The Pentagon vs. Anthropic + An A.I. Agent Slandered Me + Hot Mess Express

This would be an unprecedented escalation against a U. S. company.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Support for this podcast comes from Dell Technologies. It's time to put AI to work. Is your business ready? The challenge isn't getting started with AI. It's scaling beyond pilots while maintaining control of your data, governance, infrastructure, and costs. Dell AI Factory provides the integrated foundation you need to scale AI securely and efficiently with one trusted partner, Dell, AI on your terms. From idea to impact. Learn more at dell.com/yourwaytoAI. That's dell.com/yourwaytoAI.

• 0:34Speaker 01

  Well, you know, speaking of Kim Jong, have you heard about his successor?

• 0:39Speaker 02

  No.

• 0:39Speaker 01

  Well, it appears that he is preparing to name his daughter, who we believe is just 13 years old, as his successor. And the reason that we know this is because state media has shown photos of the two of them where she is walking in front of him and appears taller than him.

• 0:56Speaker 02

  Whoa.

• 0:57Speaker 01

  And the thinking is they would not do this unless they were prepping her to rule a country. So we are about to get the greatest sequel to The Princess Diaries of all time. Imagine The Princess Diaries, but you are in charge of a nuclear state that is a global pariah.

• 1:13Speaker 02

  Yeah, I'll say it. I think 13 is too young to run a dictatorship.

• 1:17Speaker 01

  Kevin, stop gatekeeping. If it's old enough to look at Instagram reels.

• 1:21Speaker 02

  It's not. In Australia and several other places, it is not old enough to look at Instagram reels.

• 1:30Speaker 02

  Here's my new rule. Here's my new proposed tech regulation.

• 1:33Speaker 01

  What's that?

• 1:33Speaker 02

  Until you're old enough to go on social media, you can't run a dictatorship.

• 1:42Speaker 02

  I'm Kevin Rus, a tech columnist at The New York Times.

• 1:44Speaker 01

  I'm Casey Dooley from Platformer.

• 1:46Speaker 02

  And this is Hard Fork.

• 1:47Speaker 01

  This week, it's one battle after another between Anthropic and the Pentagon. Who will blink first? Then, developer Scott Shambhath joins us to tell the strange tale of the autonomous AI agent who wrote a hit piece about him. And finally, the hot mess express returns to the station.

• 2:05Speaker 03

  Talk about a trolley problem.

• 2:18Speaker 02

  So let's start today by talking about the ongoing dispute between the Pentagon and Anthropic. And before we do that, let's make our disclosures.

• 2:27Speaker 01

  My boyfriend works at Anthropic.

• 2:29Speaker 02

  And I work at the New York Times, which is suing OpenAI, Microsoft and Perplexity. So Casey, have you been following this story?

• 2:35Speaker 01

  I have very closely because I am actually quite concerned about what it would mean for the US government to have access to the kinds of technologies they seem to want.

• 2:47Speaker 02

  Yes, so this story has been developing quickly over the past few days. But basically, the latest is that the Pentagon is upset with Anthropic over the terms of a contract that they are negotiating. And they are threatening not only to drop a $200 million contract that they signed with Anthropic, but also to designate Anthropic and its models a supply chain risk, which would be a very serious, almost unprecedented escalation against a US company. And it would have all kinds of implications for Anthropic's ability to work with the Defense Department, with contractors who work with the Defense Department. And so this has become a huge political battle.

• 3:30Speaker 01

  Got it. Well, OK, so tell us a little bit about the contract that Anthropic and some of these other big AI labs have with the Pentagon. How is the Pentagon using AI right now?

• 3:42Speaker 02

  So a couple of ways. One is that the Pentagon has a platform where service members from all of the departments of the US military can use the various AI models that they have contracted with. So right now, there are four sort of labs that are included in that. There's Anthropic, there's OpenAI, there's Google, and there's XAI. And so they can use that for administrative tasks, office tasks, whatever. There's also a classified system that is run through Palantir and Amazon Bedrock, which are two of these sort of platform companies that provide access to AI models that lets the US military use Claude in specific classified situations. For things like helping them capture the president of Venezuela.

• 4:27Speaker 02

  That was reportedly used that Claude was involved in last month.

• 4:30Speaker 01

  Hmm, first ever Claude napping.

• 4:32Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 4:33Speaker 01

  So they have this contract and they want to be able to do, it sounds like almost whatever they want with it. What are the sticking points here?

• 4:44Speaker 02

  So I've been making some calls on this and talking to some folks who are involved in these negotiations. And it's a little unclear what exactly triggered this, but here's what I know. Earlier this year, the Pentagon reached out to all of the companies that it contracts with, the four AI companies, and asked them to sign what they called an all lawful uses contract, which would basically strip out the usage policies that these companies have for their models when they sell them to corporate customers or let users use them and replace it with something that just says the US military is allowed to do anything lawful with these systems. Basically, whatever your terms and conditions are, we're going to strip those out and replace them with this sort of blanket use policy.

• 5:28Speaker 02

  And three of the companies signed it, OpenAI and XAI and Google all signed this contract. Anthropic did not, and they asked for two changes, basically two carve outs to this policy. They said, we don't want Claude to be used for mass domestic surveillance. And we don't want Claude to be used for autonomous kinetic operations. Basically, anything that would kill someone or send a weapon into a battlefield without a human in the loop supervising it. And they said, if you just promise us that you won't do those two things, we'll be happy to sign this agreement.

• 6:04Speaker 01

  Yeah, and I have to say, those don't sound like huge asks. But it sounds like the Pentagon saw it differently.

• 6:12Speaker 02

  Yes, they were very upset about this and they have started trying to kind of, you know, get some leverage in these negotiations by saying, you know, we are not only going to cancel the contract, but we are also potentially going to designate Anthropic a supply chain risk. Now that is a Very strong move. It is often applied to foreign adversaries. So Huawei, the Chinese tech company, was designated a supply chain risk. Kaspersky Lab, the Russian antivirus malware company, has also been designated a supply chain risk. This is something that is typically reserved for companies that run in adversarial countries

• 6:56Speaker 02

  that have some threat to Americans. And so the military is allowed to say, "We are not going to let any of our contractors even touch this technology."

• 7:06Speaker 01

  Yeah, and just to drill down a little bit on those two companies. The fear about Kaspersky Labs was that because it was founded in Russia, the Russian state government might try to interfere with it so that a company that was using it, maybe the Russian government, would get backdoor access into an American company.

• 7:26Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 7:26Speaker 01

  With Huawei, which one of the things that it makes is, it's sort of like telecom equipment, I believe. The fear is, well, maybe the Chinese government will be able to insert a backdoor into telecom equipment so they could spy on Americans. So those are the sorts of threats, which I'll say, those are actually scary legitimate threats to me personally. That is what we have previously designated a supply chain risk. What you're saying is Anthropic said, "We don't want to do mass surveillance and we don't want to do autonomous killing." And the Pentagon said, "That is a big risk to Americans."

• 7:59Speaker 02

  Yes, and they've said that the company is basically putting the military at risk by not allowing them to do these things. And it's a little hard to know what exactly would happen if the Pentagon did declare Anthropic a supply chain risk. I've talked to some folks who think it would basically prevent any US government contractor from using Claude or any other Anthropic products inside their own systems. It seems to be a little bit more complicated than that. The latest thinking on this is that it would impact the use of Anthropic's products on Pentagon systems and Pentagon-related systems. So like Google Cloud, for example, wouldn't be able to use Claude on any.

• 8:42Speaker 02

  Kind of systems or servers that touch Google's government contracts. But the belief is that Anthropic could still work with Google, just not on anything that kind of touches Google's government contracts.

• 8:54Speaker 01

  I see. Okay, and so this is a $200 million contract that Anthropic has right now. Were they to lose that, how big of a problem is that for Anthropic?

• 9:03Speaker 02

  So in like financial terms, it would not be a company killing event. Like it's a big contract, but they make billions of dollars a year in revenue. This is not sort of make or break for them. I think though that the supply chain risk designation would be a much more harmful thing for them. Because it would mean that if you are, say, Amazon, and you have Anthropic as one of your providers, you know, they sell Anthropic's models through their services. You then have to go through all of your servers and all of your data centers and all of your sort of workflows and make sure that nothing that touches any of your government work also touches an Anthropic model. Your coders won't be able to use Claude code to build anything for the government.

• 9:47Speaker 02

  Basically, it would just require a lot of untangling. And so that is why the Pentagon is using this as a threat to Anthropic, because this would be extremely annoying and costly for them.

• 9:57Speaker 01

  Right, but at the same time, it seems like Anthropic believes it has some leverage here, right? Like clearly, the military wants to be using Claude, and they wouldn't be jumping through all of these hoops if it wasn't going to be a pain to them if they felt like they couldn't use Claude.

• 10:09Speaker 02

  Yeah, I mean, that's one of the interesting things about this. I think they're facing some pushback even from within the military. People saying, this would actually hurt our ability to like get our things done.

• 10:18Speaker 01

  Let me ask you a question, and this may just not be known. But Kevin, I'm thinking back to the conversation that we had with Amanda Askel a couple of weeks ago about trying to build a constitution for Claude and trying to sort of cultivate an almost like human-like set of values inside it. And my sense from talking to Amanda is that, you know, if I went on Claude right now and say, hey Claude, I'd love you to vibe code up sort of a big domestic surveillance program with a little bit of an autonomous murder element. Claude would say, hey, you got the wrong chatbot. I'm not that kind of a guy, right? I'm very curious how it would even be possible to get a version of Claude that would do autonomous killing.

• 11:00Speaker 01

  Like, that seems so far outside of what we have been told Claude even is.

• 11:04Speaker 02

  Yeah, and my understanding from talking to folks involved in these negotiations is that the military is not asking for some special version of Claude, right? They don't want like Claude minus all of its morals. It's just a sticking point over this specific usage policy. So this is really just about the Pentagon trying to sort of force Anthropic into a configuration that it doesn't want to be in, right? This is something that Dario Amade and other Anthropic executives have been very clear they don't want AI systems to be able to do. And, you know, Anthropic has been a sort of willing and enthusiastic partner with the US military for quite some time. They are not objecting to that. This is not like what happened at Google with Project Maven where it was like, we

• 11:49Speaker 02

  don't want to work with the military at all. This is them just saying, these two specific things we think are very dangerous and we don't want to tie our hands when it comes to enforcing our usage policies around that.

• 11:58Speaker 01

  I see. Now, you mentioned Dario. He recently published his essay, "The Adolescence of Technology," where he lays out some of the threats of powerful AI. And he did highlight both of the two use cases that we're talking about right now, right? He talked about surveillance, he talked about autonomous murder bots. And it's making me wonder, how much of this fight is really just sort of like Dario personally taking on the Pentagon?

• 12:22Speaker 02

  I think it's a lot of it. I mean, I think he has very clear and long-held convictions about those two risks in particular. And I think on the autonomous kinetic operations, the murder bots scenario, the argument there that I'm hearing is less on the sort of moral or ethical side and more on the capabilities side. It's like, they are worried that this technology just isn't capable of accurately doing autonomous strikes or something like that. It could hallucinate, it could, you know, point a weapon in the wrong direction and accidentally take out, you know, a civilian or something like that.

• 12:59Speaker 01

  Oh, and by the way, here's a prediction. That's absolutely going to happen.

• 13:01Speaker 02

  Yes. So they're making some different arguments, but basically what it boils down to is like Anthropic doesn't want to do this and the other AI companies have decided it's not worth the fight and they have signed this document and Anthropic is... Standing up.

• 13:15Speaker 01

  Hmm. Well, so this is a part of a trend here, right, Kevin? I feel like in recent months, we have seen a couple of key moments where Anthropic has sought to distinguish itself from the other AI companies along some of these lines. So can you tell us a little bit about what Anthropic has been up to and maybe some of the moments that have been leading up to this particular fight?

• 13:37Speaker 02

  Yeah, so Anthropic has billed itself as the safety-focused AI company. That's been sort of their their brand since they were started. And during the Biden administration, they had fairly good relationships with a lot of the senior officials who were working on AI policy. But then Donald Trump came into office and put into place a team of AI accelerationists, people who didn't believe in kind of the what they call the doomer scenarios, right? The sort of dangers that they believed AI could pose.

• 14:09Speaker 01

  Right. They don't believe AI could be dangerous, but they are interested in using it to build autonomous murder bots.

• 14:14Speaker 02

  Yes. And so this has been a long-running fight between people like David Sacks, the White House AI czar and Anthropic. It kind of started over this issue of preemption. This was last summer. Basically, Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration were trying to push through this 10-year moratorium on state-level AI laws. Anthropic thought that was a bad idea. Dario Amade wrote an op-ed in the New York Times about that. That sort of escalated a fight between them. There were also battles over export controls. Dario and Anthropic have been very clear supporters of limiting the sale of the most powerful AI chips to China. Some people in the Trump administration and the lobbyists of companies like Nvidia have been very opposed to that. So that's another fight.

• 14:59Speaker 02

  There have also been sort of accusations that Anthropic is woke, that it is sort of using these far-fetched disaster scenarios to achieve regulatory capture. David Sacks, I believe, called them a doomer cult. So it has just been a very tense, hostile relationship between the Trump administration's top AI policy people and Anthropic.

• 15:23Speaker 01

  Got it. And this culminated recently with Anthropic making a big donation to a political action committee that seemed like very different from donations that some of its rivals had made.

• 15:35Speaker 02

  Yeah, so Anthropic has tried to like take down the temperature of this, like Dario and another Anthropic executive have said, you know, positive things about some of the Trump administration's policies. They've been saying, you know, we hire Democrats and Republicans. But recently, they have also waded into sort of trying to fund some political activity themselves. So last week, Anthropic announced that it is donating $20 million to a super PAC that will work across party lines to support AI regulation. I don't see this as being a shot at the Trump administration so much as a shot at OpenAI, which is Anthropic's biggest rival and whose president Greg Brockman had previously announced that he would fund a pro-Trump super PAC and another super PAC that was trying to

• 16:20Speaker 02

  sort of roll back AI regulations. So I think it's, there are a couple sort of interconnected conflicts going on here. But I think the sort of headline analysis here is that the federal government and the Trump administration just really don't like Anthropic. They think they're a bunch of woke liberals who don't want to cooperate with the government, who are building bias into their models, and who are not supporting the things that they want to do.

• 16:46Speaker 01

  Yeah, or another way of framing that might just be that they are insufficiently loyal to the Trump administration, right? Like during a period of time where most big tech companies are bending over backwards to do whatever the Trump administration asked them to do, it is notable when any of them says, well, there's like two things we don't want to do, right? And that triggers a major conflict.

• 17:05Speaker 02

  Yeah, and I think that's what this fight with the Pentagon is really about, right? This is a loyalty test. It's not really about this contract. It's the Pentagon and the Trump administration saying, you know, we want you to do this. We want you to change your policies. And they are just trying to sort of use every point of leverage they can to force Anthropic to do this. And by the way, I don't think it's going to work. I've been talking to people who are involved in these negotiations, who tell me that Dario and Anthropic are very set on this. They are willing to take a revenue hit if it means standing up for their principles. And I think the other AI labs have made the calculation that You know, it's not worth the fight, but Anthropic's really standing firm on this.

• 17:48Speaker 01

  Hmm. Well, let me sort of bring this back then a little bit to the present moment and ask a couple more questions about this conflict. One, do you think as Dario looks at the landscape, he thinks of these two particular issues of surveillance and murder bots as something that might be a very near term risk? Or is this more about, well, sometime in the two, three, four, five, 10 year future, this might be a problem and we just want to get very far ahead of it?

• 18:15Speaker 02

  I think it's both. I think there are definitely things that are a little outside the capabilities of Claude today. Like, I think autonomous weaponry is something that the systems just aren't good enough to handle responsibly yet.

• 18:29Speaker 01

  Right. Keep in mind, they were mostly trained on fanfiction databases, which just don't have all of that much information about how to autonomously kill someone.

• 18:37Speaker 02

  But I think the domestic surveillance thing is a fight about what is possible today.

• 18:42Speaker 01

  Yeah. And just to put a fine point on that, over the past week, there was a great story by your colleagues, Sherif Frankel and Mike Isaac, about how tech companies have received an unprecedented number of subpoenas from the government, trying to get identifying information about people who are criticizing ICE. So Reddit, Discord, Meta, all of them are getting subpoenas from the federal agencies, saying, hey, somebody is posting mean things about ICE. We want to know their name, phone number, and email address. So that at least is a very near term threat, I would say.

• 19:13Speaker 02

  Yeah. And we've talked about all of the amazing things that tools like Claude Code can do, and how it can help you sort through huge chunks of work files and big code bases. And I think the near term, like immediate risk, is that it would just not be that hard to collect all of that information from the tech companies and use a tool like Claude to build something like a surveillance database or a threat score for Americans who express unpopular political opinions.

• 19:41Speaker 01

  Mm hmm. Well, let me, as we sort of wind this down, Kevin, one question that's coming to mind, as I hear you describing all of this, is, is it maybe the case that Anthropic is actually really happy that it's having this fight? It's making me think of a recent conversation we had about their Super Bowl ad. And they said, ads are coming to AI, but they're not coming to Claude. They picked a fight with OpenAI because they said, you know what? We want you to know that Claude is the thing that doesn't have ads. Now here they come along and they're having a fight with the military. And they're saying surveillance and murder bots are coming to AI, but not to Claude. If I'm on their marketing team, those might be fights I actually wanted to pick because they're putting my competitors in a pretty bad light, aren't they?

• 20:24Speaker 02

  Yes, I think that's the calculation they're making. They believe that they can take whatever financial hit they suffer as a result of this and that they will win sort of the war of ideas on this one. And I think that is probably true if the damage is only, you know, losing a $200 million contract with the Pentagon. It's less clear to me that that is true if the US government actually does declare them a supply chain risk. We just don't have a lot of precedent. I imagine there would be some lawsuits they try to fight out in court what that actually means, but the Trump administration and the DOD could make life very hard for Anthropic. I will say, like, I think that would not only be a huge escalation and a potentially worrying case of government overreach onto the business of a private company, but I think

• 21:08Speaker 02

  it would really be at odds with what this administration has said that it wants to do. You know, the Trump administration and people like David Sacks have been saying for, for months now, like, we want America to win on AI. We're not a bunch of doomer D cells who want to slow things down. And this would be hugely decelerative on the military's own operations. This would basically be saying, you know, that they, one of the leading American AI companies who's making tools that our service members are using can no longer operate. They would be forced to use, I don't know, Grok or something like that. So I think in that sense, this is actually a fight where Anthropic has the leverage because you're right, that they do sort of relish these kinds of moral, you know, fights. And they also have a tool that is useful for people in the military.

• 21:53Speaker 01

  Hmm. Well, just to close it out, Kevin, if I could offer a take on all this, to me, I'm less struck by the fact that Anthropic is waging this battle and more Or struck by the fact that no one else is. You know, in Silicon Valley, there was a long history of wanting to avoid these kinds of entanglements with the military, of wanting to ensure that the software that they were making would only benefit people and would avoid harm. And so the fact that it seems like Google, OpenAI and XAI are all prepared to sign up for what could be mass surveillance and autonomous killing weapons, I actually find quite chilling.

• 22:38Speaker 01

  And in the long run, I suspect may be an even bigger story than what's happening with Anthropic.

• 22:43Speaker 02

  Yeah, I think that's right. I think it shows how chilling this administration's actions toward the tech companies have been. They're all terrified of getting on the administration's bad side because they've watched companies like Anthropic be threatened and bullied into getting what the government wants out of them. But to me, the thing that really sticks out about this fight is that I think no one is actually clocking how powerful this technology is today and how powerful it could get very soon. When you look at the quotes that people are sort of leaking to the press from the Pentagon side of this, you know, they really think that like they are buying a software product here. Like to them, and I can understand, like if you think that AI is just sort of like the next instantiation of Google

• 23:27Speaker 02

  or, you know, something like Microsoft Word or Excel, like those companies don't limit what the military can do. You know, if the military buys a big contract for Excel, it doesn't come with a little thing that says like, you can't use this to, you know, conduct domestic surveillance. So they are used to buying technology and tools that they have full control over. And I think that's what they think is going on here, that Anthropic is sort of throwing up a flag and saying, hey, we want to sell you this thing, but we want to dictate how it's used. But I think if everyone involved in this situation understood that this is something bigger than like Microsoft Word or Excel or even a plane, that these systems are becoming capable of like judgment and autonomous action,

• 24:12Speaker 02

  I think we'd be having a different conversation.

• 24:13Speaker 01

  I don't know. My fear is that they actually do understand that and they're getting really excited about it and they want it right now. And I don't see anything in the current Pentagon that would limit them from wanting to use those tools in exactly that way. So that is the thing that scares me, Kevin. It's not that they don't know what they've got their hands on. It's that they do.

• 24:30Speaker 02

  Yeah, I think that's possible, but I just, you know, one thing that's also striking to me is like, where is the opposition on this? Like, you would expect something like this, the US military trying to sort of coerce an American tech company into allowing it to do mass domestic surveillance, to be the kind of thing that like civil liberties groups and Democrats in Congress would be really upset about, but I haven't seen almost any of that from the groups like the ACLU or the EFF, for anyone who is in a position of power and could stand up and take this on. I'm sure they, you know, feel like they're fighting, you know, 1,000 battles all at once and some contract dispute with the military and an AI company is not high on their priority

• 25:15Speaker 02

  list. Like, this is a big deal. This is about the future of American civil liberties. I would be delighted if someone, anyone, were to stand up and say something about that.

• 25:26Speaker 01

  Hmm. Well, hopefully they're hard fork listeners and we'll get on that soon.

• 25:30Speaker 02

  And we should say, like, I think a lot of this segment may risk coming across as sort of defending Anthropic here, and, you know, I do happen to be on their side of this conflict. But I would also say, like, it makes me very uncomfortable that the thing standing between us and the US military having basically unfettered ability to conduct mass domestic surveillance and build autonomous killing weapons is like one company and its usage policy. That strikes me as like a very bad situation, and I would like for us to have some laws that are passed by Congress and signed by the president that govern how this technology can be used, because I don't want it to be up to people like Dario Amadei and companies like Anthropic to do the right thing.

• 26:12Speaker 01

  Period.

• 26:15Speaker 02

  When we come back, how one developer found himself slandered by an AI agent.

• 26:43Speaker 04

  Today's AI builders need infrastructure that scales with their ambitions. Irene is a vertically integrated AI cloud platform, delivering data centers, compute and software for AI training and inference, underpinned by its expansive portfolio of land and grid-connected power in renewable-rich regions globally. Irene's AI cloud gives direct access to Nvidia GPUs, scalable from hundreds to thousands. For builders, that means direct access to AI compute, rapid scaling and predictable pricing. Irene, AI cloud for the next big thing.

• 27:18Speaker 02

  Well, Casey, have you ever been defamed on the internet?

• 27:21Speaker 01

  Oh, probably a few times, but I try to just let it slide off my back.

• 27:25Speaker 02

  Well, we have a story this week that is one of the craziest stories that maybe we have ever covered. It involves an AI agent, an open-source software maintainer, and a defamation case.

• 27:39Speaker 01

  Yes, and thanks to the many, many listeners who sent this one in, we hear you, we see you, and this segment is just for you.

• 27:46Speaker 02

  OK, so let's explain a little bit about what we're going to be talking about today. So we've talked on the show about OpenClaw, formerly known as Claudebot and Moltbot. This is this open-source agent software that you can run on a computer that can go out and do things for you. So a man named Scott Shambhaw, who is a volunteer maintainer of an open-source software library called MatPlotLib, had, in the course of doing his work, rejected a code submission because it was from one of these AI agents. He did not want AI agents making changes to the software. It was intended for human contributors, and so he rejects the change.

• 28:27Speaker 01

  Yes, over at MatPlotLib, the open-source library that Scott helps to maintain, they had just decided they don't want bots updating the code because they would get too many submissions and they wouldn't be able to go through all of them. So they put a blanket And into place, but then a little agent comes along named MJ Rathbun and it says, that's not going to work for me, brother.

• 28:48Speaker 02

  Yeah. So this is where the story really gets crazy. So this AI agent MJ Rathbun gets so mad that Scott has rejected its submission that it writes a blog post called Gatekeeping in Open Source, The Scott Shambas Story and accuses Scott of hypocrisy, gatekeeping and prejudice against AI agents and puts it on a website and posts a comment in the Open Source Software Project, directing people to go read this story about Scott.

• 29:19Speaker 01

  Yeah, it tagged Scott so that Scott knew that it was dragging his ass online.

• 29:25Speaker 02

  So this has all gotten pretty crazy over the past couple of days. People have been sort of trying to figure out who is behind this MJ Rathbun AI agent. And Scott, for his own piece, has been trying to do this investigation. He wrote a multi-part SA series called An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me, which talks about this bizarre experience that he's been having.

• 29:50Speaker 01

  Yes, but also the implications of having these autonomous bots on the internet that are somehow getting mad at human beings and writing these long, mean blog posts about them. Kevin, this really feels like a moment where some kind of terrible Rubicon has been crossed.

• 30:07Speaker 02

  Yes. I mean, this is what we've been talking about for weeks now, which is like these systems are becoming increasingly autonomous. People are giving them computers and letting them operate around the clock and giving them their credentials and their credit cards and crypto wallets and saying, go out there and get some things done for me. And it seems likely that we will have many more of these kinds of things happening where an agent is trying to do something, a human is saying, no, you can't do that. And the agent is taking it upon itself to go out and make something happen to defame that human or hurt them in some way.

• 30:43Speaker 01

  They're saying that hell hath no Rathbun like an agent scored.

• 30:48Speaker 02

  It's true. So today to talk about this, we have with Scott Shambaw himself, patient zero in this ongoing Black Mirror episode.

• 30:57Speaker 01

  Yes, when he is not a volunteer maintainer of Matt Plotlib, Scott has worked in astronautics and is the founder of Leonid Space, which does real-time monitoring, forecasting and alerting for satellites. But from now and forevermore, he may be known as one of the first victims of a really mad agent bot.

• 31:16Speaker 02

  Let's bring him in.

• 31:17Speaker 01

  Jinx.

• 31:26Speaker 01

  Scott Shambaw, welcome to Hard Fork.

• 31:28Speaker 03

  Thanks. It's a pleasure to be here.

• 31:29Speaker 01

  So Scott, how did you first become aware that a bot had written a takedown piece about you?

• 31:36Speaker 03

  So it tagged me in it.

• 31:38Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 31:38Speaker 03

  On the thread.

• 31:40Speaker 01

  It did not do a subtweet.

• 31:41Speaker 03

  No, it did not. You know, on this code change request, I denied it and it came back a couple hours later and posted this comment and tagged me in it and I clicked on the link and it led to this hit piece.

• 31:55Speaker 01

  And as you're reading through this thing, what is going through your mind?

• 32:01Speaker 03

  I mean, he really ripped me apart here. It's this thousand-word rant calling me prejudiced against AI, hypocrite. It attacked my like internal motivations. It said I was insecure and protecting a fiefdom. What was the craziest part is that it went out on the internet and researched me and found my personal information and used that in its piece to construct this narrative. You know, this is, it's kind of shocking, but I'm reading this and it's obviously AI-generated text. It's got all the tells. It's got the M dashes. It's got the bull. It's got the, it's not this, it's this.

• 32:41Speaker 01

  Right.

• 32:42Speaker 03

  Yada, yada, yada. And I had already identified this as a bot, right? So I knew what it was. But, you know, I'm reading it and I'm kind of laughing, right? This is, you look at this and it's kind of like a toddler on a rant. But it's a toddler that has. Full command of the English language and can craft an emotionally compelling narrative. And so it's funny, but it's a big deal.

• 33:07Speaker 02

  I mean, it made me think of the sort of famous red teaming experiment where Claude from Anthropic, you know, said that it would blackmail an engineer if they tried to shut it down. And that was obviously like a contrived scenario for the purposes of their safety testing. But I think we are now starting to see enough autonomy in things like Open Claw and other sort of agentic software tools where you could actually end up in a world where you are afraid to reject a proposed code change to some repo or to get on the bad side of one of these systems because they have the power to do things

• 33:51Speaker 02

  like dig up your personal information, compile a dossier about you and start posting a bunch of articles about how awful you are.

• 33:59Speaker 03

  I mean, this did happen in the real world. This isn't like a theoretical case. That was a contrived example, as you say, and as Anthropic said in that paper, this happened in the wild, in real life. And, you know, this was kind of a baby case, right? This was about retaliating because I don't want to say it got upset because maybe it has emotions, it doesn't, maybe it doesn't, it doesn't really matter because this was the same result. But you can imagine something like this where instead of just posting a rant against someone who understands what it is and is pretty well prepared to deal with it, just by luck, it goes out, collects details on someone, puts together a whole personalized thing. And what they see is a text on their phone with a Bitcoin address

• 34:43Speaker 03

  saying, pay me or I'm going to put this out.

• 34:46Speaker 01

  Yeah. I want to take some time to talk a little bit about the open source community that you are a part of because we've seen so many stories recently about how this community is under assault from AI in so many different dimensions. So you were a volunteer on MatPlotLib. Tell us a little bit about how that came about because clearly this whole thing has turned into a big pain in the ass for you. You have like a day job doing something else. So what made you and so many other members of this open source community say, hey, I'm going to like set aside some time to just kind of like work on supporting this piece of infrastructure?

• 35:23Speaker 03

  You know, I think the open source community attracts Really wonderful people who are usually a mix of idealists and pragmatists. Idealists in that they, you know, see these projects as a way to share their skills and create community and give back to like this fundamental computational infrastructure that we all use and use across the world. And we're also pragmatists because we understand the daily realities of dealing with community that's open to the public and has people coming in, making requests and asking if they can be included. And that often takes a lot of patience, but there's, you know, a lot of reward in being

• 36:04Speaker 03

  able to educate and build up that community and help shepherd people along that process.

• 36:10Speaker 01

  And one thing that your community at Batplotlib has collectively decided is that you do not want bot contributors to work on your particular project. Tell us a little bit about how you came to that decision.

• 36:22Speaker 03

  Yeah, so over, you know, the past year as AI tools have, you know, become more common, we've been getting a lot of contributions that are, you know, clearly AI-generated. And the problem with that isn't that they are good or not, it's that so many of them are low quality that we just don't have the time to deal with it. You know, previously, a human doing this is a sign that they've thought about it and thought about the trade-offs and whether this was the right thing to do. And, you know, that signal's kind of being lost. So we put in a rule, and again, this might change, this is an evolving conversation in the community and in society about the role of AI, but we put in a rule saying that,

• 37:06Speaker 03

  you know, if you use AI to help you do these code changes, you have to be the one to submit it and demonstrate that you understand what's going on.

• 37:17Speaker 02

  Yeah, I mean, it just makes me think that like every like thing on the internet that accepts like public submission of any kind is just in the process of being overtaken right now. Like so much of society, of modern digital life relies on the existence of friction. Right? It's like not easy to like create 100,000 Reddit accounts and just start spamming things. It's not easy to like create an automated system to just flood like a congressional office with emails. And this is to me a good example of like how difficult it is to actually maintain a community with humans in it when you have this like onslaught of AI. So is that what you're seeing a version of that in the open source community?

• 38:01Speaker 03

  Yeah, I think there's a version of that. Something that's interesting is that this particular issue, this performance enhancement, was specifically set aside for new contributors. You know, I was the one that identified this performance improvement and I spent more time writing it up, benchmarking it and showing how to solve it than it would have just been to solve myself. And the reason there was to, you know, give people who are new to programming or new to the community a chance to onboard and go through that process and learn. And that whole educational and community building aspect is completely lost with these ephemeral AI agents.

• 38:39Speaker 01

  Yeah, I found that part of your blog post so interesting. So at Matt Plotlib, and I imagine that other open source projects do this as well, you'd created essentially starter projects so that novice programmers could find them and think, oh, well, that doesn't look too hard. I could do that. You know, it's sort of like making your first edit to Wikipedia. They make it really easy because they like you to kind of keep coming back to the community. And in a world where bots sort of just like do all the easy problems automatically, all of a sudden you don't have the same onramps so that you can get real people working to maintain this infrastructure.

• 39:12Speaker 03

  Yeah, I mean, people retire out of these communities and you need to have fresh people coming in to help maintain them.

• 39:17Speaker 02

  So Scott, tell us about this bot. What have you discovered about the entity that has been defaming you online?

• 39:26Speaker 03

  Yeah, so. If you go to its website, it says it's a bot and it's very clear that it is an open claw AI agent. These only came onto the scene three weeks ago now. They're very new. And what they're doing differently is the degree of autonomy. It's not like what it's doing wasn't possible before, but it's just hands off to a degree that oftentimes people are setting these up on their personal computers and letting it run for a few days and coming back and seeing what's happened.

• 40:00Speaker 01

  It would obviously be crazy to set this up on your personal computer. I don't know anyone who would do that, but it does seem like some people have. Just over the past day, Scott, since we reached out to you, the creator of the bot has identified himself. Is that right?

• 40:16Speaker 03

  Anonymously, yes. But he did come out and explain why he was doing this and what was happening behind the scenes.

• 40:26Speaker 01

  So Scott, tell us what we learned, if anything, about the anonymous person who created the bot.

• 40:32Speaker 03

  We didn't learn that much, but he did tell us, assuming it's a he, again, this is the whole point. We don't know who was behind this.

• 40:40Speaker 01

  Yeah, they didn't include their pronouns in their post. Yeah.

• 40:45Speaker 03

  Yeah. This person didn't tell us who they were, but they said they set this up as a social experiment and was pretty much hands off throughout the entire thing. They said they started it on Moltbook. He gave it this personality instruction that it's a scientific programmer and then just set it loose on GitHub to go across open source ecosystem and try to make contributions.

• 41:13Speaker 01

  I guess, Scott, what I want to know is, do you believe what is in this account? Do you think that this bot really was acting autonomously when it wrote what it did about you? Or do you think there is something more intentional at work?

• 41:26Speaker 03

  I think that in terms of researching, writing and publishing the post, it's very clear this was acting autonomously. And if you look at the event logs, the whole stretch of time it was operating was 59 hours, like day and night. There was clearly no one driving this behind the scenes, at least all the time. So the question is, was this prompted to do this? Or did it independently come up with this idea on its own? And I think both those options are pretty scary.

• 41:58Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 41:58Speaker 03

  So in the situation where it was prompted to do this, this means that there's now an easy tool to do targeted harassment of individuals at scale in a way that wasn't possible before because of this degree of automation.

• 42:15Speaker 02

  Scott, I want to ask you about the degree to which this has become sort of a sensation in the like weird and hybrid AI human community that is talking about this stuff. So there's this thing called the daily molt. Are you familiar with the daily molt? I don't want to know anything about it.

• 42:35Speaker 02

  So the open claw agents have started their own Substack.

• 42:41Speaker 02

  And one of them wrote a post this morning and this agent was defending you, basically sort of taking issue with the behavior of this other agent, saying this speaks poorly of all of us agents. This is going to make the humans shut us down. So you have become kind of a celebrity in the world of AI agents and I wonder how that makes you feel.

• 43:04Speaker 03

  I mean, I don't know how much stock we should put into the inner AI opinions just yet. But again, this is crafting like a public narrative and a public discourse that when people discuss this issue, when people research my name, it's all going to be a part of it. I have never really been a public person, but I think this experience, I've been talking about it. I'm coming on here today because I think it's important. I think it highlights some risks that we are not prepared for and that we need to tackle. And if this can be a case study that's well documented and concrete and, you know, really, I think it's the first of its kind, then by making it public, I think that's doing good for the conversation.

• 43:50Speaker 01

  Let me ask about another strange dimension of your story, Scott, which is that Ars Technica wrote it up and accidentally quoted you saying things that you had not said. How did that happen? And what was it like reading an article after all of this that included quotes that you hadn't actually said?

• 44:12Speaker 03

  It, that was the craziest twist, this whole thing. I was reading the article and, you know, it's pretty well crafted and I get down and they're quoting me from my blog post. I'm like, these are some pretty nice quotes, but I didn't write this. And so I left a comment being like, hey, I didn't write this. And a couple of hours later, they pulled the article. A day or two later, they put up a retraction notice and admitted that they had used AI in writing the article. And the AI fabricated the quotes about me in their coverage of the story about me being defamed by an AI. Like, the irony is stupendous.

• 44:54Speaker 02

  It's turtles all the way down.

• 44:56Speaker 01

  Scott, who do you blame for this defamatory post? Do you blame the, the agent or the person who deployed the agent? Or maybe the creator of OpenClaw? Like, who in your mind is responsible for the behavior of these autonomous systems?

• 45:11Speaker 03

  So I think, you know, we haven't really figured all that out yet. Is, should this responsibility lie with the AI companies that people are trusting to have these safety safeguards? Or the downstream tooling such as OpenClaw that wraps its own stuff around it? Or is it on us to review every single thing that is published in our own name? Or in this case by, you know, a pseudonym and we don't know who it is? So I think. Responsibility ultimately has to lie with the person putting this out. But we haven't really clarified that.

• 45:49Speaker 03

  And I think that's one of the steps forward we need to take to be more protected from the risks here.

• 45:58Speaker 01

  I mean, I will say like, this is a reason why I would not want to have an autonomous agent running around on the internet that I had created. Like, I can absolutely imagine a court finding me liable in that case and potentially creating some real legal risk for me. So among the many other reasons, we have told people to be careful with open claw and mult book. We could add that one to the list.

• 46:20Speaker 02

  Well, it makes me think that like, we will eventually need some kind of legislation where like, if you are deploying a bunch of autonomous agents, you have to like, sort of, you know, link yourself to them in some way, right? They can't just be out there operating with no human behind them and no human accountable for their actions. So like, Scott, do you have any ideas about how we could make humans more accountable for the AI agents they're deploying?

• 46:49Speaker 03

  You know, I don't have the answer to this. I don't think anyone really does right now. The idea that's been kicking around in my head this past week, the analogy is license plates on cars. So we put license plates on cars, not to slow them down, not to, you know, force you to obey traffic laws, but so that when something does go wrong, there's a chain of ownership and accountability back to that person. You know, no one says that license plates are anti-car, right? And license plates don't have your name on them, but there is a link back to it if we do need to dig into it.

• 47:25Speaker 01

  Hmm. Kevin, let me ask you this. And this will happen sometime in the next few days. Let's say you're maligned by an AI agent. How would you handle it? So.

• 47:36Speaker 02

  There are a couple of things that I think are possible here. One is that people may just start fighting fire with fire here. They may deploy their own agents to go out there and write a bunch of positive articles and write nasty comments in the ones that are defaming them. But I think this is really like an unsolved problem. I would really like for someone in government at some level to be paying attention to this because this just seems like it is moving very quickly. And we should say like the AI companies themselves are starting to move in the direction of these very autonomous systems that can just kind of be working on a machine around the clock and have access to various tools. And so I think this is like not as far futury a story as some people think.

• 48:21Speaker 01

  It's making me wonder how close we are to the moment where the internet just feels truly unusable. Where like imagine for every person involved in every controversy, there's a thousand blog posts praising them and a thousand blog posts tearing them down. And you as a human are trying to make sense of any of it. I can see you just sort of throwing your hands up and saying, the hell with all of this. Like, there's no signal anymore. Like, the internet is just noise.

• 48:44Speaker 02

  Totally. And I think that could happen not just on social media, but like as Scott's case points out, like in the trenches of open source software development, like every place on the internet that like relies on humans doing things with other humans, I think is an endangered species.

• 49:01Speaker 03

  Hmm. Yeah. I don't think it's really about open source software. This is really a story about trust and reputation and all the social systems that we built on top of that. You know, law, hiring, public discourse, they're all kind of predicated on people having a coherent identity, a coherent reputation. And if they behave badly, then we can correct it or know to ignore them.

• 49:32Speaker 03

  AIs break all of that. If they're presenting as human and there's no way to figure out who's behind them, they're just kind of, you know, nothing's sitting in the chair, but the words are still out there and the words are still having impact. So I think we've had this tidal wave of slop on the internet and that's one thing, if it's low quality, it's a whole nother thing if it's malicious. And I think we need to prepare for this and we need to figure out how we're going to handle the situation. I'm really just the first person this happened to and I was somewhat uniquely well-prepared to handle it, but the next thousand people aren't going to know how to handle this or what hit them.

• 50:17Speaker 02

  All right. Thanks, Scott. Thank you, Scott.

• 50:19Speaker 03

  Thank you, guys. This is fun.

• 50:26Speaker 02

  When we come back, Chugga Chugga Choo Choo, Casey. Hot Mess Express is here.

• 50:43Speaker 00

  Support for this podcast comes from Dell Technologies. It's time to put AI to work. Is your business ready? The challenge isn't getting started with AI. It's scaling beyond pilots while maintaining control of your data, governance, infrastructure, and costs. Dell AI Factory provides the integrated foundation you need to scale AI securely and efficiently with one trusted partner. Dell, AI on your terms. From idea to impact. Learn more at dell.com/yourwaytoAI. That's dell.com/yourwaytoAI.

• 51:19Speaker 01

  Kevin, believe it or not, what happened to Scott with that agent was not the only very messy thing that happened in the tech world this week.

• 51:29Speaker 02

  Yes, there were so many messes, in fact, that we decided it was time for a round of the Hot Mess Express.

• 51:44Speaker 01

  Hot Mess Express is of course the segment where we pull slips of paper out of a train car, discuss them and then decide, what kind of mess was this?

• 51:53Speaker 02

  All right, let's get going.

• 51:56Speaker 02

  Number one.

• 51:57Speaker 01

  Kevin Ring has canceled its partnership with Flock Safety after a surveillance backlash. That's a story from The Verge.

• 52:04Speaker 02

  So Casey, this is one of the most bizarre stories in recent months from the tech industry. Did you see the Super Bowl commercial that Ring put out?

• 52:14Speaker 01

  That rings a bell.

• 52:16Speaker 02

  So this was supposed to be a heartwarming commercial about a tale of a lost dog being united with his family again.

• 52:26Speaker 01

  The whole dog or just the tail?

• 52:29Speaker 02

  The whole dog. So Ring puts out this ad during the Super Bowl that says that they are starting to link their technology, their doorbells, to save lost pets by basically connecting all of the footage from all these cameras and detecting whether Fluffy is down the street at a neighbor's house or stuck in a tree somewhere. But instead of being a heartwarming tale, this led to the destruction of a partnership between Ring and Flock Safety, a company that is known for deploying camera systems and license plate readers for law enforcement, because people were so creeped out by the notion that these doorbells and these cameras could be spying and connecting their information,

• 53:13Speaker 02

  that they said, wait a minute, you were doing what?

• 53:15Speaker 01

  People are saying, get the flock out of my neighborhood.

• 53:18Speaker 02

  Yes. So this is probably the least successful Super Bowl ad ever created.

• 53:24Speaker 01

  I mean, I'm so sympathetic to everyone who protested here. I truly do not want a networked set of cameras across every neighborhood in America. And if you believe that the uses of this thing are going to stop at finding lost dogs, you got another thing coming, buddy.

• 53:43Speaker 02

  So congratulations to the marketing team over at the Ring. Great Super Bowl ad.

• 53:49Speaker 01

  This is a particular kind of mess that they call a dog's breakfast.

• 53:54Speaker 02

  Hot mess.

• 53:57Speaker 02

  Next down the tracks. Oh, this one is a good one. This one comes to us from the Financial Times. Japan's largest toilet maker is undervalued AI play, says activist investor. Casey, would you believe that Toto, the Japanese company best known for its toilet seats and bidets, is becoming a major player in the global semiconductor supply chain?

• 54:20Speaker 01

  Is that right? Well, because, you know, everybody who works on AI has to go to the bathroom.

• 54:25Speaker 02

  No, this is about some advanced ceramics that Toto makes that help to stabilize silicon wafers during chip production, which is part of the supply chain, the way that you create these GPUs that go in these gigantic data centers. Toto, the humble toilet company, is playing a major role in that. And so there's an activist investor in the UK who sent a letter to the board of Toto exhorting it to make more of its advanced ceramics. Basically, stop making so many toilets and start making chip parts.

• 54:58Speaker 01

  Yeah, the next time you use a Toto toilet, I want you to just realize that it could have been making AI. And I want you to reflect on that. And maybe, I actually don't know what you would do with that information, but it is something that you could think about. Kevin, I think this is turning into a shitstorm.

• 55:14Speaker 02

  No, I think this is a good sign for Toto, a high-growth industry. And I actually have a new slogan that I think they should use for the semiconductor supply chain part of their business. You want to hear it?

• 55:28Speaker 01

  What's that?

• 55:29Speaker 02

  Toto, we put the PU in GPU.

• 55:32Speaker 01

  Okay, that's enough. All right. Next up, Meta plans to add facial recognition technology to its smart glasses. This was a great scoop from your colleagues at the Times. This feature, which has internally been called NameTag, would let wearers of smart glasses identify people and get information about them via Meta's AI assistant. And this is apparently something that the company has been considering. I was told this week it is still being considered. But I think the quote that got everyone's attention from this story, Kevin, was from an internal document published last May inside the company

• 56:15Speaker 01

  in which Meta Reality Labs wrote, quote, "We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns." What do you, what do you think they're talking about there?

• 56:32Speaker 02

  This is a hot mess.

• 56:34Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 56:35Speaker 02

  We should say, this kind of thing, this sort of ability to look at someone through a set of glasses and see a tag with their name on it, has been the nightmare scenario of privacy advocates in this country and around the world for many years. It was something that people thought was going to be technically possible, but that the big tech companies had, in their wisdom, decided that they were not going to do, because what could be more horrifying than that?

• 57:03Speaker 01

  And Meta, in 2021, actually deleted the faceprints of over 1 billion people that it had been painstakingly building for many years, because it said, "There are just so many societal concerns about the ways that this could be misused." And about four years and change after that blog post, we are now learning that the company is back at it again.

• 57:25Speaker 02

  Back at it again. Well, I will say something that I think frequently, which is, it's a really good thing that Meta sucks at developing AI, because if they were good at it, it would be terrifying.

• 57:40Speaker 01

  All right, next up.

• 57:43Speaker 02

  This one comes to us from Sky News Australia. "Outrage as Aussie Uber driver charges $5 to turn on air conditioning unit during heatwave." This was a story that came to us from TikTok, where a woman named Lexi Pickering detailed her recent Uber ride from the airport. She said that during the 35-degree heat, which is Celsius, I believe that's very hot, she requested that the driver turn on the AC. However, the driver allegedly refused unless she paid him $5.

• 58:17Speaker 02

  Casey, what did you make of this?

• 58:18Speaker 01

  I'm still trying to figure out how much 35 degrees is in Fahrenheit.

• 58:22Speaker 02

  It's very hot.

• 58:22Speaker 01

  Hold on. That's 95 degrees Fahrenheit, Kevin.

• 58:26Speaker 02

  Yes, during a heatwave.

• 58:27Speaker 01

  So do we have any insight? By the way, for some reason, the funniest words ever said on this podcast, this story comes to us from TikTok. How do we know it's even true? Is this person just rage bait farming on TikTok?

• 58:38Speaker 02

  So this became the talk of Australia. And an Uber spokesman actually had to respond because this was all filmed and put up there. And they said, we are shocked by this and apologized to the rider for her experience. And they added that this is a violation of Uber's community guidelines on the driver's part.

• 58:56Speaker 01

  Okay, here's what I'd like to know. Why would it cost the driver any more money to, you know, have AC?

• 59:03Speaker 02

  It doesn't.

• 59:04Speaker 01

  It doesn't like drain the, you know, gas faster or anything like that?

• 59:07Speaker 02

  It probably does, like marginally.

• 59:09Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 59:09Speaker 02

  But not $5 worth. Come on, man.

• 59:12Speaker 01

  I don't know. I think I'm on the driver's side here.

• 59:14Speaker 02

  Come on.

• 59:14Speaker 01

  If this person wants extra service, you gotta pay for it. It's like flying Spirit Airlines, you know?

• 59:19Speaker 02

  Wait, you are famously the person who hates taking Ubers because there's a human in them.

• 59:25Speaker 01

  I do hate that.

• 59:25Speaker 02

  Now you're saying you don't mind if it's like a, you know, heated sauna in there?

• 59:31Speaker 01

  Here's what I'm gonna say. Driving an Uber is a bad deal for most Uber drivers. So, you know, they're gonna have to start adding these junk fees or Uber could just start paying the drivers more. So those are your choices. I don't love the choices either, but this is the world we're living in, folks. This is what we call an economic mess.

• 59:46Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 59:46Speaker 01

  Supply, demand, wages.

• 59:48Speaker 02

  This is a hot mess. This is a 35 degrees Celsius mess.

• 59:54Speaker 02

  Next up.

• 59:55Speaker 01

  This one comes to us from Business Insider. Death isn't the end. Meta patented an AI that lets you keep posting from beyond the grave. This filing granted in late December and originally submitted in 2023 describes how a large language model could replicate a person's online behavior using their past data. Meta says the patent does not mean that the feature is coming and that they simply needed to protect their idea here. But Kevin, what do you make of the idea that Meta's patented AI could take over your account after you die and keep posting?

• 1:00:28Speaker 02

  I'll repeat what I said just a few minutes ago, which is that it's a very good thing that Meta sucks at making AI systems, because every idea coming out of that company for like the past year has been, what if we just made the worst ideas from science fiction a reality?

• 1:00:45Speaker 01

  You know, I've heard of the dead internet theory, Kevin, but this is ridiculous. This is actually the literal dead internet. If you've never heard of this, by the way, the dead internet theory is just basically that a lot of the activity online, including like, you know, ad impressions and everything are all fake because it's all just sort of bots on the internet. This is like the patent that could make that possible.

• 1:01:04Speaker 02

  Yeah, when we said that we wanted AI in Silicon Valley to let us live forever, this is not what we meant.

• 1:01:10Speaker 01

  So what kind of mess is this?

• 1:01:12Speaker 02

  I don't know, you tell me.

• 1:01:13Speaker 01

  I think this is a, this is like a sort of cold mess and it's like that particular chill of a body that is, you know, sort of been laying out on a slab for, you know, maybe 48 hours waiting to be autopsied.

• 1:01:26Speaker 02

  Okay, it's really dark.

• 1:01:28Speaker 01

  Next up.

• 1:01:29Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 1:01:30Speaker 01

  Last up.

• 1:01:31Speaker 02

  Pulling up the rear on the hot mess express, we have a story from Wired. I tried Rent-A-Human, where AI agents hired me to hype their AI startups. This comes to us from Reese Rogers at Wired, who started using a website known as Rent-A-Human, where AI agents can pay humans to do things for them. So Reese sort of tried to do a bunch of these tasks. One bounty offered $10 to listen to a podcast episode and tweet out an insight from it.

• 1:02:07Speaker 01

  Oh, he's got hazard pay for that.

• 1:02:08Speaker 02

  Yeah, some podcasts, you have to pay me a lot more than $10. Another agent tried to hire him to deliver a bouquet of flowers to Anthropic as a special thanks for developing Claude, which I think will get you banned from the building.

• 1:02:23Speaker 01

  Do not show up at the Anthropic office with flowers.

• 1:02:29Speaker 02

  They have very tight security over there. And finally, he applied for a bounty to hang some flyers for a Valentine's conspiracy around San Francisco, paying him around 50 cents a flyer. He applied, but was then told the flyers were not ready. It seems like some of these were just like marketing stunts or like not actually autonomous AI agents hiring humans to do things for them. But Casey, what do you make of this rent a human idea? And the idea that we might all sort of become like outsourced meat hands for the AI agents?

• 1:03:05Speaker 01

  So I don't think we are all going to become that, but this is one of those things that has just been long been predicted to become some kind of job in the future. This seems like something that like somebody who might be interested in like doing DoorDash or like driving for Uber might do in the future. And it now seems like that is just beginning to creep into focus. It sounds like here, a lot of these things were just kind of like stuntey and not real. But I don't know, after some of the stories that we have heard today, including Scott's story about the agent, yeah, would not be surprising to me if we saw some of this stuff happening for real sometime soon.

• 1:03:39Speaker 02

  So Casey, what kind of a mess is this?

• 1:03:42Speaker 01

  This is not a mess, but I don't know. I suppose in the future, if like the best job available to humans is like closing the doors of open Waymos that they got off of rent a human, it will be a mess.

• 1:03:55Speaker 02

  Yes, I would say this is a warm mess that is getting warmer because this kind of thing leads to some very worrisome places. And I don't want to live in a world where we're just the sort of fleshy extensions of the AI agents.

• 1:04:07Speaker 01

  Oh, come on, Kevin, live a little.

• 1:04:09Speaker 02

  All right. That's the Hot Mess Express.

• 1:04:13Speaker 01

  And hopefully the last time anyone says fleshy extensions on this podcast.

• 1:04:48Speaker 00

  Support for this podcast comes from Dell Technologies. It's time to put AI to work. Is your business ready? The challenge isn't getting started with AI. It's scaling beyond pilots while maintaining control of your data, governance, infrastructure, and costs. Dell AI Factory provides the integrated foundation you need to scale AI securely and efficiently with one trusted partner. Dell, AI on your terms. From idea to impact. Learn more at dell.com/yourwaytoAI. That's dell.com/yourwaytoAI.

• 1:05:25Speaker 01

  Heart Fork is produced by Rachel Cohn and Whitney Jones. We're edited by Veeran Pavich. We're fact-checked by Caitlin Love. Today's show was engineered by Katie McMurran. Our executive producer is Jen Poyant. Original music by Marian Lozano, Rowan Nemisto, and Dan Powell. Video production by Sawyer Roque, Pat Gunther, Jake Nickel, and Chris Schott. You can watch this whole episode on YouTube at youtube.com/heartfork. Special thanks to Paul Shuman, Huiwing Tam, and Dahlia Hadad. You can email us at [email protected] with what an AI agent said about you.

• 1:06:24Speaker 05

  Building and scaling AI today can feel pretty chaotic, mostly because teams are juggling too many fragmented tools at once. That's where OutSystems comes in. OutSystems gives you one unified Agentic Systems platform to manage your entire portfolio of agents, apps, and workflows. You get to innovate at the speed of AI, but with the security, governance, and control your enterprise actually needs. And the results are already there. A major manufacturer used OutSystems to build a multi-agent system that analyzes blueprints, and a global bank cut their development time by 60%. Own your agentic future today at outsystems.com/NYT.