tech
“Hard Fork” is a show about the future that’s already here. Each week, journalists Kevin Roose and Casey Newton explore and make sense of the latest in the rapidly changing world of tech. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.
Jasmine's son, reporting from the Midwest, highlights growing opposition to AI data centers. Residents in Wisconsin and Michigan are concerned about the aesthetic impact, noise pollution, and the overall implications of these facilities on their communities. The opposition stems from a mix of concerns including process, direct impacts, and the broader implications of AI.
The use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in data center development is intensifying local opposition, according to Jasmine's son's reporting. These agreements prevent council members from disclosing details about the projects, including the type of facility, its customers, or its power consumption, leading to rumors and a loss of control over the public narrative.
While some politicians like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis propose Citizens' Bills of Rights for AI, others, such as Senator Bernie Sanders, call for national moratoriums on data center construction. New York Governor Kathy Hochul has already imposed a one-year moratorium.
Public opposition to data centers is rapidly increasing, with a poll indicating that 70% of voters would oppose one being built where they live. This trend is driving political action, including moratorium proposals at local and state levels.
Officials are expressing concern that hyperscale AI data centers are consuming enormous amounts of power, potentially exceeding grid capacity and driving up costs for local rate payers. New York Governor Kathy Hochul specifically stated her refusal to let these costs be passed on to consumers.
Casey Newton and Kevin Roose discuss Google's experimental app, Dream Beans, which analyzes users' emails and photos to generate personalized "inspirational" illustrations of alternative lives. The hosts find the app amusing but question its purpose and longevity.
Mark Zuckerberg has published a 6500-word manifesto outlining his positive vision for AI, following a shorter piece in The Wall Street Journal. The hosts speculate about the increasing length of his AI pronouncements.
The podcast will feature Pogram CEO Max Spiro discussing the unexpected success of his company's "sloth detector." The hosts also mention a new segment on "math."
The White House has finalized a framework for testing new AI models from major American companies, but has not released it publicly. Instead, they provided private briefings to AI companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google. The framework reportedly includes a voluntary 30-day window for the government to test models before public release, during which companies would be prohibited from using the models themselves.
The new US framework for regulating AI models explicitly excludes open-source models from the mandatory 30-day pre-release testing period. Kevin and Casey suggest this approach might be a strategic bet by the administration, prioritizing concerns about closed-source models while potentially neglecting risks associated with widely accessible open-source AI.
Kevin Roose and Casey Newton revealed they are leaving The New York Times, where their podcast Hard Fork has been based for four years. They announced the creation of a new independent podcast and media company together and plan to release an Ask Me Anything episode before concluding their current show.
Kevin and Casey discussed the practical difficulties of the proposed 30-day voluntary testing window for AI models. They raised concerns about companies potentially submitting a less advanced version of a model to pass the review while continuing to work on a more current, unvetted version. They also questioned how companies would manage the development cycle if they had to freeze models for a month, suggesting potential workarounds like submitting 'model A' while using 'model B'.
Apple has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and its partner IO, alleging that the AI company has stolen trade secrets and confidential information. The lawsuit specifically names two current OpenAI employees, Chang Liu and Tang Tan, who are former Apple employees, as central to the alleged theft.
Gigi Simo, formerly the CEO of applications and then CEO of AI deployment at OpenAI, is leaving the company. Simo had been on extended medical leave and her responsibilities will be divided among other executives.
Stanford economist Eric Brinslow discussed a new warning from hundreds of economists and researchers about the increasing risk of AI-driven job losses. The discussion highlighted the growing concern among experts regarding the economic impact of artificial intelligence.
The conversation touched upon the fluidity of talent between AI companies, noting that in California, non-compete agreements are difficult to enforce. This leads to employees frequently moving between companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind, potentially taking knowledge and trade secrets with them.
The Trump administration has lifted export control directives on Anthropic's advanced AI models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5. The initial ban, citing a "jailbreak issue" allegedly discovered by Amazon, had halted access for many users. The reversal comes after Anthropic pushed back, suggesting similar vulnerabilities exist in other major AI models.
OpenAI is reportedly delaying the public release of its new GPT 5.6 model, opting for a phased rollout to government-approved partners. This move appears to be influenced by the Trump administration's increasing involvement in AI regulation, with the government requesting the company limit the model's broader availability.
The hosts criticize the Trump administration's approach to AI regulation, describing it as a "de facto licensing regime" with "no known rules" and "no transparency whatsoever." They argue that this arbitrary oversight creates "authoritarian limbo" for AI companies.