内容来源：https://www.wired.com/story/uncanny-valley-podcast-meta-in-crisis-google-search-makeover-ai-booed-by-graduates/

内容总结：

《Uncanny Valley》本周播客要点总结

本周，WIRED旗下播客《Uncanny Valley》团队讨论了Meta的最新裁员潮及其内部日益低迷的员工士气，马斯克在针对OpenAI的诉讼中败诉，以及谷歌年度开发者大会的亮点——包括一项旨在改变人们搜索方式的雄心勃勃的AI愿景。最后，节目还探讨了应届大学毕业生和丈夫从事AI行业的女性有什么共同点：她们都对AI话题感到厌烦了。

Meta：创纪录利润与最低士气并存

Meta本周裁减约10%的员工（约8000人），这是扎克伯格自2023年“效率年”以来累计裁减约2.5万个岗位的最新一轮。尽管公司利润创历史新高，但员工士气跌至谷底。除了裁员，Meta还强制员工参与AI训练数据采集（监控键盘和鼠标操作且不可选择退出），并将数千名剩余员工强制调岗至AI团队。员工抱怨公司无视核心业务（如Instagram与TikTok竞争），转而押注短期内不赚钱的AI项目。

马斯克诉OpenAI败诉

马斯克起诉OpenAI违反非营利初衷、转型为营利性公司的案件，陪审团不到两小时即驳回其诉求，法官随后当庭确认裁决。理由包括诉讼时效已过，且马斯克自己也在开发竞品AI公司，动机不纯。马斯克称将上诉，但其内部邮件显示他早就知晓并支持OpenAI的营利化转型。

谷歌I/O大会：搜索将被彻底重塑

谷歌宣布搜索引擎将从“十条蓝色链接”转变为对话式AI聊天机器人，并进一步推出“代理式搜索”——用户只需提出需求（如“某明星何时推出新联名鞋”），AI代理将自动监控网络并推送通知，用户无需再主动搜索。此外，谷歌还发布了类似OpenAI“Opera Claw”的自主助手“Gemini Spark”，可访问用户全部谷歌数据（邮件、日历、搜索记录等），引发隐私担忧。

应届毕业生与AI从业者的配偶：厌倦了

前谷歌CEO施密特在大学毕业典礼上大谈AI革命被学生当场嘘声，此类事件并非孤例。调查显示，14-29岁年轻人中对AI感到乐观的比例从27%降至18%。与此同时，美国初级岗位招聘量已较2023年1月下降35%。节目中记者Alessandra Ram分享了“AI悲伤妻子们”的故事——在湾区，许多女性抱怨丈夫沉迷AI工作导致家庭关系紧张，这些男性要么因狂热追逐技术而忽视家庭，要么因未能挤进AI行业而失落焦虑。

中文翻译：

本周的《诡异谷》节目中，团队讨论了Meta近期的裁员情况，以及从员工那里听到的关于公司氛围日益阴沉的感受。他们还谈到了埃隆·马斯克输掉对OpenAI的诉讼一案，并分享了谷歌年度大会的亮点——包括一项旨在改变人们搜索网页方式的宏大AI愿景。最后，应届大学毕业生与配偶从事AI行业的女性有什么共同点？答案是：她们都已听腻了这些话题。

本期节目提及的文章：

• 《Meta的新现实：利润创历史新高，士气跌至历史最低》
• 《Google I/O 2026 发布全览：Gemini、搜索、智能眼镜》
• 《谷歌搜索走向自主智能——不再需要你了》
• 《来认识一下AI的“悲伤妻子们”》

你可以在Bluesky上关注Brian Barrett（@brbarrett）、Zoë Schiffer（@zoeschiffer）和Leah Feiger（@leahfeiger）。写信请发至 [email protected]。

如何收听
你可以随时通过本页面的音频播放器收听本周的播客，但如果你想免费订阅以获取每一期节目，操作方法如下：
如果你使用的是iPhone或iPad，请打开名为“播客”的应用，或直接点击此链接。你也可以下载Overcast或Pocket Casts等应用，并搜索“Uncanny Valley”。我们在Spotify上也有。

文字记录
注：此为自动生成的文字记录，可能包含错误。

Zoë Schiffer：欢迎收听《连线》杂志的《诡异谷》。我是Zoë Schiffer，商业与行业总监。
Brian Barrett：我是Brian Barrett，执行编辑。
Leah Feiger：我是Leah Feiger，政治与科学总监。
Brian Barrett：而且我们同处一室——
Zoë Schiffer：哦，天哪。
Brian Barrett：——这是播客开播以来头一回。
Zoë Schiffer：同一间屋子。
Leah Feiger：我被邀请加入群聊了。
Zoë Schiffer：确实如此。
Brian Barrett：看看这场景。
Zoë Schiffer：今天在节目中，我们将讨论Meta大规模裁员引发的全面混乱。我们采访了十几位员工，结果发现，裁员远非Meta员工正在经历困境的唯一原因。
Brian Barrett：当然，我们也不会跳过埃隆·马斯克的判决。他输掉了对山姆·奥尔特曼和OpenAI的诉讼，而且输得极其彻底、极为戏剧化。我知道Zoë很期待聊这个话题。
Zoë Schiffer：是的。
Brian Barrett：而我则期待讨论谷歌的年度开发者大会I/O，会上它推出了一些对搜索功能的重大变革。
Leah Feiger：你可能已经看到，谷歌前CEO埃里克·施密特最近在毕业典礼演讲中称赞AI后，遭到了应届毕业生的嘘声。我们将深入探讨为什么年轻人可能在使用AI，却对此怀有极其复杂的情感。而在节目后半段，我们将听到为什么那些嫁给“AI狂人”的女性已经受够了。
Zoë Schiffer：首先，让我们深入了解Meta正在发生什么。本周，该公司将裁掉约10%的员工，总计约8000人。这是最新一轮裁员，加上过去几年作为马克·扎克伯格自2023年开始的“效率年”以及现在他试图推行和强加的“AI优先”工作场所计划的一部分，已经裁减了约2.5万个职位。虽然这轮裁员规模不及之前的一些轮次，但引发了极大关注，因为CEO马克·扎克伯格表示，裁员发生的原因——至少部分原因，或者说很大程度上——是公司正在AI和数据中心上投入巨额资金。
Brian Barrett：我们在周二录制这期节目，但我们之所以能如此全面且自信地谈论这个话题，是因为Meta很早就宣布了这件事。
Leah Feiger：哦，是啊。
Zoë Schiffer：他们没宣布。消息是泄露的。
Brian Barrett：消息是泄露的。但后来他们承认了。
Zoë Schiffer：那是好几周之后的事了。
Brian Barrett：是的。不过，这件事公开已经很久了——
Zoë Schiffer：确实很久了。
Brian Barrett：——我认为这导致Meta内部出现了一段混乱期，因为你面临着十分之一的概率失去工作？
Zoë Schiffer：是的，我的意思是，不夸张地说，这对士气造成了极其恶劣的影响。但正如我们所说，这不是唯一的问题。马克·扎克伯格还在大力鼓励员工使用AI。内部为此进行了各种变革。有些人非常喜欢并正在采用。有些人则强烈抵制。但我认为，对于许多在Meta那个无限福利、工作稳定、氛围比硅谷其他初创公司更轻松的时代加入的员工来说——
Leah Feiger：我们来投资吧。
Zoë Schiffer：他们享受了一段时间。
Leah Feiger：虽然不像谷歌那样彻底，但——
Zoë Schiffer：某种程度上也差不多了。
Leah Feiger：——有那种氛围。对我来说，作为一个完全置身事外的人，我知道这些裁员是因为它们（A）非常混乱，而且（B）在某种程度上显得不必要。不是说其他科技公司没有一直在解雇大量员工。感觉这也是我们这档播客经常讨论的话题，但这次裁员的酝酿期如此之长，而且方式让员工对自己感觉糟透了。
Brian Barrett：嗯，因为不仅仅是被裁员的问题，对吧？即使你留下来了，没有被淘汰，你也必须面对这样一个世界：你的笔记本电脑上装有间谍软件，用于训练AI，最终很可能会取代你的工作，对吧？
Zoë Schiffer：解释一下。
Brian Barrett：Meta宣布——这也是更公开的信息——他们将在员工笔记本电脑上安装软件，监控他们的键盘输入、鼠标移动方式，以及他们作为Meta工程师完成工作的基本方式，并将此作为内部模型的训练数据，以改进他们的AI模型，因为他们其他数据源快用完了。
Zoë Schiffer：可以拒绝参加吗，Brian？
Brian Barrett：问得好。很高兴你问这个问题。答案是不能拒绝。
Zoë Schiffer：我感觉你之前不知道这个答案。
Brian Barrett：实际上，当一名员工在Meta内部一个非常公开的论坛上问道：“嘿，我们能不能不这样做？”时，Zoë，你猜回应是什么？
Zoë Schiffer：哦，当然不行，你必须要做，而且你提出这个问题本身就该感到羞愧。而一些留下的员工——实际上是成千上万的留下的员工——正在被征召进AI部门。我们今天发表了一篇文章，内容涉及公司内部的士气问题，但也提到了员工们疯狂消耗福利和津贴的现象。但文章结尾提到的一点是，留下的员工被要求加入AI团队。所以无论你之前的工作是什么，现在你被内部征召了。你被征召进AI部门，你的工作将变得截然不同。
Brian Barrett：那可是大约7000人。
Zoë Schiffer：是的。
Leah Feiger：我确实听到有人用了“被提走”这个词。
Zoë Schiffer：哦，天哪。
Leah Feiger：是不是很——
Zoë Schiffer：我真希望我们把这词写进文章里了。
Leah Feiger：真不好意思，但就是“被提走”到其他团队。突然有一天，他们就这么消失了。这次裁员之后，扎克伯格及其团队有没有提出一套连贯的领导计划或方案？之后会发生什么？
Zoë Schiffer：根据我采访过的员工的反馈，这正是令人困惑的地方。因为目前棘手的问题是，Meta实际上正经历着创纪录或接近创纪录的利润和收入增长。公司表现得异常出色，但这种出色并非因为人工智能。我采访过Instagram的员工，他们说：“听着，我们主要竞争对手是TikTok。TikTok不是AI公司。”事实上，你正试图把重心放在一个根本不是我们赚钱原因的东西上，而现在你却因为这个东西裁掉我们这么多人，而实际上我们的本职工作做得相当好，因为公司又在大把赚钱。
Brian Barrett：是的。而且在我看来，我们的报道也表明，公司内部似乎出现了一些使命偏离。这一点不仅体现在AI上。我认为，很久以前当你看到那笔800亿美元的元宇宙赌注，然后又说“哦，算了，这里有新宠”的时候，就已经出现了。AI不是另一个元宇宙。我认为AI背后有更好的商业理由。但与此同时，正如你所说，它目前并不赚钱。
Zoë Schiffer：不赚钱。我还采访了两位被马克·扎克伯格亲自招募加入那个非常豪华的AI项目的人，两人都说：“听着，愿景就是为Instagram和其他Meta平台生成AI垃圾内容。”这毫无灵感可言。与此同时，OpenAI和Anthropic——不是说他们已经做到了——但他们的使命是“我们将彻底改变经济并治愈癌症”。
Leah Feiger：而不是让你奶奶的信息流成为你能看到的最具破坏性的东西。没错。
Zoë Schiffer：所以人们就是提不起劲。
Brian Barrett：而且就连Meta自己也承认，大约10%的广告收入来自诈骗。他们就像：“是的，我们知道有诈骗。我们知道我们从中赚了很多钱。”而且还有种默认态度就是“我们在处理了”，但可能还不够。
Leah Feiger：我们看到很多地方都在裁员或宣布裁员，比如微软、Coinbase、思科宣布裁员4000人。这是裁员的春天吗？我们面对的是什么情况？
Brian Barrett：是的，我认为这还是同样的对话，只是有些演变。很多时候，裁员是过度招聘的遮羞布。但越来越明显的是，Zoë，你提出过这个观点，实际上AI确实可以取代一些工程师，或者不完全是取代，但至少你可以让几个工程师监督一些自主AI，其效率可能比50个工程师还高。
Zoë Schiffer：我和很多人聊过这个，我的观点——而且我愿意随着时间改变——是，如果你有非常优秀的高级工程师，他们可以管理那些能完成低级工程师工作的AI代理。所以现在正在失去的是初级岗位。我们在研究中看到了这一点。当我们审视失业和AI替代工作的问题时，实际情况是初级岗位正在被人工智能取代。
Leah Feiger：我觉得你在某些方面确实有所转变。在我们讨论这件事的过程中，你从“不，人们还没失业呢”变成了现在的“这已经开始发生了”，就像Brian说的。接下来一步会是什么？更多的裁员？这会发生得更快更猛吗？还是我们只会看到招聘在整个行业停滞不前？
Zoë Schiffer：有意思。Brian提到了Google I/O，我其实不太想谈。
Brian Barrett：这对我来说太疯狂了。请继续，我们很快就会聊到。
Leah Feiger：太棒了。
Zoë Schiffer：Demis Hassabis今天跟我们的记者Will Knight聊过，他说：“我认为我们不应该裁员。我认为AI应该创造更多生产力，我们应该做得更多。”所以我想你会看到一些公司说：“没错，我们可以比以前做更多的事情。我们只是要做更多的事，构建更多的东西，发布更多的产品。”但同时，你也会看到很多公司说：“我们只需要几个工程师就能构建和运营Shopify，而不是以前那个数百人的团队。”这只是一个例子。
Brian Barrett：说到AI公司成长和变化的方式，埃隆·马斯克这周正式输掉了对山姆·奥尔特曼和OpenAI的诉讼。
Zoë Schiffer：多么特别的时刻。
Brian Barrett：是的，确实很特别。给那些不像Zoë和Leah那样痴迷追踪此事的人简单回顾一下：埃隆·马斯克提起诉讼，声称OpenAI非法放弃了其非营利使命，变成了这个营利性巨头。陪审团用了不到两个小时就说了：“不，你别闹了。”
Zoë Schiffer：难以置信。
Brian Barrett：但有趣的是，他们给出的理由——他们甚至懒得处理案件实体问题。诉讼时效基本上已经过了。他们说：“提起这个诉讼太迟了。如果你当时想这么做，你早就该做了。而且即使不考虑诉讼时效，如果你是在自己建立OpenAI的巨大竞争对手之前，并且除了从诉讼中可能获得的赔偿之外还有如此明显的金钱利益，你这么说可能更有可信度。”当判决在周一公布时，法官伊冯·冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯表示，在她看来，这次审判对于澄清争议是值得的，并且“有大量证据支持陪审团的裁定，这就是为什么我准备接受陪审团的裁定并当场驳回”，澄清一下，陪审团的裁决只是第一步。我们还需要法官自己做出决定，而这几乎是立刻就发生了。
Zoë Schiffer：我昨天和一个人聊过这个，我认为埃隆·马斯克试图证明，诉讼时效只应该从他意识到信托被违反时开始计算，基本上就是他意识到OpenAI不再是非营利组织的时候，他有权在法庭上提出这个论点。我确实认为很多人在这一点上感到困惑，因为他们觉得“诉讼时效问题似乎是以前就能告诉他的”。但我认为你可以论证这一点。这就是为什么整个审判过程中我们都在说：“他必须提出一个非常有说服力的论点，证明他直到2023年才发现OpenAI开始转向营利。”而证据并不支持这一点。
Brian Barrett：不支持。另外，我应该补充一点，毫不意外，埃隆·马斯克要上诉，或者说他声称要上诉。他确实有花不完的钱去做这件事。
Zoë Schiffer：埃隆·马斯克的律师马克·托贝罗夫离开法庭时只说了一个词，他就说了：“上诉。”
Brian Barrett：是的。他也毫不意外地在X上发帖谈论此事，提到法官时说：“她刚刚发了一张免费许可证，允许你掠夺慈善机构，只要你能在几年内让掠夺行为不被发现。”
Leah Feiger：我喜欢他称她为“激进主义法官”。我认为在这个特朗普时代，认定政府中这个特定分支的法官实际上是在违背某人的利益，这种方式已经变得非常流行了。
Zoë Schiffer：再说一次，有邮件显示埃隆·马斯克非常清楚他们正在成立公司的营利性部门，他们需要这样做来筹集资金。他甚至试图在特斯拉内部建立一个AI实验室，并想招募山姆·奥尔特曼加入，然后他想让特斯拉——一家著名的营利性公司——收购或并购OpenAI。我当时在编辑预写稿，我们的优秀记者Paresh Dave写了三个版本。我编辑的第一个版本是“埃隆·马斯克赢了”。我当时就想：“这个版本绝对不可能面世。”
Brian Barrett：他根本不用写那个。
Leah Feiger：这对OpenAI未来意味着什么？
Zoë Schiffer：有意思。实际上我认为这给了他们很大的动力，现在他们会全速前进。我确实认为OpenAI和山姆·奥尔特曼的形象，尤其是奥尔特曼，在这次审判中受到了一些损害。这件事发生在一系列关于他所谓两面三刀行为的报道之后。我不认为他通过这次审判看起来更好，但我认为公司对其IPO非常乐观，可能最早今年就会进行。企业代码方面也在全速推进，这可以说是目前硅谷的流行语。所以我认为那边的人都感觉非常、非常好。
Brian Barrett：我确实认为，正如你所说，这也是一场舆论法庭的审判，对吧？部分目的是为了羞辱对手，但这只是一场泥浆摔跤，大家都沾了一身泥。没有人从中看起来很好。我不认为有人改变了任何人的想法，比如“哦不，你应该被托付这项强大技术的未来”。所有人——
Zoë Schiffer：法庭上的屁股靠垫制造商才是真正的赢家。
Leah Feiger：那是他们最好的产品。
Brian Barrett：法庭上广泛使用的屁股靠垫——还有不同品牌的屁股靠垫。
Zoë Schiffer：不同品牌的屁股靠垫。是啊，高级的，便宜的。每个人都在那些硬邦邦的座位上用高级屁股靠垫。是的。我认为埃隆·马斯克是个非常好诉讼的人。他愿意赌一把，尝试提起诉讼，万一成功了呢。但我也认为他知道——而且他在审判前进行和解谈判时泄露的短信中也说过——他说：“你（指山姆·奥尔特曼和格雷格·布洛克曼）在这件事结束后会成为美国最遭人恨的人。”我认为这至少部分是他的意图，至少我们这么认为。
Brian Barrett：我马上就要成为这期播客里最遭人恨的人了。
Leah Feiger：我准备好了。不能再准备好了。
Brian Barrett：我不知道这有什么好争议的。我真的搞不懂。再说一次，我们是在周二录制。谷歌举办了I/O大会，它每年一次的大型开发者大会。当我们开始策划这期播客时，我说：“嘿，我们也许该聊聊Google I/O。”而你们俩——
Zoë Schiffer：说：“哦，天哪，是的，我们超爱Google I/O。”
Brian Barrett：——强烈反对。表现得好像我脖子上长了第二个脑袋，好像我提出了世界上最疯狂的建议。在我们讨论Google I/O之前，为什么？
Leah Feiger：我自有原因。我好奇Zoë的原因。
Zoë Schiffer：是啊，太无聊了。
Brian Barrett：好吧。
Leah Feiger：好吧，行。
Brian Barrett：好吧。Leah？
Leah Feiger：是的，继续。有时候，当我们被这些科技公司、美国政府或我们报道的任何实体强行灌输新闻时，我会感觉有点奇怪。这并不是说报道这些对世界上最大、最具影响力和最强大的搜索引擎的非常重要的改变毫无价值，但这是否是我愿意在这个播客的“神圣空间”里谈论的事情呢？
Brian Barrett：当然。我想说的是，就像任何事情一样，我们不会照搬他们在这些活动上说的话。
Leah Feiger：这倒是真的。
Brian Barrett：我们会把它们放在恰当的背景下，并通过报道来支撑。我们有一个很棒的Gear记者团队——
Leah Feiger：毫无疑问。
Brian Barrett：——他们做了出色的工作，今天也表现得非常出色。
Leah Feiger：毫无疑问。完全支持和喜爱他们。
Brian Barrett：所以我理解你们的出发点，但你们都错了。
Zoë Schiffer：哇。而且他是我们老板，所以我们得听。
Brian Barrett：原因在此。谷歌搜索正在发生前所未有的变化。现在不要把搜索仅仅看作一个搜索框。它一直在朝这个方向发展。它不再是10个链接，甚至现在连一个链接都不是了。谷歌搜索基本上变成了一个聊天机器人。它是一个对话式查询。它会展开。当你输入“嘿，谷歌，你觉得我该这么做吗？”之类的。它不仅仅会显示文本。它可能还会显示它刚刚生成的一个交互式图形。而不是说“我想去谷歌图片搜索这个”，它会说“这是你的图片。另外，还有这个。”这是第一阶段。第二阶段将是自主智能搜索。这意味着什么呢？你去谷歌搜索，他们给的例子大概是：“当我最喜欢的明星发布新的联名鞋款时通知我。”就这样，完事。谷歌AI代理将为你监控网络。它们会替你去搜索，并通过你的谷歌应用向你发送通知：“嘿，你找的东西刚发布了。”这里的想法是，你不仅不再访问网站——因为一切都在谷歌内部了——你甚至不再需要搜索了。你不再使用网络了，因为代理会为你做这些事。谷歌将调解你与网络的每一次互动。这是一个非常、非常重大的变化。我认为这绝对值得我们讨论。
Leah Feiger：这对我们来说意味着什么？对Wired.com来说呢？
Brian Barrett：不太好。
Leah Feiger：不好？好吧。
Brian Barrett：但我认为我们和其他出版商一段时间以来已经默认，不能再依赖谷歌了。这就是为什么与受众的直接关系如此重要，我们也在这方面进行了各种投入。
Leah Feiger：这是一个非常重要的时刻，请大家订阅Wired.com。
Brian Barrett：请访问Wired.com。你也可以在谷歌中将《连线》标记为优先来源，诸如此类。但我认为每个人都在为这一刻做准备。感觉它比过去一段时间更真切地到来了，因为有这种普遍的AI概览，但现在AI会审查整个过程。
Zoë Schiffer：是的。再说一次，像你说的，我们知道谷歌正朝这个方向走，但我确实认为这对公司来说是一个非常有趣的时刻，因为搜索是其商业模式的重要组成部分，而搜索广告又是其商业模式的重要组成部分。所以感觉有点像它在自我蚕食，同时又在为一项新功能做准备。我很好奇，我猜他们会在这东西里塞满广告，以此赚钱，但你可以想象他们也会经历一个过渡期的打击。
Brian Barrett：是的。
Leah Feiger：撇开品牌形象不谈，未来的搜索体验会是什么样，我猜想至少会有些初期问题。
Brian Barrett：是的，我确定。我认为就像很多人不喜欢AI概览，一直乞求能关掉它却找不到简单方法一样，这次也会一样，但你也无能为力。谷歌非常明确地致力于此。这显然是他们希望网络运作的方式。我比担心谷歌的利润更担心的是，这又是同样的主题，只是加速了，即一旦你停止访问网站，只有机器人访问网站，你就是在扼杀信息供应。你是更小的出版商。
Leah Feiger：嗯，你迟早会用完的。
Brian Barrett：没错。所以网络本身就会萎缩成一个谷歌形状的洞。
Zoë Schiffer：是的，我知道。感觉最近有人问过山姆·奥尔特曼这个问题：“在这个世界里，出版商怎么办？”答案是微支付。我当时想，听着——
Leah Feiger：哇。
Zoë Schiffer：——我们这个行业不可能靠10美分支撑下去，甚至，你知道——
Leah Feiger：哇。
Zoë Schiffer：——我不知道会是什么，但肯定是——
Brian Barrett：每隔六年就有人断定微支付将拯救新闻业——
Zoë Schiffer：不。
Leah Feiger：每次我听到这个就火大。我真的——
Brian Barrett：——而它们从未成功过。
Zoë Schiffer：我和业内人士聊过，他们会说“那是未来。另外，我很喜欢你写的那篇关于制造iPhone的沙子之类的6000字深度报道。”我说：“你知道那篇报道的采写成本是多少吗？”光是给自由撰稿人的稿费就有几千美元。
Brian Barrett：我要把话题拉回来——
Zoë Schiffer：对不起。
Brian Barrett：——从对我们自身的影响，再次聚焦到更广泛的影响上，因为还有另一部分。今天有很多公告。对我来说，搜索是最大的一个。我也要说，谷歌以前宣布过重大变革，但后来并没有真正实现，或者说没有以他们最初提议的方式实现。所以很多内容都要打个星号。不过我认为大部分最终还是会来的。但他们还宣布了一个叫Gemini Spark的东西，我想简单聊聊。Gemini Spark是谷歌对OpenClaw的回应。我们还记得OpenClaw吧。我们当时还拿它开玩笑。
Leah Feiger：是啊， definitely.
Brian Barrett：很有趣。OpenClaw，一个可以自主运行的小代理，可以访问你所有的东西。Gemini Spark是谷歌对OpenClaw的回应。它是同样类型的自主助手，可以做所有事情，但因为是谷歌的，它可以访问你在谷歌上或任何你关联的应用上所做的一切。所以你可以看到这变得非常强大，而OpenClaw已经是个隐私问题了，这个更甚。你让它访问你的Gmail，访问你的日历，访问你在网上触碰的一切，你完整的搜索历史，然后就说：“嘿，去做这个。提醒我这个，做那个。”
Leah Feiger：我对一个产品从未如此不感兴趣。
Zoë Schiffer：我们知道。
Brian Barrett：但问题是，我同意，这不适合我，但这是那种最终会呈现在数十亿人面前的东西。规模是关键，这些人不一定知道、理解或意识到——不是看不起任何人——但这东西能访问你的数据，可能出错的方式。
Zoë Schiffer：我想说，OpenClaw更像是个人项目。创始人现在加入了OpenAI，但这更像是一个草根实验。我想象当谷歌做这件事时，他们会实施更多的安全措施。
Brian Barrett：不，你说得对。
Zoë Schiffer：我不是说这没什么。我肯定这会改变。
Leah Feiger：希望如此。
Zoë Schiffer：但我认为，如果他们向数百万或数十亿人推出，我们将会看到一些额外的制衡措施。
Brian Barrett：很可能。
Zoë Schiffer：希望如此。
Leah Feiger：说到主要的AI玩家，我想我们都知道AI在公众眼中的声誉有点下滑了，我个人很喜欢这一点。我太喜欢这种反弹了。我 literally——
Zoë Schiffer：Leah是幕后推手。
Leah Feiger：是的，没错。
Zoë Schiffer：暗黑资金？Leah Feiger。
Leah Feiger：每一篇小报道和评论都温暖了我这颗AI格林奇的心。我们继续看到报道，人们非常不满为了给AI供电而在家附近建造数据中心，同时还推高了他们的电费。然后是AI在日益严峻的职场中的影响。我们刚才就在讨论Meta的裁员等等。所以，上周当谷歌前CEO埃里克·施密特走上亚利桑那大学的讲台向毕业生发表演讲时，他提到了AI，事情进展得不太顺利，这大概不会让在座的各位感到太意外。

埃里克·施密特，档案音频：它将触及每一个职业、每一间教室、每一家医院、每一间实验室、每一个人以及你们的每一种关系。我知道你们很多人对此的感受。我能听到你们。（人群中的嘘声）你们这一代有一种恐惧，觉得未来已经写好，机器正在到来，我理解这种恐惧。

Leah Feiger：而且施密特并不是唯一一个从毕业生那里得到这种回应的演讲者，而毕业生正是那些据称全心全意拥抱这项技术的人。房地产高管格洛丽亚·考菲尔德在中佛罗里达大学的毕业典礼演讲中称AI为下一次工业革命后，也同样遭到了嘘声。

格洛丽亚·考菲尔德，档案音频：人工智能的兴起是下一次工业革命。（人群中的嘘声）怎么了？好吧。我触动了某根弦。

Leah Feiger：我简直眉开眼笑，各位。
Brian Barrett：抱歉。我有替代性尴尬，受不了这个。
Leah Feiger：这些是知名且富有的高管，他们自己、他们的家人、他们的孩子、他们的孙辈，完全不受AI现在和未来对职场的影响。这些人不担心AI会取代他们的工作。这些人不是在毕业进入一个所有人都说“我不需要助理了，你听说过OpenClaw吗？”的市场。当然每个人都会对他们发火。我们有一整类人口，他们不知道如何获得工作经验，然后突然就被我们的科技霸主视为无关紧要了。他们当然会喝倒彩。
Brian Barrett：问题是，我认为有一种观点——别嘘我——他们说这可能是下一次工业革命并没有错，但这有点像在说：“那么准备好进那些工厂吧。”这是对错误的人群传达了错误的信息。
Zoë Schiffer：我觉得是语气不对。
Leah Feiger：绝对是语气不对。
Zoë Schiffer：而在我看来，有趣的是，我们知道大学生在使用AI，但就像你说的，他们很恼火，因为他们即将毕业进入一个企业不招人的就业市场。这里有几个原因。我不认为仅仅是因为AI已经在取代初级职位——这在某种程度上发生了，但还没到非常非常普遍的程度——还因为人们因为害怕而不敢离职。所以现在市场上流动性不大。
Leah Feiger：这不是一个有弹性的市场，而且你还要考虑伊朗战争和油价上涨。历史上，人们在选举年通常不会做出改变。原因有很多。所以这些人毕业进入一个我出于多种原因绝不羡慕的市场。我想这有两个方面。我非常困惑为什么施密特和考菲尔德都认为这是合适的信息，而且正如Zoë所说，也是合适的策略。我有点怀疑是不是这样：“在这个技术变革的美丽世界里，你可以走出去创造变革技术。世界是你的舞台。”
Zoë Schiffer：你是在告诉我一个亿万富翁对普通人缺乏自我意识？
Leah Feiger：杀了我吧。
Brian Barrett：太疯狂了。有实际统计数据说明Z世代对AI的感受有多糟糕。盖洛普最近的一项研究显示，14至29岁受访者中对AI感到有希望的比例从去年的27%下降到了18%。
Leah Feiger：哇。
Brian Barrett：这非常、非常、非常少。
Zoë Schiffer：自2023年1月以来，美国整体初级职位的招聘信息下降了约35%。所以这是真实的。对市场有影响。我实际上认为这将是在下次选举中的一个议题，这很有趣，因为几个月前我肯定不会这么说。
Leah Feiger：是啊，我也是。
Zoë Schiffer：我们优秀的AI记者之一Maxwell Zeff报道过格雷格·布洛克曼向特朗普和其他MAGA领导人的捐款。他采访过OpenAI总裁格雷格·布洛克曼，后者表示，他觉得把钱捐给对AI持乐观态度的政治家非常重要。我认为潜台词是，OpenAI和其他公司实际上担心他们正在构建的东西缺乏人气。
Brian Barrett：关于格雷格·布洛克曼，我想我们还应提一下，他确实是在把钱用行动兑现。他向MAGA Inc——那个大型特朗普超级政治行动委员会——捐赠了2500万美元。支持数据库的一方确实有真金白银。反对数据库的一方较少，事情往往如此，但这是跨党派的。反对派真的很有趣。你会看到民主党人、共和党人都在以某种方式进行反击，这将在今年秋天形成一些奇怪的联盟。
Zoë Schiffer：这将非常有趣，因为几个月前我跟OpenAI去了德克萨斯州的阿比林，印象非常深刻。特德·克鲁兹也在场。该镇的市长也在场。似乎有如此多的政治支持这项倡议。我当时立刻就想：“我认为这在某个时刻会转变。”现在你会说：“看，它会创造所有这些就业机会。它会非常棒。我们要进入这些缺乏经济机会的地区，并创造机会。”但数据中心的问题不仅仅是推高了附近居民的水费、电费等等，即使它们在初期创造了一定数量的就业机会，而且其中很多工作是从其他州引进的人做的，但一旦数据中心建成，你并不需要那么多人来运营它。
Leah Feiger：所以，AI世界此刻正热闹非凡。休息过后，我们将深入探讨一个引人入胜的故事，关于为什么与痴迷AI的男性结婚的女性已经受够了。

[休息]

Zoë Schiffer：所以，除了在AI上不断增加的开支、最新的发布、传闻中的IPO等等之外，AI热潮目前还有一个更个人化、更奇怪的副作用，那就是它对家庭动态的影响，特别是对那些丈夫从事AI或想从事AI行业的女性造成的影响，确切地说，这些女性已经彻底厌倦了整个该死的事情。《连线》供稿人亚历山德拉·拉姆报道了AI如何占据了一些女性的家庭生活，她现在加入我们，来谈谈那篇文章。
亚历山德拉·拉姆：大家好。我很高兴能和你们聊天。你好。
Leah Feiger：嘿，很高兴你在这里。
Zoë Schiffer：我太喜欢这篇文章了。我多次大笑。你把那些嫁给沉迷AI的男性的女性称为，引用一下，“AI的悲伤妻子们”，而且你把自己也归入其中。你们有什么共同点？你们分享什么？你什么时候第一次意识到这不仅是你个人生活中的经历，而是一种模式？
亚历山德拉·拉姆：AI的悲伤妻子们是AI科技热潮的一种症状，尤其是在湾区这里。我注意到这一点是因为它发生在我自己的家里。我最近生了孩子，所以在家时间多了很多，而我丈夫在一家非常忙碌的公司，为他的公司构建AI。不幸的是，他娶了个记者，所以我就是观察和研究事情，想想这里有没有什么可以写的，因为它开始严重影响家庭动态。他完全沉迷于在这个公司构建这个AI工具，公司的要求似乎失控了。他整晚熬夜。我也整晚和宝宝一起熬夜。所以家里就是有这种紧张气氛，他越来越着迷。而我则越来越退缩，对他做的事越来越不感兴趣，因为我必须专注于其他一切。所以我开始注意到我的朋友也遇到了同样的情况。我住在湾区——很多人从事科技行业。在我的朋友圈里，大多数人实际上——如果我们谈论异性恋关系，我这篇文章是针对这种情况的——其中一些男性的伴侣在AI领域工作或试图在AI领域工作。他们或多或少描述了我和他们每天每夜经历的同样的事情，就是那种痴迷。甚至就是那种他们称之为对Claude Code以及Claude Code每次迭代的热情，正如我们所知，那是每周一次，他们的兴奋和我的朋友们内心在一点点死去。
Leah Feiger：每周都是他们的超级碗。
Zoë Schiffer：是的。我喜欢你在文章中的比喻：“我们都有孩子要照顾。我的是我们真实的人类小孩，他的是AI工具，但我们对此都很投入。”我跟你说。
亚历山德拉·拉姆：我注意到这一点是因为它发生在我自己身上，也发生在朋友身上。然后是朋友的朋友，最终——当我跟我的治疗师聊天时，她不得不在咨询中打断我，因为她问：“哦，你先生是做什么工作的？”我说：“嗯，他在AI领域。他在为他的公司构建AI工具。”她说：“哦，这实际上是一种现象。”她用了“现象”这个词。她在湾区执业。她有一个非常特定的客户群。她是一位产后治疗师，所以她服务的是怀孕或产后的女性。当然，她们自己正在经历这种情绪过山车，但她们中的大多数人的伴侣都在科技行业，她跟我解释说，特别是从事AI或相关领域。她说这导致他们在情感上、精神上无法给予支持，因为他们完全被工作上的事占据了。
Brian Barrett：你在故事中提到的一点，亚历山德拉，是我之前没有完全想通的：不仅仅是被AI世界迷住、深陷其中的人。还有那些被淘汰了或者没能进入这个领域，感到失望，觉得自己在某种程度上失败的人。所以除了他们长时间工作带来的实际劳动外，还有随之而来的情感劳动。你觉得在目前这个阶段，人们需要处理这种情况的普遍程度如何？
亚历山德拉·拉姆：这是个好问题。我看到一些评论说，这可能是一种更特权视角的描述，但实际上，如果你住在湾区，我可以看到这正影响着经济各个层面的人，甚至是正在毕业或努力找工作的学生。而且就业市场非常糟糕，非常动荡。AI也是如此。实际上，AI行业非常动荡。所以人们正在失去工作，或者他们试图得到这些工作，但竞争非常激烈，因为据说薪水很高，而且这被认为是经济成功的钥匙。所以这给人们、婚姻、家庭带来了巨大的压力，比如一个人，举例来说，失去了工作，或者拼命想在AI领域找份工作，因为他们认为这能帮助他们在经济上翻身，老实说，让他们变富。这也是另一个组成部分。
Zoë Schiffer：对。这就是我阅读时想到的两方面：一方面，有些人就是对这些技术创新感到兴奋，真的对新发布的东西如数家珍，就像你说的。有新模型了。太酷了。我们可以做所有这些事情。你觉得你在使用代理，突然就有了超能力。但另一方面，还有一个因素——我也住在湾区，所以我经常看到这个——相当一部分人在过去六年里积累了世代财富。我认为，那些只是碰巧早期加入了一家实验室的人——显然，他们可能非常聪明，等等——但现在是千万富翁，而“那也可能是我”的想法，我认为这种想法相当普遍，尤其是对于任何类型的工程师来说。
亚历山德拉·拉姆：是的，这是错失恐惧症（FOMO）。
Zoë Schiffer：是的，没错。
Leah Feiger：我想稍微从历史角度来看一下。你采访了一位专家，他告诉你，这一切实际上是过去科技热潮的延续，无论是工业革命还是互联网泡沫。这些运动中的主流人物通常都是白人男性，比如史蒂夫·乔布斯、拉里·佩奇、蒂姆·库克。所以他们才是这里收获最多好处的人。你认为AI热潮相比之下如何？你在报道中发现了什么？
亚历山德拉·拉姆：嗯，这真的很有意思，因为当我采访罗格斯大学的教授时，她带我回顾了这些科技热潮的迭代，其中很多发生在加州——淘金热、互联网泡沫，现在轮到AI热潮了。“这次感觉规模更大，”她是这么说的。当我采访多人时，大家普遍的结论是，这实际上感觉更具颠覆性。也许这也是每个人可能从那些估值极高的AI公司那里接收到的信息，即我们所有人都必须采用这项技术，否则我们都会彻底崩溃。有趣的是，例如，在一个家庭单位里，有一个人——这在淘金热中也发生过——他向西远行，通常是男性，去淘金，把家人留在身后。这基本上就是我们在这次新热潮中看到的情况：有人离开了家庭，也许他们还在家里远程工作，所以他们人在家中，但技术上、精神上，他们已经心不在焉了，对吧？他们全神贯注，视野狭窄，专注于在这里成功的追求。
Leah Feiger：我必须要问，自从你开始进行这个报道以来，你自己的关系有什么变化吗？更广泛地说，你希望那些痴迷AI的丈夫或“兄弟们”能从中得到什么启示？
亚历山德拉·拉姆：我认为就是要活在当下。我觉得我们看得太远了。人们显然变得兴奋。人们感到害怕，因为再次强调，这种“要么接受，要么灭亡”的信息，但我认为，包括我自己在内，我觉得我们都只需要更活在当下一点。尽管现在感觉事情真的很难，尤其是很难活在当下，你想逃避，但关系是我们生活中最重要的东西，社区和人际关系。所以我认为不要忽视这一点。我要说的是，在我自己家里，我丈夫知道我在写这篇文章，我想他只是真诚地好奇我会说什么。我不认为他觉得我会有所保留，但现在他可能只是很高兴我更多地谈论AI了。所以我们实际上有了更多可以聊的话题。他说：“这是有好处的。”
Brian Barrett：找到了共同点，是啊。
Leah Feiger：难以置信。
亚历山德拉·拉姆：是的。但我注意到，自从这篇文章发表以来——我想还不到一个星期——他开始主动帮着做家务了。
Zoë Schiffer：负责任的新闻报道，宝贝。我们爱看这个。
亚历山德拉·拉姆：是的。所以这是一个教训。也许就是为一份全国性杂志写点东西，然后有人就会这么做。这会有帮助。
Leah Feiger：改变你自己生活中的事情。
亚历山德拉·拉姆：我昨晚看到他主动洗碗了，我想他可能在听一个关于AI或者尼克斯队的播客。
Zoë Schiffer：是的，我们接受。
亚历山德拉·拉姆：但只要事情做完了就行。
Leah Feiger：亚历山德拉，非常感谢你加入我们。
亚历山德拉·拉姆：谢谢。这很有趣。
**

英文来源：

This week on Uncanny Valley, the team discusses Meta’s recent layoffs and what they’ve been hearing from employees about the increasingly grim vibes at the company. They also talk about Elon Musk losing his lawsuit against OpenAI and share highlights from Google’s annual conference—including an ambitious AI vision to change how people search the web. Finally, what do recent college graduates and women whose spouses work in AI have in common? They’re all sick of hearing about it.
Articles mentioned in this episode:

• Meta’s New Reality: Record High Profits. Record Low Morale
• Everything Announced at Google I/O 2026: Gemini, Search, Smart Glasses
• Google Search Goes Agentic—and Doesn’t Need You Anymore
• Meet the Sad Wives of AI
  You can follow Brian Barrett on Bluesky at @brbarrett, Zoë Schiffer on Bluesky at @zoeschiffer, and Leah Feiger on Bluesky at @leahfeiger. Write to us at [email protected].
  How to Listen
  You can always listen to this week's podcast through the audio player on this page, but if you want to subscribe for free to get every episode, here's how:
  If you're on an iPhone or iPad, open the app called Podcasts, or just tap this link. You can also download an app like Overcast or Pocket Casts and search for “Uncanny Valley.” We’re on Spotify too.
  Transcript
  Note: This is an automated transcript, which may contain errors.
  Zoë Schiffer: Welcome to WIRED's Uncanny Valley. I'm Zoë Schiffer, director of business and industry.
  Brian Barrett: I'm Brian Barrett, executive editor.
  Leah Feiger: And I'm Leah Feiger, director of politics and science.
  Brian Barrett: And we're all in the same room—
  Zoë Schiffer: Oh, my God.
  Brian Barrett: —for the first time from the podcast.
  Zoë Schiffer: Same room.
  Leah Feiger: I got invited to the group chat.
  Zoë Schiffer: You did.
  Brian Barrett: Look at that.
  Zoë Schiffer: Today on the show, we're discussing the complete meltdown over mass layoffs at Meta. We spoke to more than a dozen employees, and it turns out the job cuts are far from the only reason why Meta employees are really going through it.
  Brian Barrett: And of course, we wouldn't skip the Elon Musk verdict. He lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI in really as full a way as you can, as dramatically as possible. I know, Zoë, you're looking forward to talking about that.
  Zoë Schiffer: Yes.
  Brian Barrett: And I'm looking forward to talking about Google's annual developer conference, I/O, where it debuted some dramatic changes to search.
  Leah Feiger: And you might've seen that Google's former CEO, Eric Schmidt, recently got booed by graduating students after he praised AI in a commencement speech. We're going to get into why young adults might be using AI, but they have very complicated feelings about it. And later in the show, we're going to hear about why women married to AI bros have had enough.
  Zoë Schiffer: First up, let's dive into what is happening at Meta. This week, the company is letting go of roughly 10 percent of its workforce, which is about 8,000 employees total. It's the latest round of job cuts, adding to the roughly 25,000 jobs that have been cut in the past few years as part of Mark Zuckerberg's Year of Efficiency that started in 2023 and now the latest AI-forward workplace, which he is trying to develop and impose. And while these latest cuts are not as big as some of the rounds of layoffs that have already happened, they're getting a ton of attention because Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO, has said that the reason they're happening, in part at least, in large part, is because the company is spending so much money on AI and data centers.
  Brian Barrett: We record this on a Tuesday, but the reason we're able to talk so fully and confidently about this is because Meta announced this a while ago.
  Leah Feiger: Oh, yeah.
  Zoë Schiffer: They didn't announce it. The news leaked.
  Brian Barrett: The news leaked. But then they acknowledged it.
  Zoë Schiffer: Weeks and weeks later.
  Brian Barrett: Yes. But still, it's been a long time—
  Zoë Schiffer: It's a long time.
  Brian Barrett: —that this has been out in the open, which has resulted in, I think, a little bit of chaos time inside of Meta, because you've got, a what, a 1 in 10 chance of not having your job anymore?
  Zoë Schiffer: Yeah it’s, I mean, suffice to say, impacting morale in really horrific ways, but it's not the only thing, like we said. Mark Zuckerberg is also really encouraging employees to use AI. There've been all of these changes internally to that end. Some people really like it and are adopting it. Some people are really pushing back on it. But I think for a lot of employees who joined Meta during this era of endless perks, lots of job security, kind of like a chiller atmosphere compared to some of the other startups in the Valley.
  Leah Feiger: Let's invest.
  Zoë Schiffer: They have that going for a while.
  Leah Feiger: It wasn't full Google, but it—
  Zoë Schiffer: Somewhat there.
  Leah Feiger: —had that vibe. To me, someone so on the outside of this in every single way, I know about these layoffs because they've been, (A) so chaotic, but (B) in some ways, needlessly so. Not to say that other tech companies aren't firing scores of workers all the time. That feels like something we discuss on this podcast frequently, but this is happening with such a large runway and in a way that's making employees feel so terrible about themselves.
  Brian Barrett: Well, because it's not just the layoffs, right? It's also, even if you stay there, if you're not culled from the herd, you are going to have to deal with this world in which you've got spyware on your laptops training AI to probably take your job at some point, right?
  Zoë Schiffer: Explain that a little bit.
  Brian Barrett: Meta announced, and this was more public, that they were going to put software on employee laptops that would monitor their keystrokes and how they move their cursors and basically how they do their job as Meta engineers and use that as training data for their own internal models to try to make their AI models better, because they're running out of other sources.
  Zoë Schiffer: And could you opt out of that, Brian?
  Brian Barrett: That's a great question. I'm so glad you asked. You could not opt out.
  Zoë Schiffer: I felt you didn't know the answer to that one.
  Brian Barrett: In fact, when an employee asked in a very public forum within Meta, "Hey, could we not do this?" Zoë, the response was?
  Zoë Schiffer: Oh, absolutely you're going to do this, and shame on you for asking. And some of the employees who are staying, actually thousands of the employees who are staying, are getting drafted into the AI ranks. We published a piece today that was kind of about the morale inside the company, but also how there's been this mad dash to use up perks and stipends that employees have. But one of the things that's said at the end was that remaining employees are being asked to join AI teams. So whatever your job was previously, they're internally getting drafted. You're getting drafted into the AI ranks, now your job is going to look quite different.
  Brian Barrett: That's like 7,000 people.
  Zoë Schiffer: Yes.
  Leah Feiger: I've actually heard people use the word “raptured.”
  Zoë Schiffer: Oh, my gosh.
  Leah Feiger: Isn't that—
  Zoë Schiffer: And I wish we had that in the story.
  Leah Feiger: I'm so sorry, but raptured into other teams. All of a sudden one day they've just disappeared. After this layoff, has Zuckerberg and co. proposed a sort of coherent leadership plan or proposal? What happens after this?
  Zoë Schiffer: This is the confusing thing according to employees I have talked to, because the tough thing about what's happening right now is that Meta is actually experiencing record or near-record profits and revenue growth. The company is doing exceptionally well, but the company is not doing exceptionally well because of artificial intelligence. I talked to employees who are on Instagram and they say, "Look, our main competitor is TikTok. TikTok's not an AI company." In fact, you're trying to index on this thing that's really not at all why we're printing money and now you're laying a bunch of us off because of that thing when actually we're doing our jobs quite well because again, the company's printing money.
  Brian Barrett: Yeah. And there seems to be, and I think our reporting has shown, a little bit of mission drift within the company. And you've seen that not just with AI. You've seen that, I think, for a long time when you see this $80 billion bet or whatever it was on the metaverse and then saying, "Oh, nevermind, here's this new shiny thing." AI is not another metaverse. AI, I think, has a better business case behind it. But at the same time, to your point, right now it's not making money.
  Zoë Schiffer: No. And I talked to two people who were personally recruited by Mark Zuckerberg to join the very fancy AI effort, and both of them said, "Look, the vision was AI-generated slop for Instagram and the other Meta properties." It just wasn't uninspired. And meanwhile, you have OpenAI and Anthropic, not to say they've done it, but their mission is, "We're going to completely change the economy and cure cancer."
  Leah Feiger: As opposed to make your grandmother's feed the most destructive sign you can ever see. Yeah.
  Zoë Schiffer: So people were just not inspired.
  Brian Barrett: And then even Meta has acknowledged that 10 percent-ish of its ad revenue comes from scams. They're like, "Yes, we know there are scams. We know we make a lot of money off them." And there's a presumed like, "We're on it," but not enough probably.
  Leah Feiger: We're seeing layoffs or announcements of layoffs in a lot of places, like Microsoft, Coinbase, Cisco announced it was laying off 4,000 employees. Is this the spring of layoffs? What are we looking at here?
  Brian Barrett: Yeah, I think it's the same conversation that is evolving a little bit where a lot of times it's cover for having overhired. But increasingly, I think, Zoë, you've made this point, it actually is getting to be the point where AI can replace some engineers, or not entirely, but at least you can have a couple of engineers overseeing some agentic AI that is more effective than 50 engineers.
  Zoë Schiffer: I've talked to a ton of people about this, and my opinion, which I'm open to evolving over time, is that if you have really talented high-level engineers, they can manage agents that will do the work of lower-level engineers. So what you're losing now is the entry-level jobs. And we're seeing that in studies. So when we look at job loss and AI job replacement, what's happening is that entry-level jobs are being replaced by artificial intelligence.
  Leah Feiger: I feel like you have evolved on this in some ways. Over the time that we've been talking about this, you really went from like, "No, people aren't losing their jobs yet." We're now in, this is starting to happen, as Brian said. What's the next stage of this? Just tons more layoffs? Is this going to happen in a bigger, faster way or are we just going to see hiring just stagnant across the board?
  Zoë Schiffer: It's interesting. Brian brought up Google I/O, which I'm reluctant to talk about.
  Brian Barrett: This is crazy to me. Go ahead. We'll get there.
  Leah Feiger: This is amazing.
  Zoë Schiffer: Demis Hassabis talked to Will Knight, one of our reporters, today, and he said, "I don't think we should be having layoffs. I think that AI should create more productivity and we should be doing more." So I think you're going to see companies that are like, "Yeah, we can do even more than we could previously. We're just going to do more things, build more things, ship more product." But then I think you are going to see a lot of companies that say, "We can build and run Shopify with a handful of engineers, not the team of hundreds that we had previously." That's just an example.
  Brian Barrett: Speaking of ways in which AI companies grow and change, Elon Musk officially lost his lawsuit to Sam Altman and OpenAI this week.
  Zoë Schiffer: Such a special moment.
  Brian Barrett: It was. It was a special moment. To get people caught up a little bit who have not been tracking this as obsessively as I know Zoë has, and as Leah has too, Elon Musk had sued over claims that OpenAI illegally abandoned its nonprofit mission and turned into this for-profit giant. It took a jury slightly less than two hours to say, "No, go away."
  Zoë Schiffer: Incredible.
  Brian Barrett: But it was interesting too, the reason that they said that, they didn't even bother dealing with the merits. The statute of limitations had expired on this basically. And they said, "It's too late to bring this. If you had wanted to do this, you should have done this a while ago. And even beyond the statute of limitations, maybe you have more credibility if you're doing this before you are building your own giant competitor to OpenAI and have such a clear monetary interest beyond whatever compensation you get from the trial." When the decision was released on Monday, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said that in her eyes, the trial had been worthwhile to bring clarity to the dispute and that there was, quote, "a substantial amount of evidence to support the jury's findings, which is why I was prepared to accept the jury's findings and dismiss on the spot," which just to clarify, the jury decision was only one step. We needed the judge to also make her own determination, which happened almost immediately.
  Zoë Schiffer: I was talking to someone about this yesterday, and I think that Elon Musk was trying to make the case that the clock should only have started when he realized there was a breach of the trust, basically when he realized that OpenAI was no longer a nonprofit and he was allowed to make that case in court. I do think a lot of people were confused on this point because they were like, "A statute of limitations thing seems like something he could have been told before." But I think you are allowed to argue the point. But this is why the entire trial we were like, "He has to make a very compelling argument that he didn't find out that OpenAI was starting this for-profit until 2023." And the evidence did not back it up.
  Brian Barrett: No. Also, I should say, to no one's surprise, Elon Musk is going to appeal or says he's going to appeal. He does have infinite money to do it.
  Zoë Schiffer: Marc Toberoff had one word leaving that courtroom, Elon Musk's lawyer, and he just said, "Appeal."
  Brian Barrett: Yeah. He also unsurprisingly posted about it on X saying of the judge, "She just handed out a free license to loot charities if you can keep the looting quiet for a few years."
  Leah Feiger: I like that he called her an activist judge. I think that that has taken on a new realm of popularity in the Trump era of determining that these judges in this very specific branch of the government are in fact acting against one's best interest.
  Zoë Schiffer: And again, there were emails where Elon Musk was very aware that they were starting a for-profit arm of the company, that they needed to do that to raise money. He even tried to start an AI lab within Tesla that he wanted to recruit Sam Altman to join, and then he wanted Tesla, a for-profit company famously, to buy OpenAI or acquire it. I was editing the prewrites and Paresh Dave, one of our great reporters, had written three versions. And the first version I edited was like, "Elon Musk wins." And I was just like, "There's no way this version is ever seeing the light of day."
  Brian Barrett: He didn't need to write that.
  Leah Feiger: What does this mean going forward for OpenAI?
  Zoë Schiffer: It's interesting. I actually think it gives them a lot of momentum and now they're going to go full speed ahead. I do think the image of OpenAI and Sam Altman, in particular, has been a bit tarnished throughout this trial. It came on the heels of a series of reporting about his allegedly duplicitous behavior. I don't think he looks necessarily better coming out of the trial, but I think the company is really bullish on its IPO, which could come as soon as this year. It's full-steam ahead on enterprise code, which is kind of the phrase of Silicon Valley right now. So I think people are feeling really, really good over there.
  Brian Barrett: I do think that, to your point, this was also a trial in the court of public opinion, right? A lot of this was trying to embarrass the opponent, but it was just a mud fight where everybody got dirty. Nobody came out of this looking great. I don't think anyone changed anybody's minds about, "Oh no, you should be entrusted with the future of this powerful technology." Everybody—
  Zoë Schiffer: The maker of butt pillows for courtrooms, they're the real winners.
  Leah Feiger: That was their best product.
  Brian Barrett: The rampant butt pillow usage in the courtroom by—and different brands of butt pillow too.
  Zoë Schiffer: Different brands of butt pillow. Yeah, fancy ones, cheaper ones. Everyone's using a fancy butt cushion on those rock hard seats. Yeah. I think Elon Musk is a very litigious figure. I think he is willing to roll the dice and try for a lawsuit on the off chance that it could be successful. But I also think he knew that, and he said this in text messages that were revealed as part of the trial when there was settlement conversations before it started, and he said, "You," being Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, "are going to be the most hated men in America by the end of this." And I think that was partially his intent, at least we think.
  Brian Barrett: I'm about to be the most hated man on this podcast.
  Leah Feiger: I'm so ready. I couldn't be more ready.
  Brian Barrett: And I don't know why this was contentious. I'm genuinely baffled. Again, we're recording this on Tuesday. Google had its I/O conference, its big developer conference every year. And when we started planning this podcast, I said, "Hey, we should probably talk about Google I/O." And you both—
  Zoë Schiffer: Said, "Oh my God, yes, we love Google I/O."
  Brian Barrett: —strongly disagreed. Acted like I had a second head growing out of my neck, like I was suggesting the most insane thing in the world. Before we talk about Google I/O, why?
  Leah Feiger: I have my own reasons. I'm curious what Zoë's are.
  Zoë Schiffer: Yeah, it's boring.
  Brian Barrett: OK.
  Leah Feiger: OK, good.
  Brian Barrett: OK. Leah?
  Leah Feiger: Yes, moving on. I feel funky sometimes when we're being spoon-fed news by these tech companies or by the US government or by whatever entity we're reporting on, which isn't to say that reporting on these very important changes to, I don't know, the world's largest and most impactful and powerful search engine isn't entirely valuable, but is it something that I want to speak about in this sacred space of the podcast?
  Brian Barrett: Sure. I guess what I would say is, as with anything, we don't transcribe what they say at these events.
  Leah Feiger: It's true.
  Brian Barrett: We put them in proper context and do the reporting to back it up. We have a great team of Gear reporters—
  Leah Feiger: Without a doubt.
  Brian Barrett: —who do phenomenal work and did phenomenal work today.
  Leah Feiger: Without a doubt. In full love and support of them.
  Brian Barrett: So I appreciate where you come from, but you're both wrong.
  Zoë Schiffer: Wow. And he's our boss, so we're going to listen.
  Brian Barrett: Here's why. Google search is changing more than it ever has. Think of search now instead of as a search box. It's been drifting this way. It's no longer 10 links, but it's not even even one link now. Google search is now basically a chatbot. It's a conversational query. It'll expand. When you put in like, "Hey, what do you think, Google, should I do this?" Whatever. And it'll not just show you text necessarily. It'll also show you an interactive graphic that it just cooked up. Instead of saying, "I want to go to Google Images for this," it'll be like, "Here's your images. And also, here's this." That's phase one. Phase two is going to be agentic search. So here's what that means. You go to Google and you say, the example they gave was something to the effect of, "Let me know when my favorite celebrities are dropping new shoe collabs." And that's it and you're done. Google AI agents will then monitor the web for you. They will do the searching for you and they will send you a notification through your Google app that says, "Hey, this thing just dropped that you were looking for." The idea is not only that you're not going to visit websites anymore because it's all going to be within Google, you're not going to search anymore. You're not going to use the internet anymore because agents are going to do it for you. Google is going to mediate every interaction you have with the web. It's a really, really significant change. And I think it's one that is definitely worth talking about.
  Leah Feiger: What does it mean for us? What does it mean for Wired.com?
  Brian Barrett: It's not great.
  Leah Feiger: Not good? OK.
  Brian Barrett: But I think we and other publishers have sort of been assuming that we can't rely on Google for a while now. That's why a direct relationship with our audience is so important and we sort of invest in different things along those lines.
  Leah Feiger: A really important moment to say, please subscribe to Wired.com.
  Brian Barrett: Please go to Wired.com. You can mark WIRED as a preferred source in Google, all those things. But I think everybody's bracing for this moment. It feels more like it's here than it has in a while because there's sort of this general AI overviews, but now AI reviews the whole thing.
  Zoë Schiffer: Yeah. And again, like you said, we've known that Google was headed in this direction, but I do think it's a really interesting moment for the company because search is such a big part of its business model and ads on search are such a big part of its business model. So it feels a little bit like it's cannibalizing itself while at the same time preparing for a new feature. I'm curious, I assume they'll be stuffing ads in this thing and that will be how they make money, but you would imagine that they're also going to take an interim hit.
  Brian Barrett: Yeah.
  Leah Feiger: The branding of it aside of what that's going to look like, what your search experience is going forward, I have to assume there's going to be at least some teething issues there.
  Brian Barrett: Yeah, I'm sure. I think that in the same way that a lot of people don't love AI overviews and have been begging for a way to turn it off and haven't really had an easy way to do it, I think that's going to be the same thing, but there's also not much you can do about it. Google's very clearly committed to this. It's clearly how they want the web to work. What I worry about even more than that and Google's bottom line is, again, it's the sort of same themes but accelerated, the idea that once you stop going to websites and once only bots are visiting websites, you're choking off the supply of information. You are smaller publishers.
  Leah Feiger: Well, you're going to run out at some point.
  Brian Barrett: Exactly. So the web itself shriveled up into a Google-shaped hole.
  Zoë Schiffer: Yeah, I know. I feel like Sam Altman has been asked about this recently, like, "What happens to publishers in this world?" And the answer is micropayments. And I'm like, look—
  Leah Feiger: Whoa.
  Zoë Schiffer: —our industry is not going to be held up by 10 cents, or even, you know—
  Leah Feiger: Whoa.
  Zoë Schiffer: —I don't know what it's going to be, but it's going to be—
  Brian Barrett: Every six years someone decides micropayments are going to save journalism—
  Zoë Schiffer: No.
  Leah Feiger: Every time I hear that I see red. I truly—
  Brian Barrett: —and they never have.
  Zoë Schiffer: I talked to people in the industry, they'll say "That's the future. And also, I loved that 6,000-word story you did on the sand that makes the iPhone or whatever." And I'm like, "Guess how much that story costs to report?" Just the payment to the freelancer, it's thousands.
  Brian Barrett: I'm going to pull us back from—
  Zoë Schiffer: I'm sorry.
  Brian Barrett: —implications for us and focus again on the broader implications, because there's one other part. There were a lot of announcements today. Search, to me, was the biggest one. I'll say too, Google has announced big changes before and then not actually gotten there and not gotten there in the way that they initially proposed. So there's a little bit of an asterisk next to a lot of this. I think it's probably mostly coming, though. But they also announced something called Gemini Spark, which I just wanted to talk about very briefly. Gemini Spark is Google's answer to OpenClaw. We remember OpenClaw. We had fun with OpenClaw.
  Leah Feiger: Yeah, definitely.
  Brian Barrett: Delightful. OpenClaw, a little agent that can just run autonomously, has access to all your stuff. Gemini Spark is Google's answer to OpenClaw. It's the same sort of autonomous assistant that can do all the things, but because it's Google, it has access to everything that you do on Google or any app that you tie in. So you can see how that becomes really powerful, and OpenClaw was already a privacy question mark, this even more so. You give it access to your Gmail, give it access to your calendar, give it access to everything that you touch online, your entire search history, and just say, "Hey, go do this. Remind me of this, do that."
  Leah Feiger: I couldn't be less interested in a product.
  Zoë Schiffer: We know.
  Brian Barrett: But here's the thing. I agree, it's not for me, but it's the kind of thing where this is going to be presented eventually to billions of people. The scale is the thing, who don't necessarily know or understand or appreciate, not talking down to anybody, but this is the way in which this thing will have access to your stuff, can go wrong potentially.
  Zoë Schiffer: I would say that OpenClaw was kind of a one-man project. The founder is now part of OpenAI, but this was a bootleg kind of experiment. I would imagine that when Google does it, they're implementing more safety guards.
  Brian Barrett: No, you're right.
  Zoë Schiffer: I'm not saying it's nothing. I'm sure this is going to be changed.
  Leah Feiger: Fingers crossed up and down the line.
  Zoë Schiffer: But I would expect that if they're rolling it out to millions or billions of people that we are going to see some additional checks and balances.
  Brian Barrett: Probably.
  Zoë Schiffer: Here's to hoping.
  Leah Feiger: Well, speaking of the major AI players, I think we all know that the reputation of AI in the public eye has taken a little bit of a nosedive, which I personally love. I am loving the backlash. I literally—
  Zoë Schiffer: Leah's personally behind it.
  Leah Feiger: Yes, exactly.
  Zoë Schiffer: Dark money? Leah Feiger.
  Leah Feiger: Every single little story and comment warms my AI Grinch heart. And we're continuing to see reports of people really not happy about data centers being built near their homes to power all of this AI, raising their electricity bill while at it. And then there's the effect of AI in an increasingly tough workplace. We were just talking about the Meta layoffs, et cetera. So it's not probably a huge surprise to everyone here that last week when former Google CEO Eric Schmidt took to the podium to speak to the graduating class at the University of Arizona, he brought up AI and things didn't go particularly well.
  Eric Schmidt, archival audio: It will touch every profession, every classroom, every hospital, every laboratory, every person, and every relationship you have. I know what many of you are feeling about that. I can hear you. [Boos from the crowd] There is a fear in your generation that the future has already been written, that the machines are coming, and I understand that fear.
  Leah Feiger: And Schmidt's not even the only speaker who has received this kind of response from graduating students, the very people who are supposedly wholeheartedly embracing this technology. Real estate executive Gloria Caulfield, was also booed after she referred to AI as the next industrial revolution during a commencement address at the University of Central Florida.
  Gloria Caulfield, archival audio: The rise of artificial intelligence is the next industrial revolution. [Boos from the crowd] What happened? OK. I struck a chord.
  Leah Feiger: I am just beaming, you guys.
  Brian Barrett: Sorry. I suffer from secondhand embarrassment and can't handle it.
  Leah Feiger: These are high-profile wealthy executives who are entirely insulated—them, their families, their children, their grandchildren—from the effects of AI now and future on the workplace. These people are not concerned about AI taking their jobs. These people are not graduating into a market where everyone's going, "I don't need an assistant. Have you heard of OpenClaw?" Of course everyone's flipping out at them. There is an entire category of our population that doesn't know how they're going to get work experience to all of a sudden not be considered irrelevant by our tech overlords. Of course they're booing.
  Brian Barrett: Here's the thing. I think there's an argument, don't boo me, that they're not wrong that this could be the next industrial revolution, but it's sort of like saying, "So get ready to head into those factories." It's the wrong message to the wrong set of people.
  Zoë Schiffer: It's the wrong tone, I would say.
  Leah Feiger: Definitely the wrong tone.
  Zoë Schiffer: And what's interesting about this to me is that we know college students are using AI, but like you said, they're pissed because they are graduating into a job market where people aren't hiring. And there's a couple of reasons for that. I don't think it's just that AI is already taking entry-level jobs, it's happening on some level, but not super, super widespread quite yet. It's also that people aren't leaving jobs because they're scared. So there's just not a lot of movement in the market right now.
  Leah Feiger: It's not an elastic market, and you're looking at the Iran war and you're looking at rising gas prices. People aren't changing things up during an election year historically. There's so many reasons for that. So these people are graduating into a market that I do not envy them for so many reasons. I guess there's two parts to this. I'm very much confused as to why both Schmidt and Caulfield thought that this was the appropriate message, but also even as Zoë said, the appropriate tact. I'm kind of wondering if it's like, "In this beautiful world of changing technologies, you can go out and create changing technologies. The world is your oyster."
  Zoë Schiffer: You're telling me a billionaire wasn't self-aware about the people.
  Leah Feiger: Kill me.
  Brian Barrett: Madness. There's actual statistics, I'll say, behind just how bad Gen Z feels about AI. A recent study from Gallup showed the percentage of respondents ages 14 to 29 who said they felt hopeful about AI declined down from 27 percent last year to 18 percent.
  Leah Feiger: Wow.
  Brian Barrett: That's very, very, very few people.
  Zoë Schiffer: And postings for entry-level jobs in the US overall have declined about 35 percent since January 2023. So it's real. There's an impact on the market. I actually think that this is going to be an issue in the next election, which is so interesting because I definitely wouldn't have said that a few months ago.
  Leah Feiger: Yeah, same.
  Zoë Schiffer: Maxwell Zeff, one of our great AI reporters, has reported about Greg Brockman's donations to Trump and other MAGA leaders. And he's talked to Greg Brockman, president of OpenAI, who said that he feels like it's really important to give money to politicians who are bullish on AI. And I think the subtext there is that OpenAI and other companies are actually concerned about the lack of popularity for what they're building.
  Brian Barrett: Quick thing on Greg Brockman. I think we should mention too, he's literally putting his money where his mouth is. He donated $25 million to MAGA Inc, which is the big Trump super PAC. There's real money in here in the pro-database side. There's less on the anti-database side, as these things tend to go, but it is across party lines. The opposition is really interesting. You've got Democrats, you've got Republicans pushing back in a way that is going to make for some weird coalitions this fall.
  Zoë Schiffer: It's going to be really interesting because I went down to Abilene, Texas, with OpenAI a few months ago and I was really struck. Ted Cruz was there. The mayor of the town was there. It seemed like there was so much political support for this initiative. And I was immediately thinking, "I think that this is going to turn at a certain point." Right now you're like, "Look, it's going to create all these jobs. It's going to be so great. We're going into these areas that didn't have a lot of economic opportunity and we're creating it." But the thing about data centers is not only do they spike the water bills of the people who live close by, energy bill, all of that, but even if they create a certain amount of jobs at the beginning, and many of those jobs are being brought in from other states, you don't need that many people to run a data center once it's up.
  Leah Feiger: So, lots of fun happening at the moment with AI world. Coming up after the break, we're going to dive into a fascinating story about why women in marriages to men obsessed with AI have just about had enough.
  [break]
  Zoë Schiffer: So, beyond the ever-increasing spending on AI, the latest releases, the suspected IPOs, yada, yada, there is also a more personal and strange side effect to the AI boom right now, what it is doing to family dynamics, particularly what it's doing to the wives of men who work in AI or would like to be working in AI, specifically the fact that these women are completely sick and tired of the whole damn thing. WIRED contributor, Alessandra Ram, reported on how AI has taken over some women's home lives and she's joining us now to talk about that piece.
  Alessandra Ram: Hi, everyone. I'm excited to chat with you. Hello.
  Leah Feiger: Hey, so happy you're here.
  Zoë Schiffer: I absolutely loved this piece. I laughed out loud multiple times. You refer to women who are married to AI-pilled men as the, quote, "sad wives of AI," and you include yourself in that group. What do you all have in common? What do you share? And when did you first realize that this was not just something you were experiencing in your personal life, but was actually a pattern?
  Alessandra Ram: The sad wives of AI are a sort of symptom of the AI tech boom, especially here in the Bay Area. And I noticed this because it was happening in my own life in my own house. I recently had a baby, so I've been home a lot more, and my husband has taken on a very intense job where he's building AI for his company. Unfortunately, he married a journalist, so I'm just noticing and studying things and thinking about if there's anything here to write about because it started to really affect the dynamics of the household. He was totally consumed by building this AI tool at this company where the demands just seemed out of control. He's up all hours of the night. I'm up all hours of the night with the baby. So it was just like there was this tension in the house and he was increasingly obsessed. And I was just sort of pulling back less interested in what he was doing because I have to focus on everything else. So I started noticing that this was also happening to friends of mine. I live here in the Bay Area—a lot of people work in tech. And in my friend group, most of those people are actually, the male partners, if we're talking about heterosexual relationships, which I did for the purposes of this piece, and some of those men work in AI or are trying to work in AI. And they sort of described the same thing that I was experiencing each day and night, just this sort of obsession. Even just this passion they would say about Claude Code and every iteration of Claude Code, which, as we know, is every week, just the excitement and my friends are dying inside a little bit.
  Leah Feiger: Every week was their Super Bowl.
  Zoë Schiffer: Yeah. I loved how you framed it in the article of like, "We both have a baby to take care of. Mine is our literal human child and his is an AI tool, but we're both passionate about it." Let me tell you.
  Alessandra Ram: And I noticed because it was happening to myself but also friends. And then friends of friends culminating in really—when I spoke to my therapist, she had to interrupt me during the session because she was like, "Oh, what does your partner do again?" And I was like, "Well, he's in AI. He's building an AI tool for his company." And she was like, "Oh, this is a phenomenon, actually." She used the word phenomenon. She's based here in the Bay Area. She has a very specific clientele. It's a postpartum therapist, so she works with women that are pregnant or postpartum. And of course, they're going through this emotional rollercoaster themselves, but the majority of them are partnered with people in tech, particularly that work in AI or adjacent to AI is how she explained it to me. And she's just said it's causing them to be emotionally, mentally unavailable because they're totally consumed by what they're doing at work.
  Brian Barrett: One thing you mentioned, Alessandra, in the story that I hadn't thought through all the way, it's not just people who are being obsessed with this AI world and getting caught up in it. It's also people who've kind of washed out or not been able to get in and who are disappointed and feel like they've failed in some way. So there's emotional labor that goes with that along with the actual literal labor that goes along with when they're working long hours. How endemic does that feel at this point, the many ways that people have to deal with this?
  Alessandra Ram: That's a good point. I've seen some comments that this is maybe told from a more privileged perspective, but really, if you're living here in the Bay Area, I can see that this is affecting people across the economic spectrum, even students that are graduating or trying to get a job. And it's a very terrible job market, it's very volatile. So is AI. Actually, the AI industry is very volatile. So people are losing their jobs or they're trying to get these jobs and it's very competitive because there's supposed to be high salaries and it's supposed to be the unlock to economic success. So that's causing a lot of stress on people, on marriages, on families when one person, say, for example, loses their job or is desperately trying to get a job in AI because they think that that's going to help them financially or make them rich, to be honest. That's also another component here.
  Zoë Schiffer: Right. That was the two-part thing that I was thinking about when I was reading it, which is on one level there are people who are just so excited about the technological innovations and just really nerd out on the releases, like you said. There's a new model. It's so cool. We can do all these things. You feel like you're using agents and suddenly you have superpowers. But then there's also this factor, and I also live in the Bay Area, so I see this a lot, where a not small number of people have made generational wealth in the last six years. And I think the idea that someone who just happened to get in early to one of the labs, obviously, it may be very smart, whatever, but is now a multi, multimillionaire and that could be me. I think that idea feels pretty pervasive, particularly if you're an engineer of any sort.
  Alessandra Ram: Yeah, it's FOMO.
  Zoë Schiffer: Yeah, exactly.
  Leah Feiger: And I think to take this into a more historical lens a little bit, you spoke with an expert that told you that this is all really a continuation of how tech booms have happened in the past, whether it's the Industrial Revolution or the dot-com boom. And mainstream figures around these movements have really often been white men, whether that's Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Tim Cook. So they're the ones that are reaping most of the benefits here. How would you say that the AI boom compares? What did you find in your reporting?
  Alessandra Ram: Well, it's really interesting because when I spoke with the professor at Rutgers who really took me through these iterations of the tech boom, which a lot of this stuff happened in California, the Gold Rush, the dot-com, and now here we are with the AI boom. "This feels bigger," is what she said. When I spoke with multiple people, that's kind of where everyone landed is that this actually just feels even more seismic. And maybe it could also be the messaging that everybody is receiving probably from these AI companies that have these enormous evaluations that we all have to adopt this technology or we're all going to just completely combust. What was interesting here is that then, for example, you're in a family unit, there's one person, this happened in the Gold Rush too, they go off West, and that's usually the man, to find his fortune, leaving the family behind. And that's kind of what we're seeing here with this new iteration of a boom, is that someone else is leaving the household, maybe they're still working remotely at home so they're in the household, but technically, mentally, they're checked out, right? They're focused, they're tunnel visioned on this quest to make it here.
  Leah Feiger: I have to ask, has anything changed in your own relationship since you embarked upon this reporting? And I guess more broadly, what would you like for AI-obsessed husbands or bros to take away from it?
  Alessandra Ram: I think it's to be just present in the moment. I think we're looking really far into the future. People are obviously getting excited. People are afraid because, again, this messaging that we have to adopt or die, but I think, myself included, I think we just all need to be a little bit more present. Even though it feels right now like things are really hard, especially, it's hard to be present, you kind of want to escape, but relationships are the most important thing in our lives, community and relationships. So I think not to lose sight of that. I will say in my own household, my husband knew I was writing this article and I think he was just genuinely curious what I was going to say. I don't think he thought I was going to hold back at all, but now he's probably just excited that I am talking about AI more. So there's actually more things for us to talk about. He's like, "There's an upside here."
  Brian Barrett: It's common ground, yeah.
  Leah Feiger: Incredible.
  Alessandra Ram: Yeah. But I have noticed, since this came out, which was I think not even a week ago, he has been helping around the house more without being asked.
  Zoë Schiffer: Accountability journalism, baby. We love to see it.
  Alessandra Ram: Yeah. So that's a lesson here. Just maybe write something for a national magazine and somebody's going to do that. It's going to help.
  Leah Feiger: Change things in your own life.
  Alessandra Ram: I saw him last night washing the dishes without being asked and I think he might've been listening to a podcast about AI or the Knicks.
  Zoë Schiffer: Yeah, which we'll take it.
  Alessandra Ram: But as long as it's getting done.
  Leah Feiger: Alessandra, thank you so much for joining us.
  Alessandra Ram: Thank you. This was fun.
  Zoë Schiffer: That's our show for today. We'll link to all the stories we spoke about in the show notes. Uncanny Valley is produced by Kaleidoscope Content. Adriana Tapia produced this episode. It was mixed by Amar Lal at Macro Sound. It was fact checked by Daniel Roman. Pran Bandi is our New York studio engineer. Marc Leyda is our San Francisco studio engineer. Kimberly Chua is our senior digital production manager. Kate Osborn is our executive producer. And Katie Drummond is WIRED's global editorial director.