know and all the culture that goes with that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Retraining, et cetera. But that’s not to sugarcoat anything here. I mean, if you’re in a rural area and the main employer goes down, reallocating to a new job probably means reallocating to a new place, leaving your family, leaving the region you know and all the culture that goes with that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>That’s an extraordinarily painful experience. And whether that’s because of technological change or trade, you know, I think it’s on all of us and as citizens in a country to take that extremely seriously.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>That’s an extraordinarily painful experience. And whether that’s because of technological change or trade, you know, I think it’s on all of us and as citizens in a country to take that extremely seriously.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I think this question of how we as a society deploy and adapt to automation is one of the most important questions today. But before we can adapt, we need to understand. That’s what this show is trying to do, help more people, including me, make sense of things. So we have a lot more great conversations coming up with economists, scientists, experts in design and media, people whose work can help us understand this moment and maybe even peek into the future.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I think this question of how we as a society deploy and adapt to automation is one of the most important questions today. But before we can adapt, we need to understand. That’s what this show is trying to do, help more people, including me, make sense of things. So we have a lot more great conversations coming up with economists, scientists, experts in design and media, people whose work can help us understand this moment and maybe even peek into the future.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED. Our show is produced by Jesse Dukes with help from Nathan Ray and Steven Jackson. Music by Steven Jackson, Q Shop, and Neutral Propulsion Laboratory.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED. Our show is produced by Jesse Dukes with help from Nathan Ray and Steven Jackson. Music by Steven Jackson, Q Shop, and Neutral Propulsion Laboratory.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad",
"attrs": {
"format": "floatright"
},
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "",
"innerContent": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Recording help from Will Feeney and George Christensen. Administrative support, recording, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Recording help from Will Feeney and George Christensen. Administrative support, recording, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
}
],
"excerpt": "Will AI actually take over every job ever? Economist Ben Jones doesn't think so. ",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1784138807,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 151,
"wordCount": 6578
},
"headData": {
"title": "To Thrive Alongside AI, Find the Bottlenecks (with Ben Jones) | KQED",
"description": "Will AI actually take over every job ever? Economist Ben Jones doesn't think so. ",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "To Thrive Alongside AI, Find the Bottlenecks (with Ben Jones)",
"datePublished": "2026-07-15T09:27:18-07:00",
"dateModified": "2026-07-15T11:06:47-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 33520,
"slug": "podcast",
"name": "Podcast"
},
"audioUrl": "https://traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC7972128624.mp3",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12091093",
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12091093/to-thrive-alongside-ai-find-the-bottlenecks-with-ben-jones",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003ca href=\"#transcript\">View the full episode transcript.\u003c/a>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Will AI actually take over every job ever? \u003ca href=\"https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/academics-research/faculty/jones_benjamin_f/\">Economist Ben Jones\u003c/a> doesn’t think so. Drawing from historical evidence around innovation, Jones argues that automation never conquers \u003cem>everything \u003c/em>— it inevitably creates operational bottlenecks that only humans can solve. By leaning into these bottlenecks, we can protect meaningful, well-paid work. But his optimism comes with a stark caveat: there is one nightmare scenario where this historical pattern breaks down entirely. And it doesn’t involve superintelligence. It involves mediocre AI.\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Further Reading: \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://ai-frontiers.org/articles/how-ai-could-benefit-the-workers-it-displaces\">How AI Could Benefit Workers, Even If It Displaces Most Jobs\u003c/a> — Benjamin Jones, \u003cem>AI Frontiers\u003c/em>\u003cbr>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I’m Jess Love. This is Life Automated. For generations of Americans, the question was, where were you when JFK was shot? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Breaking news bulletin announcing the death of John F. Kennedy]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem> Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. You’ll excuse the fact that I’m out of breath, but about 10 or 15 minutes ago, a tragic thing from all indications at this point has happened to this city.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> When Neil Armstrong walked on the moon?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio Clip of Neil Armstrong on the moon]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>That’s one small step for man, one giant- \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Or the towers fell on 9/11?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[News bulletin from September 11, 2001]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>There’s smoke \u003c/em>\u003cem>billowing out of the World Trade Center.\u003c/em>\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> These are moments seared into our collective psyche, and now we have a new moment, only this one arrived a bit differently, a browser at a time.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Where were you when you first used ChatGPT?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is Life, Automated. I’m Jess Love, and I can tell you exactly where I was. The year was 2022, and I was visiting my in-laws in Florida. It was that lazy week between Christmas and New Year’s that I usually spend in a food coma. I sat on my sister-in-law’s childhood bed and signed up for a free subscription to ChatGPT.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I started asking the machine questions, easy ones at first. What did it know about butterflies native to Chicago or the most common tourist attractions in Italy? But it wasn’t too long before I asked what I really wanted to know. Could it do my job? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>See, much of the work I’ve done over the past decade is in science communication, essentially translating original research written by and for experts into something comprehensible to most people.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, I asked ChatGPT to summarize some papers I was familiar with, and it did okay. But what it lacked in finesse, and especially in those earlier iterations, accurate citations, it more than made up for in sheer efficiency. In just seconds, it could do work that would take a human the better part of a day.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>If I didn’t like the first draft that was conjured, I could just tell it to try again from a different perspective now. Write it shorter. Write it longer. Write it for a fifth grader. Write it with sports metaphors. I was stunned. It seemed clear we were entering a new era of science communication where all the world’s knowledge was not only available, but personally customizable on demand.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>If you wanted a given study to be relayed in the style of Mr. Darcy flirting with Elizabeth Bennet, you were now suddenly in luck. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[AI-generated summary of Pride and Prejudice in style of research article]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Darcy’s mouth tightened in a way that suggested the accusation had landed, but he proceeded anyway. My dear Miss Bennet, said Mr. Darcy with an air of careful restraint, I have been reading “AIG in Hindsight.” It is an instructive account of how a firm may appear a paragon of prudence until one… \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> The thing I did to make my living that made me special, that made me employable, that I loved to do, was now available to anybody. How could I possibly compete? What did all of my expertise even mean anymore?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And the more I thought about ChatGPT, and the more its implications for a lot of other professions became clear, the more I started wondering about all of us. I have a seven-year-old daughter. What opportunities are gonna be available to her? I’m not alone here. The majority of Americans feel pretty anxious about AI.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And it’s not just jobs. Public polling data suggests Americans are really concerned about how AI will affect education, democracy, our environment, our information ecosystem, and just how we relate to each other. But even as I share all these concerns, I gotta say, over time, a big part of me did start rooting for this technology.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Partly, this is because I now work at a research institute, the Ryan Institute on Complexity. I use AI tools every day, and so do the people around me. I see firsthand how useful they can be. But there’s a bigger reason. I have another daughter, an 11-year-old. She was born with a rare neurological disorder, so rare that it doesn’t actually have a name.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You can currently count the number of people in the world with her specific genetic mutation on two fingers. And this genetic difference, it affects how she talks, how she moves, how she uses objects like forks and scissors, how she thinks and learns. My daughter lives in a world that wasn’t made for her, with a brain that science doesn’t really understand.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, technology that can harness the world’s cumulative knowledge in order to make her life a little easier sounds pretty incredible. AI that can predict which medications might be useful or offer step-by-step directions on how to operate household appliances, and then wait for her to finish each step.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of AI Microwave]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>First, press the button above the handle and open the door. Your food will go inside that box when it’s ready. Now close the door. Did it click? \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Or AI that can adapt educational materials to her specifically, on demand, maybe in the voice of her favorite Moana character. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003cem>[Audio of Maui from Moana]\u003c/em>\u003c/strong>\u003cem> \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>You’re welcome. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Sign me up. So yeah, that’s me. One person, one employee, one parent, reckoning with this technology. But of course, it isn’t just me. There are millions, billions of us wondering what AI and other kinds of automation really mean for our lives and our businesses and our communities, and what we should be doing to prepare. If you are one of these people, I’d like to invite you on a journey.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Because nobody can predict the future, nobody has all the answers about where we’re headed, but there are a lot of people with some answers, and I’ll be speaking with them on Life, Automated, a new podcast from Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity, distributed by KQED. I’ll talk with scientists and philosophers, business leaders and engineers and artists, all with unique insights into the world we’re collectively building.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m not gonna try to freak you out. I’m not gonna try to sell you anything. I am gonna get nerdy. I’m gonna try to understand, as best I can, where we’re headed. And you’re invited.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Shortly after I had my initial ChatGPT moment several years ago, I tracked down Ben Jones. He’s an economist and a co-director here at the Ryan Institute where he studies economic development, innovation, entrepreneurship, and the scientific process. And it turns out, Ben has been paying attention to new developments in generative AI for much longer than me.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>When we talked three and a half years ago, I was kind of at peak anxiety; but Ben, he’d had a head start. Speaking with him helped me feel better about where we were headed, in part because he gave me a helpful way of thinking about AI. So, I wanted to bring him back for another conversation, this time in a recording studio. I started off by getting him talking about the first moment he realized AI had the potential to bring about big changes.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Did you have an AI moment, kind of a single moment that sort of shook you to the core and made you think, wow, something about these newest models is really fundamentally different? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> I did. I’ve had several AI moments along the way. I think many people, you know, when you see what AI can do, it’s uncanny.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Sometimes the hair stands up on the back of my neck. But my first AI moment where the hair stood up on the back of my neck was in 2017, and I was in Toronto for a conference that mixed economists and technologists, people from Geoff Hinton’s lab, who would go on to lead many of the top AI groups at the top companies.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And we were shown over dinner, it was a very nice dinner, a video. The video was of an AI learning how to play a first-person shooter game. And as you may know, with first-person shooter games, the experience is if you’re looking through the eyes of the player. So, we’re sort of looking through the eyes of the AI.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And without any particular directives, except to sort of survive as long as possible, the AI was training itself to play this game better and better. And at first, you’re sitting there looking through the AI’s eyes, and you’re kind of like a drunken sailor. You’re, like, stumbling around, you’re banging into walls, you’re getting trapped in corners.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You never pick up health or a weapon. You just don’t last very long. The video showed us the AI’s progression kind of in a fast-forward, high speed over maybe 24 hours. And so around the middle of the training, over, maybe 12 hours, it started running around the maze extremely effectively, but it wasn’t always picking up things on the floor, and it was no longer falling off bridges.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>By the end of the day, it was not only picking everything up and firing the weapons accurately, it was killing every single person in the game, all the real players. It didn’t miss. It didn’t miss in any way. And just watching this progression from this AI algorithm was a really uncanny moment, and to me, opened my mind to how powerful but also potentially worrisome AI is.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and I think, you know, on some level it’s not that surprising that a computer can learn to master a computer game. But what makes this story so incredible is just that the computer had no instructions that told us what it was supposed to be doing or what it was supposed to be optimizing other than just, like, live.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And it was able to just learn all of those techniques just via trial and error. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Right. Just the certain algorithms for training AI with fairly simple objectives lead to this incredible set of capabilities, which are truly uncanny. Many people have probably had that first moment now with AI, I think a lot with ChatGPT, where you ask it a question and you can’t believe the answer.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You’re like, “How could it possibly be coming up with this?” And AI absolutely has that quality. So, for me, it kind of happened a bit earlier, and so I started writing about it a bit earlier than most because I’d had that experience a bit earlier than most. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, which was very convenient for me personally because it meant that, when I was still in my AI freak-out phase, you were somebody who had been doing research on this for years, and were able to kind of be this, calming presence, in order to give me some concrete information about this technology.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, you have kind of an interesting perspective, which is that AI, the current generative AI that we’re talking about with ChatGPT, it’s really just part of a long process of automation. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Correct. And it’s true that certain technologies for a long time, and AI is one of them, are just hands down amazing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>They do things that are just amazing. But that doesn’t mean that they disemploy everybody.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Phew.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And, how can those two things be true? Well, let me just give you another example. You know, obviously computers have been around for a long time now, and their capacity to do sort of certain kinds of calculations are just, more or less infinitely, virtually infinitely better than humans.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, in my field and in many research fields, you use data and statistical regressions. If I were to run a regression by hand, with a large number of observations, it would take me literally my entire life. And I would make mistakes. You know, my computer can do a regression with a million data points in a minute.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so, we have these technologies that basically are infinitely better than us to do these tasks that are really important to what we do. And then you can ask, okay, well, has our understanding of economics or astronomy or physics multiplied by a similar factor? And you’d say no, because although we can do certain things really, really, really incredibly well, other things are holding us back.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But that doesn’t mean that you don’t have these other tasks, which I would call bottlenecks.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay, and this is the thing that I have thought about so often since our conversation. It kind of blew my mind. So, can you talk to us about what a bottleneck is and why it’s so important?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Well, of course, it’s a metaphor from a bottle, and what do we know about bottles? We know that the speed at which water or wine will flow from the bottle depends on the width of the neck. Doesn’t really depend on how big the bottle is otherwise, how much wine there is in it, how big the base is. It really just depends on the neck.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And in many processes in the economy and in the economy overall, it looks like there are certain things that have to happen that act as bottlenecks. Let’s say you’re going out to see your cousins for Thanksgiving dinner, and you’ve gotta get everyone in your house into the car, and you’ve gotta pack up the pies that you’re bringing and contributing to the festivities.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Well, everyone in the house could have gotten up early, gotten dressed, put on their Thanksgiving sweaters, gotten the pies into the car. But you’re not leaving the house until everyone has their shoes on and their socks. And maybe there’s someone in the family who just is getting real slow about getting their socks and their shoes on.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>How fast is it that you leave the house? It doesn’t really depend on how fast everyone is. It depends on how slow the slowest person is. That person becomes a bottleneck. Maybe an example we can all relate to. Much of the economy has that flavor, where it’s not how good you are at a lot of things. What’s really sort of determining the rate of the economy is the things we’re quite slow at, the things we’re not very good at.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So basically, it’s this task that is slowing down the speed with which the entire overall goal or objective can be met. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Correct. And the reason that’s important is because often in innovation, we get really focused on the shiny thing that’s going really fast, and we’re really excited about how fast it can compute things and these kinds of new technologies.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But often what really matters is the thing we’re not looking at. It’s the things that we’re quite bad at. The things that we’re really bad at are actually going to slow down the whole system, and if we can’t improve those, the gains from these kind of shiny new objects and new technologies won’t be as great as we hope.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I thought about these bottlenecks a lot after our initial conversation. Like, whenever I heard a tech leader say AI was going to be ready to colonize the galaxy in five years, or whenever I started spiraling about whether AI was going to take over every job ever. Now, about that. Overall, Ben, like many economists, is bullish on AI.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>He says that automation is generally good for workers. Sure, it causes some job loss and dislocation in the short term. But in the long term, it raises the quality of life for everybody, in part because it lowers the price of things we need and want. But that doesn’t mean people don’t get harmed along the way.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> So, one of the fears people have is that these automation technologies take jobs.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And of course, this goes back to the early years of the Industrial Revolution and the Luddites. You know, when you have handcrafts people who are silversmiths and blacksmiths, and you’re making clothes by hand, and then suddenly you have, say, the loom, you’re going to put out of work a lot of hand clothes makers.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But they’re going to migrate into other jobs, right? Over the long run, we’re going to see people do many other things, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Think about the real economy. Think about farming. I don’t know if anyone in the audience has ever had a chance to ride around in a combine harvester.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But, that’s one of the most incredible pieces of machinery you can imagine. I think a single combine harvester with a bunch of trucks driving up and around it, was able to harvest something like four or five million pounds of corn in twelve hours. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> That’s insane. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Right? And certainly, agricultural technology is one of those areas where we’ve had massive productivity growth.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We have better seeds and irrigation systems. We have a lot more knowledge. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>Fertilizer. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>Fertilizers… All sorts of pesticides, depending how you feel about that. And those together have made for very high productivity, meaning, one hour of labor working with those machines can produce an enormous amount of food.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And the end result of that is that instead of having half our workforce in the US, you know, be in agriculture- \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And that’s what it would have been, like- two hundred years ago.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And that’s what it is in many very low-income countries today, which still struggle to put in place even more basic agricultural technologies.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, if fifty percent of the American workforce was in agriculture, now it’s, say, two percent of the American workforce working with an enormous amount of machines. But of course, that’s why many people have gone on to find other careers in other parts of the country. And overall, that process, while it’s not incidental, it can be quite painful. This process of what we call creative destruction, in the long run is what allows us to be far more productive, have higher standards of living.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Coming up, Ben Jones explains why he wants AI to be really good at every job it automates, and why the bigger risk is mediocre AI.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I do want to point out a very important difference that I think a lot of people are feeling, which is that what is happening with artificial intelligence right now, it’s that the most desirable jobs seem to be the ones that are most at risk. So, I don’t think many people grow up and think, “Boy, I really want to spend all day turning a knob again and again and again.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But a lot of people really do want to do things like animate, or people want to become journalists. People are accepting giant salary reductions already, to position themselves in these fields. And it seems like those jobs are also at risk. So, there does almost seem to be an emotional difference with the jobs that are being lost right now, that puts kids growing up today in a really hard spot in terms of, follow your dreams.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Well, so, I mean, this is a bit too soon to tell, I think. But, you’re right that if you think of a job as not a task, but a bundle of tasks, that doesn’t mean that you don’t like some of the tasks more than others. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> If you’re a chef, I presume you think about the menu and, and some of the cooking is more fun than washing the dishes, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes, that’s exactly right.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Maybe I’m wrong. And I don’t think people are the same. So, I think people have different preferences, even in the same job, about different kinds of tasks that they have to do. But to the extent that, you know, AI replaces, it’s just lower cost for how good it is at the tasks that you like, I think that’s not gonna feel so great.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, what if it’s really good at creativity and then all you’re doing is editing? But you’d rather do the creative part. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Exactly. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> But on the other hand, you know, it’s also the case that when you bring in… Like, let’s go back to regressions. I like to do statistical analysis. I think it’s really interesting.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I’m mostly interested in the output. I have no interest in the calculation, and it’s boring. So, this makes me get to the interesting part much faster. And maybe when you’re writing, it’s a collaborator, right? I mean, maybe it’s not a replacement. It’s like another voice on your team.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And suddenly you’re getting a higher quality product, and it could be that you’re making a screenplay or writing an article, you’re writing a song, and suddenly it’s better for your collaboration with the AI, but they’re not actually taking kind of full control. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> That’s the optimistic version here.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>That at least for a lot of jobs, some tasks will be automated, but other tasks won’t. And those tasks, those bottlenecks, will keep us humans busy and employed and maybe even fulfilled. And looking for these bottlenecks in our own jobs or industries, that is something that feels actionable. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Naturally, if there’s some bottleneck tasks that are slowing up the whole system, those are gonna have a lot of value.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>If you can continue to do those or do them relatively well, people will value that. You’ll get a lot of income, you’ll get a sustained job, based on those kinds of tasks. So, the question I think is, are there tasks that are bottleneck tasks that computers can’t do very well yet? That’s really where you should focus.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> And in Ben’s view, assuming there will always be some role for humans, we should actually be rooting for AI to get really, really good at whatever it automates. To understand why, we first need to understand two opposing forces. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> So, the first is automation. Automation would be when a machine starts doing a task that we used to do as labor, humans.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and I think this is the force that a lot of people think of. They think about, okay, this machine can do more and more and more work, and so there’s obviously going to be just, like, less and less and less of the income or the share of the economy that’s going to be available to us non-machines.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Correct. That’s the sort of obvious force that most people get. But there’s another force which is a little bit more subtle, and it has to do with the fact that if machines are taking over tasks, and they are really good at those tasks, right… And at some level they have to be good at those tasks, otherwise they wouldn’t be taking them over from labor.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But if they get very, very good at those tasks, then what happens is those tasks become very cheap, in the sense that whenever you flood a market with something, right? If I made anything abundant, its price will fall. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so what’s gonna happen if machines are really, really good at those tasks is the kinds of services they produce will become very inexpensive.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so, what we really want if AI is gonna take over a lot of tasks, it’s very important that it not just slightly beat labor at those tasks. We want AI, if it’s gonna take over those tasks, to be really great at it, because then we’re gonna have an abundance of that output, and actually the prices fall and people end up being much better off in a real income sense.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So, I was trying to come up with an example, and instead of it being, quite as theoretical, I was trying to think of something that maybe is already happening in the economy today so that we could sort of play out this idea, this thought experiment, and really understand why even us mere laborers really ought to be working, rooting for AI to get quite good at the tasks of ours that it takes over.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, I’m gonna read an example to you, and I am hoping that you can respond to it. Give me a sense of whether this is correct, and if so, what it means. If not, where I went wrong. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>‘Imagine that companies start replacing customer service professionals at call centers with AI. This is something that we already know is happening, like when you call your health insurance company to ask about coverage, or you ask your bank why a deposit hasn’t gone through, what have you.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The person you talk to gets automated. They’re replaced by AI, and even if the AI isn’t cheap, they still cost a lot less than paying the salaries of fluent English speakers trained in customer service. So, one scenario is the AI is just ‘okay’ at this. It provides worse customer service than humans. People don’t always get their problems resolved.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Maybe they get frustrated, maybe they even get angry at the company. But the AI is still good enough that even though the company’s reputation might suffer a bit, the money they’re saving kind of makes it worth it. Maybe they come out a bit ahead. And this is your nightmare scenario as I understand it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, all these call center jobs get eliminated. Nobody really benefits except for the companies that might save a little money every year. Is that a fair depiction of the nightmare scenario?’\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Yes, because if the companies are only just saving a little bit of money, that’s a sign that the computers aren’t that much better at the task.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We get bad services. People lose their jobs. That’s an accurate version of the kind of nightmare scenario one would have in mind. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay. Now, if the AI is really, really good at customer service, then eventually most of us do benefit. So, some people do lose their jobs, but they are able to move into others.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And meanwhile, the rest of us get our questions answered really quickly, really easily. We have more time in our day to do other things, and hopefully the products and the services from that company become less expensive because the firm is able to pass along those savings. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Correct. And as long as those workers who are displaced are able to find other kinds of jobs in this new economy, everyone’s income will eventually, be going up.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> So, if I want to go back to this farming example, it’s very easy for me to see that, you know, in the last two hundred years, let’s say, since half of America was a farmer, it’s very easy for me to see that life is a lot better now. You’re gonna live if you are born — you stand a much higher likelihood, you’re just going to enjoy a lot of things that our ancestors would not have been able to. But I think right now, a lot of people are feeling like life in general is not getting better. They’re kind of feeling like, the chances that my kid is going to have a better life than me are not that great.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, houses are getting more expensive. It’s more expensive to go to college. Like, I think a lot of people are feeling like they are just treading water. And so how does that square with this idea of incremental progress? Is it just that we are imagining the past to be better than it was? Or is it that maybe some of the things that are real pain points are because of these bottlenecks or something else?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> I would say that’s more to do with inequality, and where the benefits have been felt in this economy. And this goes way before artificial intelligence. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Going back to the ’70s for quite a long time, the median real household income was kind of stagnating in the United States.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so, we had a lot of growth, but as I think people know, a lot of that increased value added in the economy every year has been captured by people who are pretty well off already. One of the concerns with AI, as we see, these billionaires, trillionaires starting to emerge, is that too much of the added value will be captured by those who own the companies or own the capital. So, I think that’s a real question. The other kind of inequality, which is actually the major kind of inequality that’s been at work in the United States, is within labor. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Okay. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And what we’ve seen over time since the ’70s is a spreading where people who are in the upper educated professional classes have been capturing a lot of the growth, in income per capita\u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>for themselves. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Oh, interesting.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones: \u003c/strong>Whereas the median household has been struggling. Compared to history, we’ve seen relatively slow growth in real standards of living among the median household. I think when you think about why, Americans maybe not necessarily fully seeing these facts, but feeling them right? Feeling that maybe they put it on globalization, but that’s maybe not the right… But there’s some globalization, there’s a lot of automation, there’s a lot of technological change within the country. But feeling that somehow, these advances or this participation in the world economy, doesn’t seem like it’s making their lives better. And I think for many people, at least going back to the ’70s, there’s some truth in that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> In Ben’s view, much of the pessimism Americans feel about technological progress comes not from the technology itself but from how its gains have been distributed. But he thinks that at least some of this inequality, not the kind driven by tech billionaires, but the inequality within workers might actually decrease as AI automates white collar work. And to be very blunt, he does not share the average American’s concerns about AI making human labor obsolete.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love: \u003c/strong>So, I mean, a stat I ran across earlier this year, just 6% of Americans say workplace AI use will lead to more jobs in the long run, and you would just wholeheartedly disagree with that and say that, this might just be kind of a failure of imagination.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Correct. I mean, you wouldn’t have imagined there was an ATM technician or a satellite engineer or a pilot before those things were created. And, I think it’s very hard to predict what’s gonna become easier, what’s gonna become hard, and that’s for the future to tell us. It’s gonna be unexpected and pretty interesting.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But there’s nothing so far in history that would suggest that suddenly all labor could be replaced. And even if it were, I mean, just to be clear, I mean, if it were, right? \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes, let’s go there! \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> Then the amount of output would be enormous, right? So, if you actually replaced all human labor and you had these efficient machines that could do everything, the amount of consumption you could have would be incredibly high. It would at that point become entirely an issue of equity and access to that income. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Right. \u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And, you know, that’s where governments can step in, right? And we can have redistributive policies. I mean, do you wanna just let a few capitalists own everything? I doubt that is a political equilibrium- with everyone starving and, like, three people are, you know, quadrillionaires. Maybe, this gets into dystopian scenarios —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> Yes, it does\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ben Jones:\u003c/strong> And it gets into various other things. And I’m not saying that’s not possible. We certainly see authoritarian behavior around the world that is problematic. It’s ultimately a question of our political process and the representation of voices who are being left out, or doing much worse because of technological change.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And, you know, if you’re making the pie much bigger through this kind of churn and technological advance, there’s more resources around. You should be able to compensate those who lost in some way and not have them live a life that is much harder for virtue of having been replaced by machines.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I think, you know, in the United States, you have to be careful in both directions. Technological progress is inevitably about creative destruction, right? I mean, think of what Amazon has done, right? E-tail destroyed bricks-and-mortar bookstores first and a whole lot of other kinds of bricks and mortar, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But it is more efficient for a lot of people. Consumers like it. They get things delivered. It’s cheaper. You know, they get things faster. But if you owned a bookstore, it was terrible, right? And, so, how do we think about that as a society? Well, on one hand, if we let the people who are already kind of in charge resist creative destruction, then we don’t grow and we don’t advance, and then those people are kind of holding us back, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>On the other hand, if you just let creative destruction go with no kind of willy-nilly, with no compensation, which is pretty close to the American model, right? You got a lotta progress. You got a lotta churn. You get a lotta technological advance, but you’re gonna displace a lotta people. And so, at that point, you definitely need a very, at minimum, a very flexible labor market which allows people to reallocate into other jobs, and there are ways to have policy to facilitate that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Retraining, et cetera. But that’s not to sugarcoat anything here. I mean, if you’re in a rural area and the main employer goes down, reallocating to a new job probably means reallocating to a new place, leaving your family, leaving the region you know and all the culture that goes with that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>That’s an extraordinarily painful experience. And whether that’s because of technological change or trade, you know, I think it’s on all of us and as citizens in a country to take that extremely seriously.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jess Love:\u003c/strong> I think this question of how we as a society deploy and adapt to automation is one of the most important questions today. But before we can adapt, we need to understand. That’s what this show is trying to do, help more people, including me, make sense of things. So we have a lot more great conversations coming up with economists, scientists, experts in design and media, people whose work can help us understand this moment and maybe even peek into the future.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m Jess Love. Life, Automated is a project of the Ryan Institute on Complexity at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. We’re distributed by KQED. Our show is produced by Jesse Dukes with help from Nathan Ray and Steven Jackson. Music by Steven Jackson, Q Shop, and Neutral Propulsion Laboratory.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Recording help from Will Feeney and George Christensen. Administrative support, recording, and wise counsel from Stacia Sliger.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12091093/to-thrive-alongside-ai-find-the-bottlenecks-with-ben-jones",
"authors": [
"12009"
],
"programs": [
"news_37188"
],
"categories": [
"news_33520",
"news_248"
],
"tags": [
"news_25184",
"news_19904",
"news_1631"
],
"featImg": "news_12091074",
"label": "news_37188"
}
},
"podcastsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"podcasts": {}
},
"radioProgramsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"radioPrograms": {}
},
"radioSearchSegmentsReducer": {},
"programsReducer": {
"all-things-considered": {
"id": "all-things-considered",
"title": "All Things Considered",
"info": "Every weekday, \u003cem>All Things Considered\u003c/em> hosts Robert Siegel, Audie Cornish, Ari Shapiro, and Kelly McEvers present the program's trademark mix of news, interviews, commentaries, reviews, and offbeat features. Michel Martin hosts on the weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 1pm-2pm, 4:30pm-6:30pm\u003cbr />SAT-SUN 5pm-6pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/All-Things-Considered-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/all-things-considered"
},
"american-suburb-podcast": {
"id": "american-suburb-podcast",
"title": "American Suburb: The Podcast",
"tagline": "The flip side of gentrification, told through one town",
"info": "Gentrification is changing cities across America, forcing people from neighborhoods they have long called home. Call them the displaced. Now those priced out of the Bay Area are looking for a better life in an unlikely place. American Suburb follows this migration to one California town along the Delta, 45 miles from San Francisco. But is this once sleepy suburb ready for them?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/American-Suburb-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 19
},
"link": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/RBrW",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=1287748328",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/American-Suburb-p1086805/",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/feed/podcast",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMzMDExODgxNjA5"
}
},
"baycurious": {
"id": "baycurious",
"title": "Bay Curious",
"tagline": "Exploring the Bay Area, one question at a time",
"info": "KQED’s new podcast, Bay Curious, gets to the bottom of the mysteries — both profound and peculiar — that give the Bay Area its unique identity. And we’ll do it with your help! You ask the questions. You decide what Bay Curious investigates. And you join us on the journey to find the answers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Bay-Curious-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Bay Curious",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/baycurious",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 3
},
"link": "/podcasts/baycurious",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bay-curious/id1172473406",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/500557090/bay-curious",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/category/bay-curious-podcast/feed/podcast",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9a90d476-aa04-455d-9a4c-0871ed6216d4/bay-curious",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/bay-curious",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6O76IdmhixfijmhTZLIJ8k"
}
},
"bbc-world-service": {
"id": "bbc-world-service",
"title": "BBC World Service",
"info": "The day's top stories from BBC News compiled twice daily in the week, once at weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9pm-10pm, TUE-FRI 1am-2am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/BBC-World-Service-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_world_service",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "BBC World Service"
},
"link": "/radio/program/bbc-world-service",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/global-news-podcast/id135067274?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/BBC-World-Service-p455581/",
"rss": "https://podcasts.files.bbci.co.uk/p02nq0gn.rss"
}
},
"californiareport": {
"id": "californiareport",
"title": "The California Report",
"tagline": "California, day by day",
"info": "KQED’s statewide radio news program providing daily coverage of issues, trends and public policy decisions.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareport",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 8
},
"link": "/californiareport",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-the-california-report/id79681292",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/26099305-72af-4542-9dde-ac1807fe36d5/kqed-s-the-california-report",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432285393/the-california-report",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-the-california-report-podcast-8838",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcram/feed/podcast"
}
},
"californiareportmagazine": {
"id": "californiareportmagazine",
"title": "The California Report Magazine",
"tagline": "Your state, your stories",
"info": "Every week, The California Report Magazine takes you on a road trip for the ears: to visit the places and meet the people who make California unique. The in-depth storytelling podcast from the California Report.",
"airtime": "FRI 4:30pm-5pm, 6:30pm-7pm, 11pm-11:30pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Magazine-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report Magazine",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareportmagazine",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 10
},
"link": "/californiareportmagazine",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-california-report-magazine/id1314750545",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM3NjkwNjk1OTAz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/564733126/the-california-report-magazine",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-california-report-magazine",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcrmag/feed/podcast"
}
},
"city-arts": {
"id": "city-arts",
"title": "City Arts & Lectures",
"info": "A one-hour radio program to hear celebrated writers, artists and thinkers address contemporary ideas and values, often discussing the creative process. Please note: tapes or transcripts are not available",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/cityartsandlecture-300x300.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.cityarts.net/",
"airtime": "SUN 1pm-2pm, TUE 10pm, WED 1am",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "City Arts & Lectures"
},
"link": "https://www.cityarts.net",
"subscribe": {
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/City-Arts-and-Lectures-p692/",
"rss": "https://www.cityarts.net/feed/"
}
},
"closealltabs": {
"id": "closealltabs",
"title": "Close All Tabs",
"tagline": "Your irreverent guide to the trends redefining our world",
"info": "Close All Tabs breaks down how digital culture shapes our world through thoughtful insights and irreverent humor.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAT_2_Tile-scaled.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Close All Tabs",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 1
},
"link": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/close-all-tabs/id214663465",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC6993880386",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/92d9d4ac-67a3-4eed-b10a-fb45d45b1ef2/close-all-tabs",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6LAJFHnGK1pYXYzv6SIol6?si=deb0cae19813417c"
}
},
"code-switch-life-kit": {
"id": "code-switch-life-kit",
"title": "Code Switch / Life Kit",
"info": "\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em>, which listeners will hear in the first part of the hour, has fearless and much-needed conversations about race. Hosted by journalists of color, the show tackles the subject of race head-on, exploring how it impacts every part of society — from politics and pop culture to history, sports and more.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em>, which will be in the second part of the hour, guides you through spaces and feelings no one prepares you for — from finances to mental health, from workplace microaggressions to imposter syndrome, from relationships to parenting. The show features experts with real world experience and shares their knowledge. Because everyone needs a little help being human.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510312/codeswitch\">\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/lifekit\">\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />",
"airtime": "SUN 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Code-Switch-Life-Kit-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/code-switch-life-kit",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/1112190608?mt=2&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2FzdC5waHA_aWQ9NTEwMzEy",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3bExJ9JQpkwNhoHvaIIuyV",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510312/podcast.xml"
}
},
"commonwealth-club": {
"id": "commonwealth-club",
"title": "Commonwealth Club of California Podcast",
"info": "The Commonwealth Club of California is the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum. As a non-partisan forum, The Club brings to the public airwaves diverse viewpoints on important topics. The Club's weekly radio broadcast - the oldest in the U.S., dating back to 1924 - is carried across the nation on public radio stations and is now podcasting. Our website archive features audio of our recent programs, as well as selected speeches from our long and distinguished history. This podcast feed is usually updated twice a week and is always un-edited.",
"airtime": "THU 10pm, FRI 1am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Commonwealth-Club-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.commonwealthclub.org/podcasts",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Commonwealth Club of California"
},
"link": "/radio/program/commonwealth-club",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/commonwealth-club-of-california-podcast/id976334034?mt=2",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5jb21tb253ZWFsdGhjbHViLm9yZy9hdWRpby9wb2RjYXN0L3dlZWtseS54bWw",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Commonwealth-Club-of-California-p1060/"
}
},
"forum": {
"id": "forum",
"title": "Forum",
"tagline": "The conversation starts here",
"info": "KQED’s live call-in program discussing local, state, national and international issues, as well as in-depth interviews.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9am-11am, 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Forum-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Forum with Mina Kim and Alexis Madrigal",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/forum",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 9
},
"link": "/forum",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-forum/id73329719",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM5NTU3MzgxNjMz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432307980/forum",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-forum-podcast",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9557381633"
}
},
"freakonomics-radio": {
"id": "freakonomics-radio",
"title": "Freakonomics Radio",
"info": "Freakonomics Radio is a one-hour award-winning podcast and public-radio project hosted by Stephen Dubner, with co-author Steve Levitt as a regular guest. It is produced in partnership with WNYC.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/freakonomicsRadio.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://freakonomics.com/",
"airtime": "SUN 1am-2am, SAT 3pm-4pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/freakonomics-radio",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/freakonomics-radio/id354668519",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/Freakonomics-Radio-p272293/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/freakonomicsradio"
}
},
"fresh-air": {
"id": "fresh-air",
"title": "Fresh Air",
"info": "Hosted by Terry Gross, \u003cem>Fresh Air from WHYY\u003c/em> is the Peabody Award-winning weekday magazine of contemporary arts and issues. One of public radio's most popular programs, Fresh Air features intimate conversations with today's biggest luminaries.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fresh-Air-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/fresh-air",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=214089682&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Fresh-Air-p17/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/381444908/podcast.xml"
}
},
"here-and-now": {
"id": "here-and-now",
"title": "Here & Now",
"info": "A live production of NPR and WBUR Boston, in collaboration with stations across the country, Here & Now reflects the fluid world of news as it's happening in the middle of the day, with timely, in-depth news, interviews and conversation. Hosted by Robin Young, Jeremy Hobson and Tonya Mosley.",
"airtime": "MON-THU 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Here-And-Now-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/here-and-now",
"subsdcribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=426698661",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Here--Now-p211/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510051/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hidden-brain": {
"id": "hidden-brain",
"title": "Hidden Brain",
"info": "Shankar Vedantam uses science and storytelling to reveal the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior, shape our choices and direct our relationships.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/hiddenbrain.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/423302056/hidden-brain",
"airtime": "SUN 7pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "NPR"
},
"link": "/radio/program/hidden-brain",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-brain/id1028908750?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Science-Podcasts/Hidden-Brain-p787503/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510308/podcast.xml"
}
},
"how-i-built-this": {
"id": "how-i-built-this",
"title": "How I Built This with Guy Raz",
"info": "Guy Raz dives into the stories behind some of the world's best known companies. How I Built This weaves a narrative journey about innovators, entrepreneurs and idealists—and the movements they built.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/howIBuiltThis.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this",
"airtime": "SUN 7:30pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/how-i-built-this",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/3zxy",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/how-i-built-this-with-guy-raz/id1150510297?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Arts--Culture-Podcasts/How-I-Built-This-p910896/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510313/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hyphenacion": {
"id": "hyphenacion",
"title": "Hyphenación",
"tagline": "Where conversation and cultura meet",
"info": "What kind of no sabo word is Hyphenación? For us, it’s about living within a hyphenation. Like being a third-gen Mexican-American from the Texas border now living that Bay Area Chicano life. Like Xorje! Each week we bring together a couple of hyphenated Latinos to talk all about personal life choices: family, careers, relationships, belonging … everything is on the table. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Hyphenacion_FinalAssets_PodcastTile.png",
"imageAlt": "KQED Hyphenación",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 15
},
"link": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hyphenaci%C3%B3n/id1191591838",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/2p3Fifq96nw9BPcmFdIq0o?si=39209f7b25774f38",
"youtube": "https://www.youtube.com/c/kqedarts",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/6c3dd23c-93fb-4aab-97ba-1725fa6315f1/hyphenaci%C3%B3n",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC2275451163"
}
},
"jerrybrown": {
"id": "jerrybrown",
"title": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"tagline": "Lessons from a lifetime in politics",
"info": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown brings listeners the wisdom of the former Governor, Mayor, and presidential candidate. Scott Shafer interviewed Brown for more than 40 hours, covering the former governor's life and half-century in the political game – and Brown has some lessons he'd like to share. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Political-Mind-of-Jerry-Brown-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 18
},
"link": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/790253322/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1492194549",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/jerrybrown/feed/podcast/",
"tuneIn": "http://tun.in/pjGcK",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/54C1dmuyFyKMFttY6X2j6r?si=K8SgRCoISNK6ZbjpXrX5-w",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/44420f75-3b0e-4301-ab3b-16da6b09e543/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown"
}
},
"latino-usa": {
"id": "latino-usa",
"title": "Latino USA",
"airtime": "MON 1am-2am, SUN 6pm-7pm",
"info": "Latino USA, the radio journal of news and culture, is the only national, English-language radio program produced from a Latino perspective.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/latinoUsa.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://latinousa.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/latino-usa",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/xtTd",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=79681317&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Latino-USA-p621/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510016/podcast.xml"
}
},
"marketplace": {
"id": "marketplace",
"title": "Marketplace",
"info": "Our flagship program, helmed by Kai Ryssdal, examines what the day in money delivered, through stories, conversations, newsworthy numbers and more. Updated Monday through Friday at about 3:30 p.m. PT.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 4pm-4:30pm, MON-WED 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Marketplace-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.marketplace.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "American Public Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/marketplace",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201853034&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/APM-Marketplace-p88/",
"rss": "https://feeds.publicradio.org/public_feeds/marketplace-pm/rss/rss"
}
},
"masters-of-scale": {
"id": "masters-of-scale",
"title": "Masters of Scale",
"info": "Masters of Scale is an original podcast in which LinkedIn co-founder and Greylock Partner Reid Hoffman sets out to describe and prove theories that explain how great entrepreneurs take their companies from zero to a gazillion in ingenious fashion.",
"airtime": "Every other Wednesday June 12 through October 16 at 8pm (repeats Thursdays at 2am)",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Masters-of-Scale-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://mastersofscale.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WaitWhat"
},
"link": "/radio/program/masters-of-scale",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "http://mastersofscale.app.link/",
"rss": "https://rss.art19.com/masters-of-scale"
}
},
"mindshift": {
"id": "mindshift",
"title": "MindShift",
"tagline": "A podcast about the future of learning and how we raise our kids",
"info": "The MindShift podcast explores the innovations in education that are shaping how kids learn. Hosts Ki Sung and Katrina Schwartz introduce listeners to educators, researchers, parents and students who are developing effective ways to improve how kids learn. We cover topics like how fed-up administrators are developing surprising tactics to deal with classroom disruptions; how listening to podcasts are helping kids develop reading skills; the consequences of overparenting; and why interdisciplinary learning can engage students on all ends of the traditional achievement spectrum. This podcast is part of the MindShift education site, a division of KQED News. KQED is an NPR/PBS member station based in San Francisco. You can also visit the MindShift website for episodes and supplemental blog posts or tweet us \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/MindShiftKQED\">@MindShiftKQED\u003c/a> or visit us at \u003ca href=\"/mindshift\">MindShift.KQED.org\u003c/a>",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Mindshift-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED MindShift: How We Will Learn",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/mindshift/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 12
},
"link": "/podcasts/mindshift",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mindshift-podcast/id1078765985",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM1NzY0NjAwNDI5",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/464615685/mind-shift-podcast",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/stories-teachers-share",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0MxSpNYZKNprFLCl7eEtyx"
}
},
"morning-edition": {
"id": "morning-edition",
"title": "Morning Edition",
"info": "\u003cem>Morning Edition\u003c/em> takes listeners around the country and the world with multi-faceted stories and commentaries every weekday. Hosts Steve Inskeep, David Greene and Rachel Martin bring you the latest breaking news and features to prepare you for the day.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3am-9am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Morning-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/morning-edition/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/morning-edition"
},
"onourwatch": {
"id": "onourwatch",
"title": "On Our Watch",
"tagline": "Deeply-reported investigative journalism",
"info": "For decades, the process for how police police themselves has been inconsistent – if not opaque. In some states, like California, these proceedings were completely hidden. After a new police transparency law unsealed scores of internal affairs files, our reporters set out to examine these cases and the shadow world of police discipline. On Our Watch brings listeners into the rooms where officers are questioned and witnesses are interrogated to find out who this system is really protecting. Is it the officers, or the public they've sworn to serve?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/On-Our-Watch-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "On Our Watch from NPR and KQED",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 11
},
"link": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id1567098962",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5ucHIub3JnLzUxMDM2MC9wb2RjYXN0LnhtbD9zYz1nb29nbGVwb2RjYXN0cw",
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/onourwatch",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0OLWoyizopu6tY1XiuX70x",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-Our-Watch-p1436229/",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/show/on-our-watch",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510360/podcast.xml"
}
},
"on-the-media": {
"id": "on-the-media",
"title": "On The Media",
"info": "Our weekly podcast explores how the media 'sausage' is made, casts an incisive eye on fluctuations in the marketplace of ideas, and examines threats to the freedom of information and expression in America and abroad. For one hour a week, the show tries to lift the veil from the process of \"making media,\" especially news media, because it's through that lens that we see the world and the world sees us",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm-3pm, MON 12am-1am",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/onTheMedia.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/otm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wnyc"
},
"link": "/radio/program/on-the-media",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-the-Media-p69/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/onthemedia"
}
},
"pbs-newshour": {
"id": "pbs-newshour",
"title": "PBS NewsHour",
"info": "Analysis, background reports and updates from the PBS NewsHour putting today's news in context.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/PBS-News-Hour-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "pbs"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pbs-newshour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pbs-newshour-full-show/id394432287?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/PBS-NewsHour---Full-Show-p425698/",
"rss": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/show"
}
},
"perspectives": {
"id": "perspectives",
"title": "Perspectives",
"tagline": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991",
"info": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Perspectives_Tile_Final.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Perspectives",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/perspectives/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 14
},
"link": "/perspectives",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id73801135",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432309616/perspectives",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/perspectives/category/perspectives/feed/",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93dzIua3FlZC5vcmcvcGVyc3BlY3RpdmVzL2NhdGVnb3J5L3BlcnNwZWN0aXZlcy9mZWVkLw"
}
},
"planet-money": {
"id": "planet-money",
"title": "Planet Money",
"info": "The economy explained. Imagine you could call up a friend and say, Meet me at the bar and tell me what's going on with the economy. Now imagine that's actually a fun evening.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/planetmoney.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/sections/money/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/planet-money",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/M4f5",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/planet-money/id290783428?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Business--Economics-Podcasts/Planet-Money-p164680/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510289/podcast.xml"
}
},
"politicalbreakdown": {
"id": "politicalbreakdown",
"title": "Political Breakdown",
"tagline": "Politics from a personal perspective",
"info": "Political Breakdown is a new series that explores the political intersection of California and the nation. Each week hosts Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos are joined with a new special guest to unpack politics -- with personality — and offer an insider’s glimpse at how politics happens.",
"airtime": "THU 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Political-Breakdown-2024-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Political Breakdown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 5
},
"link": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/political-breakdown/id1327641087",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/e0c2d153-ad36-4c8d-901d-f1da6a724824/political-breakdown",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/572155894/political-breakdown",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/political-breakdown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/07RVyIjIdk2WDuVehvBMoN",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/political-breakdown/feed/podcast"
}
},
"possible": {
"id": "possible",
"title": "Possible",
"info": "Possible is hosted by entrepreneur Reid Hoffman and writer Aria Finger. Together in Possible, Hoffman and Finger lead enlightening discussions about building a brighter collective future. The show features interviews with visionary guests like Trevor Noah, Sam Altman and Janette Sadik-Khan. Possible paints an optimistic portrait of the world we can create through science, policy, business, art and our shared humanity. It asks: What if everything goes right for once? How can we get there? Each episode also includes a short fiction story generated by advanced AI GPT-4, serving as a thought-provoking springboard to speculate how humanity could leverage technology for good.",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Possible-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.possible.fm/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Possible"
},
"link": "/radio/program/possible",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/possible/id1677184070",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/730YpdUSNlMyPQwNnyjp4k"
}
},
"pri-the-world": {
"id": "pri-the-world",
"title": "PRI's The World: Latest Edition",
"info": "Each weekday, host Marco Werman and his team of producers bring you the world's most interesting stories in an hour of radio that reminds us just how small our planet really is.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-World-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pri.org/programs/the-world",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "PRI"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pri-the-world",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pris-the-world-latest-edition/id278196007?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/PRIs-The-World-p24/",
"rss": "http://feeds.feedburner.com/pri/theworld"
}
},
"radiolab": {
"id": "radiolab",
"title": "Radiolab",
"info": "A two-time Peabody Award-winner, Radiolab is an investigation told through sounds and stories, and centered around one big idea. In the Radiolab world, information sounds like music and science and culture collide. Hosted by Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich, the show is designed for listeners who demand skepticism, but appreciate wonder. WNYC Studios is the producer of other leading podcasts including Freakonomics Radio, Death, Sex & Money, On the Media and many more.",
"airtime": "SUN 12am-1am, SAT 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/radiolab1400.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/radiolab/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/radiolab",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/radiolab/id152249110?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/RadioLab-p68032/",
"rss": "https://feeds.wnyc.org/radiolab"
}
},
"reveal": {
"id": "reveal",
"title": "Reveal",
"info": "Created by The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX, Reveal is public radios first one-hour weekly radio show and podcast dedicated to investigative reporting. Credible, fact based and without a partisan agenda, Reveal combines the power and artistry of driveway moment storytelling with data-rich reporting on critically important issues. The result is stories that inform and inspire, arming our listeners with information to right injustices, hold the powerful accountable and improve lives.Reveal is hosted by Al Letson and showcases the award-winning work of CIR and newsrooms large and small across the nation. In a radio and podcast market crowded with choices, Reveal focuses on important and often surprising stories that illuminate the world for our listeners.",
"airtime": "SAT 4pm-5pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/reveal300px.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/reveal",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/reveal/id886009669",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Reveal-p679597/",
"rss": "http://feeds.revealradio.org/revealpodcast"
}
},
"rightnowish": {
"id": "rightnowish",
"title": "Rightnowish",
"tagline": "Art is where you find it",
"info": "Rightnowish digs into life in the Bay Area right now… ish. Journalist Pendarvis Harshaw takes us to galleries painted on the sides of liquor stores in West Oakland. We'll dance in warehouses in the Bayview, make smoothies with kids in South Berkeley, and listen to classical music in a 1984 Cutlass Supreme in Richmond. Every week, Pen talks to movers and shakers about how the Bay Area shapes what they create, and how they shape the place we call home.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Rightnowish-Podcast-Tile-500x500-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Rightnowish with Pendarvis Harshaw",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 16
},
"link": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/721590300/rightnowish",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/programs/rightnowish/feed/podcast",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rightnowish/id1482187648",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/rightnowish",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMxMjU5MTY3NDc4",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/7kEJuafTzTVan7B78ttz1I"
}
},
"science-friday": {
"id": "science-friday",
"title": "Science Friday",
"info": "Science Friday is a weekly science talk show, broadcast live over public radio stations nationwide. Each week, the show focuses on science topics that are in the news and tries to bring an educated, balanced discussion to bear on the scientific issues at hand. Panels of expert guests join host Ira Flatow, a veteran science journalist, to discuss science and to take questions from listeners during the call-in portion of the program.",
"airtime": "FRI 11am-1pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Science-Friday-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/science-friday",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/science-friday",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=73329284&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Science-Friday-p394/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/science-friday"
}
},
"snap-judgment": {
"id": "snap-judgment",
"title": "Snap Judgment",
"tagline": "Real stories with killer beats",
"info": "The Snap Judgment radio show and podcast mixes real stories with killer beats to produce cinematic, dramatic radio. Snap's musical brand of storytelling dares listeners to see the world through the eyes of another. This is storytelling... with a BEAT!! Snap first aired on public radio stations nationwide in July 2010. Today, Snap Judgment airs on over 450 public radio stations and is brought to the airwaves by KQED & PRX.",
"airtime": "SAT 1pm-2pm, 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Snap-Judgment-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Snap Judgment",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 4
},
"link": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/snap-judgment/id283657561",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/449018144/snap-judgment",
"stitcher": "https://www.pandora.com/podcast/snap-judgment/PC:241?source=stitcher-sunset",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3Cct7ZWmxHNAtLgBTqjC5v",
"rss": "https://snap.feed.snapjudgment.org/"
}
},
"soldout": {
"id": "soldout",
"title": "SOLD OUT: Rethinking Housing in America",
"tagline": "A new future for housing",
"info": "Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Sold-Out-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/soldout",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 13
},
"link": "/podcasts/soldout",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/911586047/s-o-l-d-o-u-t-a-new-future-for-housing",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/introducing-sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america/id1531354937",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/soldout",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/38dTBSk2ISFoPiyYNoKn1X",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america",
"tunein": "https://tunein.com/radio/SOLD-OUT-Rethinking-Housing-in-America-p1365871/"
}
},
"spooked": {
"id": "spooked",
"title": "Spooked",
"tagline": "True-life supernatural stories",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Spooked-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Spooked",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 7
},
"link": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spooked/id1279361017",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/549547848/snap-judgment-presents-spooked",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/76571Rfl3m7PLJQZKQIGCT",
"rss": "https://feeds.simplecast.com/TBotaapn"
}
},
"tech-nation": {
"id": "tech-nation",
"title": "Tech Nation Radio Podcast",
"info": "Tech Nation is a weekly public radio program, hosted by Dr. Moira Gunn. Founded in 1993, it has grown from a simple interview show to a multi-faceted production, featuring conversations with noted technology and science leaders, and a weekly science and technology-related commentary.",
"airtime": "FRI 10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Tech-Nation-Radio-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://technation.podomatic.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "Tech Nation Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tech-nation",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://technation.podomatic.com/rss2.xml"
}
},
"ted-radio-hour": {
"id": "ted-radio-hour",
"title": "TED Radio Hour",
"info": "The TED Radio Hour is a journey through fascinating ideas, astonishing inventions, fresh approaches to old problems, and new ways to think and create.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm, SAT 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/tedRadioHour.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/?showDate=2018-06-22",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/ted-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/8vsS",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=523121474&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/TED-Radio-Hour-p418021/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510298/podcast.xml"
}
},
"thebay": {
"id": "thebay",
"title": "The Bay",
"tagline": "Local news to keep you rooted",
"info": "Host Devin Katayama walks you through the biggest story of the day with reporters and newsmakers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Bay-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Bay",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/thebay",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 2
},
"link": "/podcasts/thebay",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bay/id1350043452",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/d800ea4c-7a2c-42f2-b861-edaf78a5db0b/the-bay",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/586725995/the-bay",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-bay",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/4BIKBKIujizLHlIlBNaAqQ",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC8259786327"
}
},
"thelatest": {
"id": "thelatest",
"title": "The Latest",
"tagline": "Trusted local news in real time",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/The-Latest-2025-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Latest",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/thelatest",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 6
},
"link": "/thelatest",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-latest-from-kqed/id1197721799",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/1257949365/the-latest-from-k-q-e-d",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/5KIIXMgM9GTi5AepwOYvIZ?si=bd3053fec7244dba",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9137121918"
}
},
"theleap": {
"id": "theleap",
"title": "The Leap",
"tagline": "What if you closed your eyes, and jumped?",
"info": "Stories about people making dramatic, risky changes, told by award-winning public radio reporter Judy Campbell.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Leap-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Leap",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/theleap",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 17
},
"link": "/podcasts/theleap",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-leap/id1046668171",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/447248267/the-leap",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-leap",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3sSlVHHzU0ytLwuGs1SD1U",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/programs/the-leap/feed/podcast"
}
},
"the-moth-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-moth-radio-hour",
"title": "The Moth Radio Hour",
"info": "Since its launch in 1997, The Moth has presented thousands of true stories, told live and without notes, to standing-room-only crowds worldwide. Moth storytellers stand alone, under a spotlight, with only a microphone and a roomful of strangers. The storyteller and the audience embark on a high-wire act of shared experience which is both terrifying and exhilarating. Since 2008, The Moth podcast has featured many of our favorite stories told live on Moth stages around the country. For information on all of our programs and live events, visit themoth.org.",
"airtime": "SAT 8pm-9pm and SUN 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/theMoth.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://themoth.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "prx"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-moth-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-moth-podcast/id275699983?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/The-Moth-p273888/",
"rss": "http://feeds.themoth.org/themothpodcast"
}
},
"the-new-yorker-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"title": "The New Yorker Radio Hour",
"info": "The New Yorker Radio Hour is a weekly program presented by the magazine's editor, David Remnick, and produced by WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Each episode features a diverse mix of interviews, profiles, storytelling, and an occasional burst of humor inspired by the magazine, and shaped by its writers, artists, and editors. This isn't a radio version of a magazine, but something all its own, reflecting the rich possibilities of audio storytelling and conversation. Theme music for the show was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of tUnE-YArDs.",
"airtime": "SAT 10am-11am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-New-Yorker-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/tnyradiohour",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1050430296",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/New-Yorker-Radio-Hour-p803804/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/newyorkerradiohour"
}
},
"the-sam-sanders-show": {
"id": "the-sam-sanders-show",
"title": "The Sam Sanders Show",
"info": "One of public radio's most dynamic voices, Sam Sanders helped launch The NPR Politics Podcast and hosted NPR's hit show It's Been A Minute. Now, the award-winning host returns with something brand new, The Sam Sanders Show. Every week, Sam Sanders and friends dig into the culture that shapes our lives: what's driving the biggest trends, how artists really think, and even the memes you can't stop scrolling past. Sam is beloved for his way of unpacking the world and bringing you up close to fresh currents and engaging conversations. The Sam Sanders Show is smart, funny and always a good time.",
"airtime": "FRI 12-1pm AND SAT 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-Sam-Sanders-Show-Podcast-Tile-400x400-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "KCRW"
},
"link": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feed.cdnstream1.com/zjb/feed/download/ac/28/59/ac28594c-e1d0-4231-8728-61865cdc80e8.xml"
}
},
"the-splendid-table": {
"id": "the-splendid-table",
"title": "The Splendid Table",
"info": "\u003cem>The Splendid Table\u003c/em> hosts our nation's conversations about cooking, sustainability and food culture.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Splendid-Table-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.splendidtable.org/",
"airtime": "SUN 10-11 pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-splendid-table"
},
"this-american-life": {
"id": "this-american-life",
"title": "This American Life",
"info": "This American Life is a weekly public radio show, heard by 2.2 million people on more than 500 stations. Another 2.5 million people download the weekly podcast. It is hosted by Ira Glass, produced in collaboration with Chicago Public Media, delivered to stations by PRX The Public Radio Exchange, and has won all of the major broadcasting awards.",
"airtime": "SAT 12pm-1pm, 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/thisAmericanLife.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wbez"
},
"link": "/radio/program/this-american-life",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201671138&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"rss": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/rss.xml"
}
},
"tinydeskradio": {
"id": "tinydeskradio",
"title": "Tiny Desk Radio",
"info": "We're bringing the best of Tiny Desk to the airwaves, only on public radio.",
"airtime": "SUN 8pm and SAT 9pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/300x300-For-Member-Station-Logo-Tiny-Desk-Radio-@2x.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/g-s1-52030/tiny-desk-radio",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tinydeskradio",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/g-s1-52030/rss.xml"
}
},
"wait-wait-dont-tell-me": {
"id": "wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"title": "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!",
"info": "Peter Sagal and Bill Kurtis host the weekly NPR News quiz show alongside some of the best and brightest news and entertainment personalities.",
"airtime": "SUN 10am-11am, SAT 11am-12pm, SAT 6pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Wait-Wait-Podcast-Tile-300x300-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/wait-wait-dont-tell-me/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/Xogv",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=121493804&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Wait-Wait-Dont-Tell-Me-p46/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/344098539/podcast.xml"
}
},
"weekend-edition-saturday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-saturday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Saturday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Saturday wraps up the week's news and offers a mix of analysis and features on a wide range of topics, including arts, sports, entertainment, and human interest stories. The two-hour program is hosted by NPR's Peabody Award-winning Scott Simon.",
"airtime": "SAT 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-saturday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-saturday"
},
"weekend-edition-sunday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-sunday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Sunday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Sunday features interviews with newsmakers, artists, scientists, politicians, musicians, writers, theologians and historians. The program has covered news events from Nelson Mandela's 1990 release from a South African prison to the capture of Saddam Hussein.",
"airtime": "SUN 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-sunday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-sunday"
}
},
"racesReducer": {},
"racesGenElectionReducer": {},
"racesGenElection2026Reducer": {},
"racesGenElection2026PresidentialReducer": {},
"radioSchedulesReducer": {},
"listsReducer": {
"posts?author=12009&authorName=Jess Love": {
"isFetching": false,
"latestQuery": {
"from": 0,
"size": 12
},
"vitalsOnly": false,
"totalRequested": 11,
"isLoading": false,
"isLoadingMore": true,
"total": {
"value": 11,
"relation": "eq"
},
"items": [
"news_12104228",
"news_12101920",
"news_12101055",
"news_12099764",
"news_12097687",
"news_12095781",
"news_12094640",
"news_12092477",
"news_12092457",
"news_12092008",
"news_12091093"
],
"complete": true
}
},
"recallGuideReducer": {
"intros": {},
"policy": {},
"candidates": {}
},
"savedArticleReducer": {
"articles": [],
"status": {}
},
"newslettersReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"newsletters": {},
"isSubscribing": false,
"isUnsubscribing": false,
"subscribedNewsletters": {}
},
"termsReducer": {
"about": {
"name": "About",
"type": "terms",
"id": "about",
"slug": "about",
"link": "/about",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"arts": {
"name": "Arts & Culture",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"description": "KQED Arts provides daily in-depth coverage of the Bay Area's music, art, film, performing arts, literature and arts news, as well as cultural commentary and criticism.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "arts",
"slug": "arts",
"link": "/arts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"artschool": {
"name": "Art School",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "artschool",
"slug": "artschool",
"link": "/artschool",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareabites": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareabites",
"slug": "bayareabites",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareahiphop": {
"name": "Bay Area Hiphop",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareahiphop",
"slug": "bayareahiphop",
"link": "/bayareahiphop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"campaign21": {
"name": "Campaign 21",
"type": "terms",
"id": "campaign21",
"slug": "campaign21",
"link": "/campaign21",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"careers": {
"name": "Careers",
"type": "terms",
"id": "careers",
"slug": "careers",
"link": "/careers",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"checkplease": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "checkplease",
"slug": "checkplease",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"education": {
"name": "Education",
"grouping": [
"education"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "education",
"slug": "education",
"link": "/education",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"elections": {
"name": "Elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "elections",
"slug": "elections",
"link": "/elections",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"events": {
"name": "Events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "events",
"slug": "events",
"link": "/events",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"event": {
"name": "Event",
"alias": "events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "event",
"slug": "event",
"link": "/event",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"filmschoolshorts": {
"name": "Film School Shorts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "filmschoolshorts",
"slug": "filmschoolshorts",
"link": "/filmschoolshorts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"food": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "food",
"slug": "food",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"forum": {
"name": "Forum",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/forum?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "forum",
"slug": "forum",
"link": "/forum",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"futureofyou": {
"name": "Future of You",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "futureofyou",
"slug": "futureofyou",
"link": "/futureofyou",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"jpepinheart": {
"name": "KQED food",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/food,bayareabites,checkplease",
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "jpepinheart",
"slug": "jpepinheart",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"liveblog": {
"name": "Live Blog",
"type": "terms",
"id": "liveblog",
"slug": "liveblog",
"link": "/liveblog",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"livetv": {
"name": "Live TV",
"parent": "tv",
"type": "terms",
"id": "livetv",
"slug": "livetv",
"link": "/livetv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"lowdown": {
"name": "The Lowdown",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/lowdown?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "lowdown",
"slug": "lowdown",
"link": "/lowdown",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"mindshift": {
"name": "Mindshift",
"parent": "news",
"description": "MindShift explores the future of education by highlighting the innovative – and sometimes counterintuitive – ways educators and parents are helping all children succeed.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "mindshift",
"slug": "mindshift",
"link": "/mindshift",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news": {
"name": "News",
"grouping": [
"news",
"forum"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "news",
"slug": "news",
"link": "/news",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"newsletters": {
"name": "newsletters",
"type": "terms",
"id": "newsletters",
"slug": "newsletters",
"link": "/newsletters",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"perspectives": {
"name": "Perspectives",
"parent": "radio",
"type": "terms",
"id": "perspectives",
"slug": "perspectives",
"link": "/perspectives",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"podcasts": {
"name": "Podcasts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "podcasts",
"slug": "podcasts",
"link": "/podcasts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pop": {
"name": "Pop",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pop",
"slug": "pop",
"link": "/pop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pressroom": {
"name": "Pressroom",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pressroom",
"slug": "pressroom",
"link": "/pressroom",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"quest": {
"name": "Quest",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "quest",
"slug": "quest",
"link": "/quest",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"radio": {
"name": "Radio",
"grouping": [
"forum",
"perspectives"
],
"description": "Listen to KQED Public Radio – home of Forum and The California Report – on 88.5 FM in San Francisco, 89.3 FM in Sacramento, 88.3 FM in Santa Rosa and 88.1 FM in Martinez.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "radio",
"slug": "radio",
"link": "/radio",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"root": {
"name": "KQED",
"image": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"imageWidth": 1200,
"imageHeight": 630,
"headData": {
"title": "KQED | News, Radio, Podcasts, TV | Public Media for Northern California",
"description": "KQED provides public radio, television, and independent reporting on issues that matter to the Bay Area. We’re the NPR and PBS member station for Northern California."
},
"type": "terms",
"id": "root",
"slug": "root",
"link": "/root",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"science": {
"name": "Science",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"description": "KQED Science brings you award-winning science and environment coverage from the Bay Area and beyond.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "science",
"slug": "science",
"link": "/science",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"stateofhealth": {
"name": "State of Health",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "stateofhealth",
"slug": "stateofhealth",
"link": "/stateofhealth",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"support": {
"name": "Support",
"type": "terms",
"id": "support",
"slug": "support",
"link": "/support",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"thedolist": {
"name": "The Do List",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "thedolist",
"slug": "thedolist",
"link": "/thedolist",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"trulyca": {
"name": "Truly CA",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "trulyca",
"slug": "trulyca",
"link": "/trulyca",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"tv": {
"name": "TV",
"type": "terms",
"id": "tv",
"slug": "tv",
"link": "/tv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"voterguide": {
"name": "Voter Guide",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "voterguide",
"slug": "voterguide",
"link": "/voterguide",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"guiaelectoral": {
"name": "Guia Electoral",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "guiaelectoral",
"slug": "guiaelectoral",
"link": "/guiaelectoral",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"source_news_12101055": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_12101055",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Close All Tabs",
"link": "https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/closealltabs",
"isLoading": false
},
"news_37188": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_37188",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "37188",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Life, Automated",
"slug": "life-automated",
"taxonomy": "program",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Life, Automated | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 37205,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/program/life-automated"
},
"news_8": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_8",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "8",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "News",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "News Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 8,
"slug": "news",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/news"
},
"news_33520": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33520",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33520",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Podcast",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Podcast Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33537,
"slug": "podcast",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/podcast"
},
"news_248": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_248",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "248",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Technology",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Technology Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 256,
"slug": "technology",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/technology"
},
"news_37598": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_37598",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "37598",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "games",
"slug": "games",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "games | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 37615,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/games"
},
"news_37595": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_37595",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "37595",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "modern life",
"slug": "modern-life",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "modern life | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 37612,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/modern-life"
},
"news_37596": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_37596",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "37596",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "optimization",
"slug": "optimization",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "optimization | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 37613,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/optimization"
},
"news_37597": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_37597",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "37597",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "tech-mediated experiences",
"slug": "tech-mediated-experiences",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "tech-mediated experiences | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 37614,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/tech-mediated-experiences"
},
"news_1631": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1631",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1631",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Technology",
"slug": "technology",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Technology | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 1643,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/technology"
},
"news_33732": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33732",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33732",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Technology",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Technology Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33749,
"slug": "technology",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/technology"
},
"news_25184": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_25184",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "25184",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "AI",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "AI Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 25201,
"slug": "ai",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/ai"
},
"news_37491": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_37491",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "37491",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "alignment",
"slug": "alignment",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "alignment | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 37508,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/alignment"
},
"news_17619": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_17619",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "17619",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "cybersecurity",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "cybersecurity Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 17653,
"slug": "cybersecurity",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/cybersecurity"
},
"news_37490": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_37490",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "37490",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Hugging Face",
"slug": "hugging-face",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Hugging Face | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 37507,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/hugging-face"
},
"news_35082": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_35082",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "35082",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Close All Tabs",
"slug": "close-all-tabs",
"taxonomy": "program",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Close All Tabs | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 35099,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/program/close-all-tabs"
},
"news_21334": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_21334",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "21334",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "artists",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "artists Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 21351,
"slug": "artists",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/artists"
},
"news_34645": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_34645",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "34645",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "close all tabs",
"slug": "close-all-tabs",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "close all tabs | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null,
"metaRobotsNoIndex": "noindex"
},
"ttid": 34662,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/close-all-tabs"
},
"news_22973": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_22973",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "22973",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "culture",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "culture Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 22990,
"slug": "culture",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/culture"
},
"news_3137": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_3137",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "3137",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "internet",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "internet Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 3155,
"slug": "internet",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/internet"
},
"news_34646": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_34646",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "34646",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "internet culture",
"slug": "internet-culture",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "internet culture | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 34663,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/internet-culture"
},
"news_1771": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1771",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1771",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "life",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "life Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1786,
"slug": "life",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/life"
},
"news_4142": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_4142",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "4142",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "musicians",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "musicians Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 4161,
"slug": "musicians",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/musicians"
},
"news_35940": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_35940",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "35940",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "tech industry",
"slug": "tech-industry",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "tech industry | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 35957,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/tech-industry"
},
"news_223": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_223",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "223",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Arts and Culture",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Arts and Culture Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 231,
"slug": "arts-and-culture",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/arts-and-culture"
},
"news_18540": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_18540",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "18540",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Education",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Education Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2595,
"slug": "education",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/education"
},
"news_20013": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_20013",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20013",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "education",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "education Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 20030,
"slug": "education",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/education"
},
"news_36314": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_36314",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "36314",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "languages",
"slug": "languages",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "languages | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 36331,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/languages"
},
"news_35583": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_35583",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "35583",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "translation",
"slug": "translation",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "translation | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 35600,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/translation"
},
"news_33736": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33736",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33736",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Arts and Culture",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Arts and Culture Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33753,
"slug": "arts-and-culture",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/arts-and-culture"
},
"news_29992": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_29992",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "29992",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Arts",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Arts Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 30009,
"slug": "arts",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/arts"
},
"news_20257": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_20257",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20257",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "art",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "art Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 20274,
"slug": "art",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/art"
},
"news_37387": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_37387",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "37387",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "creative work",
"slug": "creative-work",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "creative work | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 37404,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/creative-work"
},
"news_1761": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1761",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1761",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "economics",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "economics Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1774,
"slug": "economics-2",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/economics-2"
},
"news_37386": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_37386",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "37386",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "future of work",
"slug": "future-of-work",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "future of work | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 37403,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/future-of-work"
},
"news_37354": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_37354",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "37354",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "cheating",
"slug": "cheating",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "cheating | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 37371,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/cheating"
},
"news_35401": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_35401",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "35401",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "k-12",
"slug": "k-12",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "k-12 | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 35418,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/k-12"
},
"news_33746": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33746",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33746",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Education",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Education Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33763,
"slug": "education",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/education"
},
"news_36279": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_36279",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "36279",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "chatbot",
"slug": "chatbot",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "chatbot | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 36296,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/chatbot"
},
"news_25020": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_25020",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "25020",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "relationships",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "relationships Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 25037,
"slug": "relationships",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/relationships"
},
"news_37003": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_37003",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "37003",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "The Latest",
"slug": "the-latest",
"taxonomy": "program",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "The Latest | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 37020,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/program/the-latest"
},
"news_37236": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_37236",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "37236",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "magic",
"slug": "magic",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "magic | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 37253,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/magic"
},
"news_18545": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_18545",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "18545",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Economy",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Economy Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1771,
"slug": "economy",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/economy"
},
"news_20023": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_20023",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20023",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "environment",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "environment Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 20040,
"slug": "environment",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/environment"
},
"news_33750": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33750",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33750",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Climate",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Climate Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33767,
"slug": "climate",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/climate"
},
"news_33737": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33737",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33737",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Science",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Science Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33754,
"slug": "science",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/science"
},
"news_19904": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_19904",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "19904",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Labor",
"slug": "labor",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Labor | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 19921,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/labor"
},
"news_33733": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33733",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33733",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "News",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "News Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33750,
"slug": "news",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/news"
}
},
"userPermissionsReducer": {
"wpLoggedIn": false
},
"eventsReducer": {},
"fssReducer": {},
"tvDailyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvWeeklyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvPrimetimeScheduleReducer": {},
"tvMonthlyScheduleReducer": {},
"userAccountReducer": {
"user": {
"email": null,
"emailStatus": "EMAIL_UNVALIDATED",
"loggedStatus": "LOGGED_OUT",
"loggingChecked": false,
"articles": [],
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"phoneNumber": null,
"fetchingMembership": false,
"membershipError": false,
"memberships": [
{
"id": null,
"startDate": null,
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"familyNumber": null,
"memberNumber": null,
"memberSince": null,
"expirationDate": null,
"pfsEligible": false,
"isSustaining": false,
"membershipLevel": "Prospect",
"membershipStatus": "Non Member",
"lastGiftDate": null,
"renewalDate": null,
"lastDonationAmount": null
}
]
},
"authModal": {
"isOpen": false,
"view": "LANDING_VIEW"
},
"error": null
},
"youthMediaReducer": {},
"checkPleaseReducer": {
"filterData": {
"region": {
"key": "Restaurant Region",
"filters": [
"Any Region"
]
},
"cuisine": {
"key": "Restaurant Cuisine",
"filters": [
"Any Cuisine"
]
}
},
"restaurantDataById": {},
"restaurantIdsSorted": [],
"error": null
},
"userAgentReducer": {
"userAgent": "Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)",
"isBot": true
},
"requestOutcomesReducer": {
"notFound": []
},
"navPromosReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": true,
"promos": {
"news": {
"name": "2026 Voter Guide",
"link": "/voterguide",
"imageURL": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Nav-News-Nov2026ElectionCoverage@2x-7bd4aad4.png",
"description": "Get informed in minutes with our Voter Guide for California’s November 3 election."
},
"podcasts-radio": {},
"video-tv": {},
"events": {},
"support": {}
}
}
}
