你为何可能已经持有SpaceX股票、Siri的人工智能升级，以及尼克斯老板的监控机器
内容总结：
本周科技动态：SpaceX上市、苹果AI升级与Meta隐私争议
SpaceX史上最大规模IPO启动
本周，SpaceX正式启动首次公开募股（IPO），定价每股135美元，公司估值高达约1.7万亿美元，有望成为史上最大规模IPO。值得注意的是，SpaceX将30%的股票预留给散户投资者，这一比例远超常规。分析指出，此举可能与特斯拉在散户中的高人气有关，马斯克正试图复制其"迷因股"效应。作为全球首富（净资产约7000亿美元），马斯克持有SpaceX 42%的股份，若IPO成功，他有望成为全球首位万亿富翁。此外，纳斯达克-100指数近期放宽规则，使得追踪该指数的基金将被迫快速纳入SpaceX股票，这意味着数百万持有401k退休账户的普通美国人可能在不知情的情况下成为SpaceX的股东。
苹果WWDC：Siri AI姗姗来迟
在年度开发者大会WWDC上，苹果正式发布"Siri AI"，承诺这是对语音助手的"从头重建"。新系统将搭载新一代"苹果智能"平台，并与谷歌Gemini深度合作，同时强调设备端处理和隐私保护。然而，这一发布面临信任危机——一个月前苹果刚因"苹果智能"功能夸大宣传，同意支付2.5亿美元达成集体诉讼和解。评论认为，Siri AI的升级仅达到"基本可用"水平，仍是追赶行业标准的"入门级"产品。值得注意的是，因欧盟《数字市场法案》的严格监管，Siri AI将跳过欧洲和中国市场。
Meta智能眼镜被曝隐藏面部识别代码
《连线》杂志调查发现，Meta在旗下AI应用中秘密嵌入可支持面部识别的代码，该应用已安装在超过5000万部设备上，用于控制Ray-Ban智能眼镜。代码可将人脸转化为生物特征"面部指纹"，并在本地数据库中进行匹配，即使暂时无法识别的面部也会被保存以待后续处理。Meta高管最初否认该功能存在，并抨击报道"完全不诚实"，但《连线》文章发布后24小时内，Meta紧急删除了几乎所有相关代码。内部备忘录显示，Meta曾计划选择"政治环境动荡"的时机悄然上线此功能。此举引发对隐私权的严重担忧，因为用户无法选择不被他人的智能眼镜采集面部信息。
独家调查：麦迪逊广场花园的秘密监控帝国
《连线》记者调查揭露，纽约尼克斯队老板詹姆斯·多兰在其旗下的麦迪逊广场花园、无线电城音乐厅等场馆构建了庞大的监控系统。入口处的金属探测器配备摄像头，能以每分钟40人的速度进行面部识别扫描，并将结果接入视频管理系统，实现对观众的全程追踪。该系统的主要目标并非恐怖分子，而是律师——任何起诉过场馆的律所成员都会被列入黑名单终身禁入。调查还发现了一份长达18页的监控报告，详细记录了变性尼克斯球迷尼娜·理查兹在观赛期间每一秒的行动轨迹，包括她乘坐的电梯、购买的饮料、甚至进出卫生间的时间。一名前安保人员的诉讼文件披露，监控系统甚至错误标记了一名约8岁的女童。前尼克斯名宿查尔斯·奥克利因公开批评多兰，不仅被永久禁入，还遭到持续的物理和音频监控。目前，纽约州总检察长和市长已表示将对此事展开调查。
中文翻译：
本周的《奇异谷》节目中，主持人们讨论了SpaceX正式上市的消息以及谁将从中获益最多，同时还聊到了苹果全球开发者大会（WWDC）以及全新推出的Siri AI。他们还谈及了在《连线》杂志报道曝光后，Meta如何移除了一项面部识别功能——节目稍后部分，还将调查纽约尼克斯队老板詹姆斯·多兰如何在其所有麦迪逊广场花园物业内部打造了一套庞大的监控系统。
本期节目提及的文章：
- 《苹果在2026年WWDC上宣布的一切》
- 《连线》报道后，Meta从其智能眼镜应用中删除了面部识别系统
- 《麦迪逊广场花园监控机器的惊人秘密》
你可以在Bluesky上关注Brian Barrett（@brbarrett）和Zoë Schiffer（@zoeschiffer）。写信请寄至[email protected]。
收听方式
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，方法如下：
如果你使用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，然后搜索“uncanny valley”。我们在Spotify上也有账号。
文字记录
注意：这是自动生成的文字记录，可能包含错误。
Brian Barrett：嘿，我是Brian。在我们开始之前，先说两件小事。如果你一直喜欢收听我们的节目，希望能请你花点时间在你常用的应用里给我们打个分。这真的能帮助我们触达更多听众。第二，如果你有任何与科技、隐私或政治相关的问题，希望我和Zoë、Leah来解答，现在是时候把它们提交到[email protected]了。无论问题大小，我们都想听听你的想法并为你找到答案。好了，进入正题。我有点累，但这因为我昨晚去看了莱昂内尔·梅西踢足球，他还罚进了一个点球。
Zoë Schiffer：那可真有意思。
Brian Barrett：是啊。是阿根廷对阵冰岛的一场友谊赛。你绝对猜不到谁赢了。
Zoë Schiffer：我真的猜不到。不，猜不到。
Brian Barrett：是阿根廷，Zoë。
Zoë Schiffer：明白了。好吧，这是很明显的事吗？
Brian Barrett：他们足球踢得非常棒。
Zoë Schiffer：酷。那对他们来说太好了。为他们高兴。欢迎收听《连线》杂志的《奇异谷》。我是Zoë Schiffer，商业与行业总监。
Brian Barrett：我是Brian Barrett，执行编辑。在今天的节目中，我们将讨论苹果在其年度开发者大会上发布的关键产品，尤其是该公司为Siri筹备已久的AI改造。这远非他们的首次尝试，但这次将会成功。
Zoë Schiffer：我们还将初步关注本周SpaceX的IPO，这预计将成为有史以来全球最大的IPO。我们将深入探讨谁将从中获益最多。埃隆·马斯克已经是世界首富，但他还将变得更富，以及为什么你可能会在不知不觉中发现自己也成了投资者之一。
Brian Barrett：如果你错过了，还有一件事：《连线》杂志的记者最近发现，Meta悄然在数百万部手机的Meta AI应用中嵌入了为其智能眼镜提供面部识别系统支持的代码。在我们报道这个故事一天后，Meta移除了这段代码。我们将聊聊这一切是如何发生的。
Zoë Schiffer：在节目稍后部分，为了那些一直密切关注NBA总决赛的篮球迷们，我们邀请了一位特邀嘉宾，他将讲述自己对麦迪逊广场花园监控系统的调查。
Brian Barrett：那么Zoë，我们又迎来了一个可以讨论开发者大会的星期。
Zoë Schiffer：我知道。Leah不在，你是不是充分利用了这个机会？
Brian Barrett：哦，是啊。不，没错，我正在大力推进。你对Google I/O那么兴奋。这周我们迎来了WWDC。
Zoë Schiffer：我得说我稍微更兴奋一点，因为苹果，正如你我多次讨论过的，在AI竞赛中有点落后，我觉得这是他们向世界展示自上届开发者大会以来发生了什么变化的机会。
Brian Barrett：对于不熟悉WWDC的人来说，这是苹果的年度盛会，他们会聚集来自世界各地的开发者，宣布iPhone、iPad、Apple Watch、Mac等设备即将推出的软件更新和变更。今年最大的公告，正如我们所说，也是过去几年他们最大的公告，是关于Siri的。他们将其重新命名为Siri AI。Siri一直是一个AI产品，但现在他们真正认真对待了。而且这是一次从头开始的重建——至少他们是这么宣传的——对苹果语音助手的重建。这个版本的Siri将由下一代苹果智能（Apple Intelligence）驱动，这是苹果的个人AI系统。所有这些听起来可能都很耳熟，那是因为我们以前就听过。苹果高级软件工程副总裁克雷格·费德里吉早在2024年的WWDC主题演讲中就首次宣布了苹果智能。
克雷格·费德里吉（档案录音）：我们正踏上一段新的旅程，为您带来理解您的智能。市面上已经有一些非常令人印象深刻的聊天工具，它们利用世界知识执行大量任务，但这些工具对您或您的需求知之甚少。
Brian Barrett：而且在一段时间内，它们仍然不会了解。同样是在2025年，更多的承诺，承诺更强大的AI——或者实际上是真正强大的AI——并暗示Siri的重生。
克雷格·费德里吉（档案录音）：我们正在继续努力，提供让Siri更具个性化的功能。我们正在让驱动苹果智能的生成模型变得更强大、更高效。
Brian Barrett：Zoë，这很像当你和我都在一定程度上既是记者又是编辑时的情况。当你处于这样一种境地，要去跟主编说：“我再做一点报道就行。我这个故事已经取得了很大进展，但我只需要再多一两周时间打几个电话。”这种感觉非常熟悉。
Zoë Schiffer：再多一点点时间。就一点点时间。我得说，我被克雷格那流畅的声音分散了注意力，他肯定为此练习了很多。
Brian Barrett：嗯，而且这是一个音频媒介，但他的头发也是出了名的，我认为是硅谷最好看的头发。
Zoë Schiffer：是的。
Brian Barrett：所以克雷格有很多优点，就是不包括Siri的能力。但这两次公告带来的改变至少可以说是令人失望的，最多也是如此。我们应该指出，大约一个月前，苹果同意支付2.5亿美元和解一场集体诉讼，该诉讼基本上是说苹果智能并不那么智能。它没有兑现苹果做出的承诺。所以这有点像“骗我一次，是你的耻辱；骗我两次，是我的耻辱；骗我三次……”
Zoë Schiffer：去找Google做个交易，这样你才能真正变聪明。
Brian Barrett：完全正确。所以，这就是发生的事情。现在苹果将主要依靠谷歌的Gemini来帮助驱动其幕后的苹果智能。Zoë，你怎么看？
Zoë Schiffer：是的，我的意思是，我认为这很有道理。前沿模型非常昂贵且难以构建。谷歌已经做得很成功了。我认为如果你看看，比如说，企业编码模型，Gemini不是最好的，但在许多其他方面，它确实相当尖端。所以是的，这两家公司以前就合作过，并且对双方都产生了巨大效果。我很好奇，并且一直在和两家公司的消息人士聊天，想看看这个合作是长期的吗？苹果是永久认输，然后说“就这样吧，我们依赖它”？还是他们在背后疯狂努力，试图建立自己的前沿能力，最终让Siri完全由苹果技术驱动？人们，正如你所料，对此守口如瓶，并没有真正说明这个产品的长期未来会怎样。
Brian Barrett：我想说两件事，如果你挖得稍微深一点——其实不用太深——看看大会的文件，在这个快照时刻，苹果的AI方法有两件事让我印象深刻。一是对设备端AI的不懈关注。所以，苹果投入时间和精力，并且目前公开显示成效的地方，是找到方法让尽可能多的AI能力在你的设备上发生，这样数据就不会传回苹果。没人知道你在做什么，这里面有隐私考量。另一件让我感兴趣的事——也是隐私——是第一次，也是谷歌成为好伙伴的一个原因，是苹果拥有所谓的私有云计算。他们两年前推出了这个。这是一种非常花哨、非常技术性的方式，来提供保护隐私的AI服务。他们与谷歌和英伟达达成协议并合作，使私有云计算能够在谷歌云上运行。以前所有这些事情都发生在苹果云上。现在你有了基础设施来支持，我怀疑谷歌在这方面比其他一些可能进入苹果视野的竞争对手更有优势。
Zoë Schiffer：是的。所以，这基本上是我对他们主要价值主张的理解，除了说这个版本的Siri真的能工作并且很智能之外。他们还在括号里补充说，不像所有其他公司，我们非常专注于隐私。我认为在当下这个时刻，有很多悬而未决的问题，比如如果你是一名律师，正在和聊天机器人对话，这些对话是私密的吗？如果发生诉讼，它们是否可以被发现？
Brian Barrett：顺便说一句，它们是可以被发现的。
Zoë Schiffer：是的，它们是。这不是一个悬而未决的问题。是啊。但基本上，你与聊天机器人的交流有多私密？这之所以如此关键，是因为人们不仅仅是在进行工作对话。他们用同样的技术来帮助做作业，也用来进行非常私密的心理健康对话等等。所以，这种想法——如果你使用苹果设备，你可以更放心一点，它只留在你的设备上，不会到处乱传，不容易被拦截——我认为这很有道理。我得说，苹果已经——这是他们一再采取的立场。我认为，虽然这让他们陷入了一些麻烦，例如，当他们拒绝在iPhone上设置后门，以便FBI能侵入一个犯下非常严重罪行的人的手机时，他们总体上坚持了自己的立场，并表示：不，隐私是我们的核心差异化优势。我得说，和那家公司的许多人谈过后，他们似乎真的在那里践行并相信这一点，尽管有时显然存在权衡。
Brian Barrett：是的。隐私焦点肯定早于AI出现。而且它在其他方面也符合他们的优势，或者说在某些方面符合他们的劣势。Siri AI会更好。我们的记者稍微试用了一下，表示，是的，它现在能做点事了。你真的可以和它进行来回对话。它可以从你的电子邮件、信息和照片中提取上下文，从而更多地了解你——同样，这一切都在你的设备范围内——但这真的只是入门级的东西，对吧？Siri从烦人且糟糕变得大概能用了。所以你需要别的东西来支撑。
Zoë Schiffer：没错。我有点好奇他们坚持使用Siri品牌的决定，因为我觉得Siri已经存在太久了。它现在名声很差，就是没什么用。他们已经多次尝试将AI植入其中，但都因其失败而遭到彻底嘲笑和贬低。我就想，这时候，我可能会干脆重新开始，说我们有一个全新的助手，它有个新名字，但不行，他们坚持用原来的品牌。
Brian Barrett：嗯，我也在想，他们有多需要Siri AI达到那个水平。在我看来，如果我是苹果（其实我不是），但我认为iPhone将成为AI设备。所以我们只需要提供一个足够好的体验，给那些想要默认设置的人。如果你想用OpenAI，想用ChatGPT，你有你的iPhone。无论乔尼·艾维和山姆·奥尔特曼在鼓捣什么设备，你都会在你的iPhone上使用这些东西。苹果拥有你体验这些东西的主要入口，无论怎样都是如此。
Zoë Schiffer：是的，暂时是。暂时。暂时好吧。那么，我们将看到这些更改在美国推出。它们不会在欧洲或中国推出，对吗？
Brian Barrett：没错。这种情况以前也发生过，要么延迟，要么根本不推出，只是因为欧洲的监管环境比美国严格得多。那里有一些法律。有《数字市场法案》，它要求大型科技公司使其产品具有互操作性，这意味着它们必须能与其他公司的产品协同工作。苹果不喜欢这样做。一位欧盟发言人本周向记者表达了他们的观点。
档案录音：不在欧盟推出Siri AI的决定完全是苹果自己的决定，因为《数字市场法案》中绝对没有任何内容禁止苹果在欧盟推出新产品。然而，像任何其他看门人一样，苹果不被允许做的是封闭市场。谁能在欧洲创新，不是由苹果说了算；我们的欧盟公民能使用或不能使用哪些AI工具，也不是由苹果来选择。
Zoë Schiffer：我有一件事要说，那就是我认为欧洲需要制定更好的法规。我和许多人都聊过，他们确实觉得这些法规阻碍了创新，而且老实说非常令人困惑。
Brian Barrett：是的。苹果直接说“行吧，算了。我们不玩了”，这本身就说明了很多问题。这是一个很高的门槛，而且……
Zoë Schiffer：你可以拥有一个劣质产品。现在转到科技报道的“超级碗”，就在周五，SpaceX正式上市了。
Brian Barrett：恭喜所有新晋亿万富翁。
Zoë Schiffer：谢谢。开玩笑的。我们不在其中，但很多人是，我们会深入讨论。这预计将成为历史上最大的IPO。它定价为每股135美元，这将使公司估值约为1.7万亿美元。
Brian Barrett：那是“万亿”，有T和R。
Zoë Schiffer：每年都有很多公司上市，但SpaceX的首次亮相标志着AI公司进入公开市场。Anthropic和OpenAI都计划上市。它们都已秘密提交了S1文件，然后又非常高调地宣布了这些秘密提交。所以，这是一系列AI公司上市的第一家，这种方式将真正改变整个行业，也可能改变经济。
Brian Barrett：这是一个我们将来回顾时会说“哦，就是这个时刻把这些AI公司送上了平流层——对SpaceX来说字面意义上是这样——或者这就是我们一直等待的泡沫的最高点”的时刻。我不知道，Zoë，会是哪种？老实说，感觉仍然……我不是想太多地规避风险。但真的感觉两种可能都有。
Zoë Schiffer：是的。我的意思是，可能会有很多不同的结果。我们不知道IPO会受到怎样的欢迎。到目前为止，需求看起来非常非常强劲。显然，如果IPO意外失败，对整个市场来说可能相当糟糕。看起来这会让埃隆·马斯克受益匪浅。他已经是世界首富，净资产约7000亿美元，但由于他持有公司42%的股份，他还能赚得多得多，如果IPO顺利，他可能成为世界上第一位万亿富翁——我们最近说了很多这个词。另一件我觉得非常有趣的事情是，SpaceX为散户投资者预留了异常高的股票份额，占30%。我觉得这很有意思，有几个原因，其中之一就是特斯拉是Robinhood及其类似平台上散户持有最广泛的股票之一。我认为这允许埃隆·马斯克让公司……无论基本的业务基本面是否异常良好，公司都表现不错，因为他有这群非常忠诚的粉丝基础，使股价保持得非常非常高。所以即使出现业务问题，特斯拉，至少在美国，继续表现良好。
Brian Barrett：我认为这从一开始就在发出信号：“嘿，我们也很乐意成为一只网红股。我们会是一只真正的股票，但我们也会是一只网红股。所以欢迎进来。”这有点像建立在那种个人崇拜之上，并利用这一点进行交易。我认为它将越来越不得不这样做——我们以前也讨论过——但我会一直说下去——SpaceX曾经是一家如此有趣的公司，拥有良好的基本面、真实的商业模式和有前景的收入增长。然后它吸收了xAI，变成了一家不太稳定的公司。
Zoë Schiffer：我知道。我实际上认为这是评估埃隆·马斯克作为商人的一个非常有趣的部分，因为显然，作为一个曾报道过他收购Twitter（现在叫X）相当长一段时间的人，很容易看着那家公司说，广告收入大幅下降。这家公司完全依赖广告。他在业务上犯了一些非常明显的错误。业务看起来并不顺利。但你不能仅仅把埃隆·马斯克视为一家公司的所有者，因为他实际上拥有一个帝国。所以X不顺利，那就把它和xAI合并。那些公司花费巨大，收入不多。好吧，那SpaceX会收购它们，然后你突然看到了一家非常不同的公司。
Brian Barrett：甚至在更微观的层面上也是如此：你卖不出去Cybertruck。好吧，SpaceX会买Cybertrucks。
Zoë Schiffer：对。
Brian Barrett：这是一种……我想说“把戏”，但“把戏”通常涉及藏球。而这一切都是公开的。他只是在做，但这非常循环。我还要说，就这种在他自己公司内部一切互联的循环逻辑而言，他现在通过出售算力，让SpaceX也成为其他AI公司的枢纽。
Zoë Schiffer：对。
Brian Barrett：现在我们正看到一个局面：如果SpaceX某天倒下，它也会打击到Anthropic、谷歌以及其他已经投入数十亿美元购买其Colossus数据中心算力的公司。所以，Zoë，他编织了一张令人着迷的网。你觉得呢？
Zoë Schiffer：这是一张令人着迷的网。但我们在开头提到，很多人最终可能会拥有一点点SpaceX的股票，不管他们愿不愿意。这是因为纳斯达克100指数最近放宽了规则，使SpaceX更容易、更快地被纳入，这迫使追踪该指数的基金几乎在一夜之间投资SpaceX。所以，这现在在某种程度上已融入经济的广大领域，而人们甚至可能不一定知道。
Brian Barrett：是的。它会进入你的401k退休计划——
Zoë Schiffer：对。
Brian Barrett：——如果你有401k的话，所有这些他们无法真正控制的地方。我希望不会有大型泡沫破裂的系统性故障，因为如果有，它将再次拖垮英伟达（它已经在股市中占了如此巨大的份额）、谷歌。基本上，系统性风险已经存在，无论你是否投资了SpaceX。在休息之前，还有一件上周正在发生的故事我们想聊聊，这个故事直接涉及《连线》杂志，而且是好事。上周，《连线》的记者Dhruv Mehrotra和Dell Cameron报道说，Meta悄然在Meta AI应用中嵌入了一个未发布的面部识别系统，该应用安装在超过5000万台设备上，用于控制Meta Ray-Ban和其他内置Meta AI的智能眼镜。他们从未公开激活它，但也从未披露过。Dhruv和Dell通过查看应用中的代码发现了它。我们致电Meta AI，他们随后确认这段代码是在今年多次更新中悄然添加的。我们将深入讨论它的工作原理，但重点是：在我们发表这篇文章一天后，Meta几乎从应用中删除了所有代码。
Zoë Schiffer：影响力新闻。
Brian Barrett：他们不会说为什么。他们不会说它是否会回来，但这就是影响力新闻。干得漂亮，Dhruv、Dell以及所有参与这个故事的人。该系统旨在——再说一遍，这是基于检查保存在应用中的代码得出的——通过Ray-Ban智能眼镜捕捉人脸，将其转换为生物特征面部打印。“面部打印”这个词我希望我们一般不用。
Zoë Schiffer：我知道。我也是。
Brian Barrett：然后在用户设备上的本地数据库中进行匹配。换句话说，它会记录人们的面部，将其放入数据库，就放在设备上。如果无法识别人脸，它就会将其保留以供未来处理，也就是说，保留在那里，直到能够为其分配一个名字。所以这实际上是在捕捉你看到的每个人的脸。
Zoë Schiffer：哦，天哪。
Brian Barrett：公开地，Meta表示他们正在考虑这件事。Meta承认面部识别是他们可能感兴趣并可能去做的事情。他们表示，在这样做之前，会首先采取非常谨慎的方法。但在他们公开这么说的时候，《纽约时报》报道了内部备忘录，显示Meta曾计划在所谓的“动态政治环境”中安排推出时间，等到人们被其他事情分散注意力，无法对其眼镜上的面部识别功能进行有意义的抵制时再推出。
Zoë Schiffer：苹果说：“我们关心隐私。”Meta说：“这个怎么样？”
Brian Barrett：“这个不怎么样？”
Zoë Schiffer：是的。“这个不怎么样？”我的意思是，这让我非常担忧，有几个原因，但Meta对这篇文章似乎给出的回应是：“我们还没有启用这个系统。”这似乎既承认了报道内容，又完全避开了重点——你把这段代码放在这些设备上，这样你就可以随时开启它。你可以拨动一个开关，眼镜就突然有了面部识别功能。
Brian Barrett：嗯，与此相关的是，我们从Meta得到的直接回应是，Meta的通信副总裁安迪·斯通最初表示该功能不存在。首席技术官安德鲁·博斯沃思则表示该报道“绝对不诚实”。然后，在这些评论发表后的24到36小时内，Meta推送了一个更新，删除了所有代码。所以，如果该功能不存在，如果报道绝对不诚实，那为什么要删除它呢？
Zoë Schiffer：我认为那种措辞实际上非常非常狡猾。我认为说“该功能不存在”基本上是想绕开“代码在那里，但他们还没有设计出完全成熟的功能与之配套”这个事实。你明白我的意思吗？
Brian Barrett：这有点像你有一个玩偶匣，但你还没有摇动手柄，然后说里面的小人不存在。
Zoë Schiffer：我喜欢你的比喻。
Brian Barrett：因为没人——非常感谢。它们很牵强，很复杂。是啊，是啊。Meta的兴趣，Meta整合这样一个功能显然有其用意。我想我听过一些Meta的人说，看，这是为了无障碍。很多人有视力问题或其他问题，这可能会帮到他们。我承认这确实有应用场景，但我认为问题在于，你不能仅仅为了那些人就推出它。你明白我的意思吗？你必须把它推向所有人。而面部识别眼镜的问题是，你真的无法选择退出，对吧？你无法选择不让别人捕捉你的脸并将其存储在他们的眼镜上。
Zoë Schiffer：是的。我的意思是，关于Meta，我要说的是：Meta正在创造的世界，简而言之，根本不是我想生活的世界。我不认为他们的产品反映了一个让我感到兴奋或鼓舞的未来愿景，相比之下，有些公司你不会从根本上成为产品本身。他们实际上是在向你出售实体产品，或者试图以某种方式改善你的现实生活，坦率地说，这对我来说更符合我的价值观。
Brian Barrett：是的。不过你确实喜欢AI alop。
Zoë Schiffer：我喜欢。我喜欢。那是个例外。而且那纯粹是为了娱乐，我对此并不自豪。休息之后，我们将前往纽约，聆听一项关于麦迪逊广场花园监控机器的调查，以及其幕后之人詹姆斯·多兰的故事。
Brian Barrett：所以，如果你住在美国，或者你是个NBA球迷，你很可能一直在关注，或者至少知道纽约尼克斯队对阵圣安东尼奥马刺队的NBA总决赛系列赛。冠军争夺战最近引起了广泛关注，尼克斯队庆祝他们27年来首次进入总决赛。纽约市周围聚集了大量人群，在户外观看比赛，并挤满了他们的主场球馆——麦迪逊广场花园。花园长期以来一直是音乐会和活动的标志性场地，但不管你信不信，它也是该国最激进的企业监控行动之一。今年早些时候，《连线》杂志的特约编辑诺亚·沙赫特曼和记者罗伯特·西尔弗曼发表了一项调查，揭示了MSG（麦迪逊广场花园的业主）和尼克斯队的老板吉姆·多兰如何建立了一个复杂的系统来监视前往场馆的球迷，从使用每分钟处理40人的面部识别摄像头，到为变性尼克斯队球迷编纂档案。在多兰的领导下，这种监控的记录令人震惊。我们请到了诺亚·沙赫特曼来谈一谈。诺亚，非常感谢你来做客。
Noah Shachtman：没问题。
Brian Barrett：你和罗伯特·西尔弗曼进行的这项调查，酝酿了很长时间。你能回顾一下最初是什么让你警觉，你第一次意识到MSG一直以来就是这样一个“全景监狱”是什么时候吗？
Noah Shachtman：好的。自2018年以来，就一直有报道泄露说麦迪逊广场花园在其场馆内使用了某种面部识别技术。我应该补充一点，MSG公司既包括标志性的麦迪逊广场花园，也包括无线电城音乐厅、灯塔剧院，以及最近在拉斯维加斯的Sphere。总之，相关报道已经持续了好几年。但真正开始取得突破的，是2025年9月由一名前麦迪逊广场花园安保员工提起的诉讼，他基本上起诉了他的老板们。所以我们利用那个机会开始深入挖掘和调查，我们发现了一些非常了不起的东西。
Brian Barrett：我想深入谈谈那场诉讼，以及你开始挖掘后发现的东西，但我想先退一步。对于那些不太了解MSG，特别是吉姆·多兰的人来说——他真是个“人物”，我这么说不是指那种丰富多彩、有趣的“人物”。这家伙个性很强，有很长一段充满争议的历史。你能给我们介绍一下吉姆·多兰，以及他的个性和我们对他的了解是如何影响他在这里所做的一切的吗？
Noah Shachtman：好的。我认为最简单的概括是，吉姆·多兰是一位极其富有、极其有权势的媒体和体育业高管。如果要快速概括他，关键一点是他有一支乐队叫JD & the Straight Shot，他们最著名的曲子是关于他以前的朋友哈维·韦恩斯坦的，歌名叫《我本该知道》。
Brian Barrett：这个概括真绝了。
Noah Shachtman：太不可思议了。
Brian Barrett：老天保佑我们别被人用一句话这样描述。但没错，就是这个人。而且他还极其富有。和唐纳德·特朗普是哥们，正如我们最近在系列赛第三场比赛中看到的那样，唐纳德——他就坐在特朗普旁边。
Noah Shachtman：是的，他在海湖庄园结的婚。他认识特朗普很久了。
Brian Barrett：所以多兰，我认为你描述得非常准确，他建立了这种监控天罗地网。他用它来做什么？它由什么组成？他如何应用它？结果是什么？
Noah Shachtman：我会谈谈它当前的这个版本，因为它是随着时间的推移而演变的。所以当前版本是这样的：在麦迪逊广场花园周围，要进入场馆，你必须经过这些新型的Jack金属探测器。这是一家名为Xtract One的公司制造的（“Extract”拼写为“X”）。这些探测器上装有一系列摄像头。这些摄像头运行着面部识别算法。如果识别到匹配信息，就会被输入到一个更大的视频管理系统中，该系统可以立即向安保人员发出警报，或者追踪该人在花园内任何地方的行踪。他对谁使用这个呢？嗯，多兰会说这是为了阻止恐怖分子和罪犯之类的，但几乎没有任何证据支持这一点，几乎没有。事实上，我们从纽约警察局听到的是，他们不为麦迪逊广场花园提供任何面部识别或其他任何类型的数据用于这些目的。那么，他实际上用这个面部识别来对付谁呢？相反，是用来追踪名单上的一系列人。这些名单上最著名的是律师，那些曾以任何形式起诉过花园的律师。著名的案例是，一位律师带着她的孩子去看，我想是无线电城音乐厅的火箭女郎舞蹈团。仅仅因为她律所的其他人起诉过麦迪逊广场花园，她就被禁止带她的孩子去无线电城了。
Brian Barrett：所以这甚至不是精确打击，对吧？这有点像有罪推定，并根据吉姆·多兰决定的任何标准终身禁入。
Noah Shachtman：是的。而且还有误伤。例如，在我们的调查中，我们发现了一个小女孩的截图，她最多不超过，我不知道，八岁，被面部识别系统标记了。这显然是意外，但她被记录在案这一事实本身就是个真正的问题。
Brian Barrett：这让我们谈到了那场诉讼。你介意大致介绍一下是谁提起了这场诉讼吗？为什么？目前的情况如何？只是让我们有个了解，因为我觉得非常有趣的是，它来自一个系统内部的人。
Noah Shachtman：好的。这场诉讼是由一个名叫唐尼·英格拉塞利诺的人提起的，他是一名前新泽西州执法专业人士，后来为Tao Group工作，这是一个当时由吉姆·多兰部分拥有的夜总会和餐厅系列（尽管他后来撤资了）。然后他继续为麦迪逊广场花园本身工作。现在，这场诉讼包含各种各样的内容，但也有一些非常令人震惊的指控，包括对一名跨性别女性的监视，她唯一的“罪行”似乎是离球员和MSG员工太近了。所以我们试图去追查那个指控以及诉讼中的其他指控。
Brian Barrett：我们能多谈谈那个吗？你提到了尼克斯队的跨性别球迷尼娜·理查兹，她被跟踪了。对我来说，最引人注目的是他们对尼娜·理查兹的跟踪细节，以及他们整理的那份档案。你介意稍微谈谈那个吗？因为这感觉……既体现了他们决定跟踪谁的那种“似是而非”，也体现了其程度，我认为它超出了你对面部识别的想象——你可能会想，“好吧，我在机场也这样。”这远不止于此，我认为这是一个非常有启发性的案例。
Noah Shachtman：是的，我也这么认为。我是说，老实说，当我拿到这份秘密的麦迪逊广场花园内部报告时，我倒吸了一口凉气。这份报告长达18页，详细记录了尼娜·理查兹在花园内一天之内、一秒一秒的移动。想想看：18页，一秒一秒，一天。那么它追踪了什么呢？它追踪了她什么时候进来的，她进了哪部电梯，她什么时候买了饮料，她什么时候向MSG员工打了招呼，她什么时候坐下，她什么时候站起来去洗手间，她进入洗手间，她走出洗手间……没完没了。这是一份关于一个人的、极其令人不安的反乌托邦式的、类似于《全民公敌》的档案，一个跨性别女性，我应该补充一句，是在“骄傲之夜”，就发生在几个小时之内。这真的很令人震惊。
Brian Barrett：诺亚，你是一位备受赞誉、受人尊敬的国家安全记者。你是的。你长期报道国家安全，而且你报道过——找不到更好的词了——真正的间谍活动。你对此深有体会。与这次相比，在消息源处理和整个流程方面，这有何不同？因为两者真的很相似，对吧？
Noah Shachtman：有过之而无不及。你看，当年为《连线》杂志，我去过伊拉克几次，去过阿富汗。我为《连线》报道过所有情报机构。我从未遇到过这样的情况：人们如此害怕，并采取如此周密的措施来避免被曝出是消息源。在间谍电影里，有一种叫“擦肩传递”的东西，就是有人假装撞到你，或者假装给你一个拥抱什么的，然后把一些信息塞进你的口袋。据我所知，这种事在现实中从未发生过，至少没在我身上发生过。但在报道这个故事期间，它终于发生了。
Brian Barrett：哇。
Noah Shachtman：你会遇到这样的情况：我联系的人会说：“对不起，打错了。”然后两秒钟后，我又通过另一个号码收到了他们的回复。纽约这里经历了一个极其寒冷的冬天，是几十年来最冷的。然而我却在外头冻得要死，就为了和消息源见面，因为他们拒绝在室内见面，怕被窃听。你会想，哇，这些人一定只是偏执狂，他们自己也看了太多间谍电影。嗯，不完全是。有名的是——我们在故事中也提到了这一点——两位尼克斯传奇人物一天晚上在花园相遇，其中一位是查尔斯·奥克利，他是吉姆·多兰的著名批评者。他以前队友帕特里克·尤因（史上最伟大的尼克斯球员之一）告诉他小声点，因为到处都是窃听装置。所以这些人表现得比间谍还多疑，但他们有理由这么做。
Brian Barrett：给我多讲讲查尔斯·奥克利的事，因为我觉得那是这个故事中非常吸引人的一部分。你会认为，他是尼克斯的偶像、球迷最爱。你会认为他会因为与球队的关联而不可触碰。但显然他不是。你介意多谈谈他的经历，以及你从采访奥克利那里得到了什么吗？
Noah Shachtman：如果你现在正在看总决赛，你会看到转播画面里有很多尼克斯传奇人物在场，像卢克·朗利、帕特里克·尤因、阿兰·休斯顿、约翰·斯塔克斯等等。你看到谁不在那里——唯一一个你见不到的人，真的很震惊见不到他，就是查尔斯·奥克利，他是90年代尼克斯最强悍的“执法者”，一位伟大的球员。他为什么不在那里？他不在那里是因为多年来他一直公开批评吉姆·多兰对球队的管理和领导。然后在2010年代中期，他卷入了一场冲突——我的意思是，有很多不同的说法——但他与MSG安保发生了冲突，被赶出了花园，从此被禁止入内。双方有一系列相互指责，现在还有各种各样的诉讼在进行，但没错，他基本上是唯一一个被排斥的人。我们和MSG安保圈内的一些消息人士聊过。这么说吧，有命令下达，要跟踪他，监视他。所以这不仅仅是球队与某个特定球员关系不和的典型情况。这是场漫长而丑陋的法律战，一直有关于数字监控、音频监控和物理跟踪的指控。
Brian Barrett：我觉得听节目的人，以及任何读过你文章的人，包括现在的我，可能都在想：他们怎么能这样做？这怎么可能合法？我们说其中很多是指控，但你的报道已经证实了很多。
Noah Shachtman：是的。
Brian Barrett：但问责制在哪里？有没有什么措施可以说，“嘿，实际上吉姆·多兰和MSG，别这样了？”法律上界限应该划在哪里？我知道我们都有个人看法，但如果他们越界了，能怎么办？
Noah Shachtman：好的。所以有一些试图控制这种情况的尝试。奇怪的是，其中一次来自纽约州酒类管理局，因为他们说，“嘿，等一下。你们把顾客列入这个反乌托邦的禁入名单，是在歧视顾客。”所以他们派了一名调查员，一名前警察，开始四处询问。然后麦迪逊广场花园又雇了其他私家侦探去跟踪那个正在调查花园的私家侦探。
Brian Barrett：哦，天哪。
Noah Shachtman：总之，关键是，当那件事发生时，吉姆·多兰还在纽约电视上露面，公布了州酒类管理局局长的电话号码和电子邮件，并告诉尼克斯球迷们让他“只管好自己的本行”。那是一次（混合了体育比喻）真正的“近身投球”，之后就没有那么多后续行动了。然而，在地方政界有很多讨论，关于詹姆斯·多兰是否应该得到他从纽约市获得的一些特殊待遇——他确实得到了特殊待遇。麦迪逊广场花园不缴纳房产税，多年来这项优惠估计价值超过十亿美元。他应该继续享受这个待遇吗？关于这一点有很多疑问。自从我们的报道发表以来，市长佐兰·马姆达尼、州检察长蒂什·詹姆斯都表示他们将进一步调查此事。我们拭目以待，看是否会有什么结果。
Brian Barrett：诺亚，你是尼克斯球迷。
Noah Shachtman：我是个尼克斯“痴汉”。就像——
Brian Barrett：你是个尼克斯“痴汉”。
Noah Shachtman：是的。你看，我的意思是，撇开目前的成功不谈，通常做尼克斯球迷更像是一种瘾，而不是一种愉快的体验。
Brian Barrett：我是金莺队的球迷，所以不完全一样，但我对长期输球很熟悉。系列赛已经移师纽约。他们在MSG比赛。我猜你每一秒、每一分钟、每一帧回放都看了。当你观看比赛时，看到每个人在场边享受比赛，而你知道在幕后，可能正在编纂档案，有摄像头在追踪人们，有些人可能不被允许入场，你是什么感觉？
Noah Shachtman：我想了很多这个问题。我认为，在2026年，要做一个体育迷（实际上几乎是任何娱乐的粉丝），都意味着要把所有权和你正在观看的产品或正在创作的艺术家分离开来。我认为，更广泛地说，我们处在一个媒体整合、亿万富翁权力控制着我们观看的内容和收听的音乐的时代。你可以憎恨派拉蒙和华纳的合并，但仍然想看下一部HBO的剧集并享受其中。所以我认为你确实需要把你对所有权的感觉和你对产品本身的感觉分开。
Brian Barrett：诺亚，非常感谢你来到这里。各位，请务必去阅读诺亚和罗伯特·西尔弗曼的报道。它很棒。现在季后赛期间，它甚至比刚发表时更有现实意义。而且，尼克斯五场晋级。
Noah Shachtman：但愿如此。
Zoë Schiffer：这就是我们今天的节目。我们会在节目说明中链接所有讨论到的故事。《奇异谷》由Kaleidoscope Content制作。阿德里安娜·塔皮亚制作了本集节目。由Macro Sound的Amar Lal进行混音。Pran Bandi是我们的纽约录音室工程师。Mark Leyda是我们的旧金山录音室工程师。Kimberly Chua是我们的高级数字制作经理。Kate Osborn是我们的执行制片人，Katie Drummond是《连线》杂志的全球编辑总监。
英文来源：
This week on Uncanny Valley, our hosts discuss SpaceX officially going public and who will benefit the most from it, as well as Apple’s WWDC and the brand new release of Siri AI. They also get into how Meta removed a facial recognition feature after a WIRED report exposed it—and later in the show: an investigation into how New York Knicks’ owner James Dolan created an extensive surveillance system inside all of his Madison Square Garden properties.
Articles mentioned in this episode:
- Everything Apple Announced at WWDC 2026
- Meta Deletes Face-Recognition System From Its Smart Glasses App After WIRED Report
- The Shocking Secrets of Madison Square Garden’s Surveillance Machine
You can follow Brian Barrett on Bluesky at @brbarrett and Zoë Schiffer on Bluesky at @zoeschiffer. 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.
Brian Barrett: Hey, this is Brian. Before we start, two quick things. If you've been enjoying listening to the show, would appreciate it if you took a second to rate it in your app of choice. It really helps us reach more people. Second, if you have any questions related to tech, privacy, or politics that you would like me, Zoë, and Leah to take on, now is the time to submit them to [email protected]. It doesn't matter how big or how small we want to hear from you and get you answers. OK, onto the show. I'm a little tired, but it's because I got to see Lionel Messi play soccer last night and score a goal on a penalty kick.
Zoë Schiffer: That's really fun.
Brian Barrett: Yeah. It was a friendly of Argentina versus Iceland. You'll never guess who won.
Zoë Schiffer: I literally won't. No. No.
Brian Barrett: It was Argentina. Zoë.
Zoë Schiffer: Got it. OK. Is that an obvious thing?
Brian Barrett: They're very good at soccer.
Zoë Schiffer: Cool. That's so nice for them. Happy for them. Welcome to WIRED’s Uncanny Valley. I'm Zoë Schiffer, director of business and industry.
Brian Barrett: And I'm Brian Barrett, executive editor. On today's show, we're discussing Apple's key releases from their annual developer conference, especially the company's long awaited AI makeover for Siri. It's far from their first attempt, but it's going to stick this time.
Zoë Schiffer: We're also taking an early look at the SpaceX IPO this week, which is slated to become the world's largest IPO of all time. We'll get into who is slated to benefit the most. Elon Musk, who is already the world's richest man, but on track to become even richer and why you might find yourself among the investors without even realizing it.
Brian Barrett: And in case you missed it, WIRED reporters recently uncovered that Meta had silently embedded code that would power a face recognition system for its smart classes in the Meta AI app on millions of people's phones. A day after we reported that story, Meta removed the code. We'll talk about how all that unfolded.
Zoë Schiffer: And later in the show, for all of the basketball fans who've been glued to the NBA finals, we have a special guest who will tell us about his investigation into Madison Square Garden's surveillance system.
Brian Barrett: So Zoë, another week that we get to talk about a developer conference.
Zoë Schiffer: I know. Leah's away, and wow, have you taken advantage of that situation?
Brian Barrett: Oh yeah. No, yeah. I'm pushing it through. You were so thrilled about Google IO. This week we've got WWDC.
Zoë Schiffer: I will say slightly more excited because Apple, as you and I have discussed many times, bit of a laggard in the AI race and I feel like this was their opportunity to tell the world what has changed since the last developer conference.
Brian Barrett: For people who aren't familiar with WWDC, this is Apple's annual event where it gathers a bunch of developers from all over the world and they announced upcoming releases and changes to their software for the iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Mac. This year, the biggest announcement, which as we said, has been their biggest announcement the last couple of years, was around Siri. They're rebranding it as Siri AI. Siri was always an AI product, but now they're for real serious about it. And it's a ground up rebuild or so they're billing it of Apple's voice assistant. This version of Siri will be powered by the next generation of Apple intelligence, which is Apple's personal AI system. All of this probably sounds familiar and that's because we've heard it before. Apple's senior VP of software engineering Craig Federighi first announced Apple Intelligence back in 2024 at the WWDC keynote.
Craig Federighi, archival audio: We are embarking on a new journey to bring you intelligence that understands you. And there are already some really impressive chat tools out there that perform a vast array of tasks using world knowledge, but these tools know very little about you or your needs.
Brian Barrett: And they would still not for some time. Again, in 2025, more promises for even more powerful AI or really AI that was powerful at all and hinting at a rebirth for Siri.
Craig Federighi, archival audio: We're continuing our work to deliver the features that make Siri even more personal. We're making the generative models that power Apple intelligence more capable and more efficient.
Brian Barrett: Zoë, this is so much like when you and I are both reporters and editors to a certain extent, but it's very familiar when you are in a situation where you're going to your editor and saying, "I'm just going to do a little more reporting. I have made so much progress on this story, but I just need another week or two for more calls."
Zoë Schiffer: A tiny bit more time. Just a little more time. I will say, distracted by how smooth Craig's voice sounds, he must practice so much for that.
Brian Barrett: Well, and this is an audio medium, but his hair is also famously, I think, the best hair in Silicon Valley.
Zoë Schiffer: Yes.
Brian Barrett: So Craig has a lot going for him, just not Siri capabilities. But the changes brought by both of these announcements were underwhelming to say the least and to say the most, we should point out that about a month ago Apple agreed to pay a settlement of $250 million for a class action lawsuit that basically said that Apple intelligence is not that intelligent. It's not living up to the promises that Apple made. So it's sort of a situation of fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you, fool me three times.
Zoë Schiffer: Go to Google and make a deal so you can actually be intelligent.
Brian Barrett: Exactly. So yeah, that's what has happened. Now Apple is going to rely largely on Google Gemini to help power Apple intelligence under the hood. Zoë, what do you make of that?
Zoë Schiffer: Yeah, I mean, I think it makes a lot of sense. Frontier models are really expensive and difficult to build. Google has already done it pretty successfully. I think if you look at, say, enterprise coding models, Gemini is not the best of the best, but in a lot of other ways it is quite cutting edge. And so yeah, it makes sense these two companies have worked together before to great effect for both of them. I was curious and have been kind of chatting with sources at both companies to see, is this partnership long-term? Has Apple thrown in the towel permanently and just said, "This is fine. We'll rely on it." Or are they furiously working in the background to try and build up their frontier capabilities and eventually make Siri run on Apple technology start to finish? People are, as you might expect, being very tight-lipped about that and they haven't really said what the long-term future of this product is going to be.
Brian Barrett: I'll say two things that if you dig a little deeper, not that much deeper, but a little deeper into the documentation from the conference, two things really stand out to me about Apple's approach to AI in this snapshot moment. One is a sort of relentless focus on on- device AI. So where Apple has been putting in time and work in a way that's showing publicly right now is finding ways to make as much of the AI capabilities as possible happen on your device so that it doesn't go back to Apple. No one knows what you're doing or that there is a privacy angle to it. The other thing that was interesting to me—also privacy—is that for the first time, and a reason why Google makes a good partner is that Apple has something called private cloud compute. They rolled it out two years ago. It is a fancy, very technical way to be a privacy preserving AI service. It has made a deal and worked with Google and NVIDIA to make private cloud compute work on Google Cloud. So previously all of these things happened on Apple Cloud. Now you've got the infrastructure to support as well, which I suspect Google was in a better position to provide than some of the other competitors that would've been on their radar.
Zoë Schiffer: Yeah. So this was kind of my takeaway for what is their big value proposition in addition to saying this version of Siri is actually going to work and be intelligent. They're also saying in parentheses, unlike all the other companies, we are really focused on privacy. And I think in this moment where there's a lot of open questions around if you are a lawyer and you're speaking to a chatbot, are those conversations private or are they discoverable if there's a court case if you—
Brian Barrett: And by the way, they are discoverable.
Zoë Schiffer: Yes, they are. That's not an open question. Yeah. But basically how private are your communications with chatbots? And the reason that this is so critical is people aren't just having work conversations. They're using the same technology to help with their homework as they are to have very private mental health conversations or what have you. And so this idea that if you're using an Apple device, you can trust a little more that it's just staying on your device. It's not bouncing around to different places. It can't be intercepted as easily. I think that makes a lot of sense. And I will say Apple has gotten, this is a stand that they have taken again and again. And I think that while it has gotten them in some hot water, for example, when they refused to put a back door in an iPhone that would've allowed the FBI to hack into the phone of someone who had committed a very serious crime, they've kind of stuck to their guns overall and been like, no, privacy is our core differentiator. And I will say having talked to a lot of people at that company, they really seem to live it and believe it there even though there are clearly trade-offs at times.
Brian Barrett: Yeah. It's definitely predated AI, the privacy focus. And it also plays to their strengths in other ways too, or rather plays to their weaknesses in some ways. Siri AI is going to be better. Our reporters who have played with it a little bit have indicated, yeah, it can do things now. You can actually have a back and forth conversation with it. It can pull context from your emails and messages and photos and sort of know more about you, again, all within the context of your advice, but it's really table stakes stuff, right? It's, Siri's going from being annoying and bad to probably being basically usable. So you need something else in there.
Zoë Schiffer: Exactly. I was kind of curious about this decision to just stick with the Siri branding because I feel like Siri has been around for so long. It has such a bad reputation at this point of just being not that useful. They have tried now multiple times to insert AI into it and been completely mocked and derided for their failures there. I was like, at this point, I might just start fresh, say we have a completely new assistant, it's got a new name, but no, they're sticking with the branding.
Brian Barrett: Well, I wonder too how much they need Siri AI to be that to my mind if I'm Apple, which I'm not, but I think about this as the iPhone is going to be the AI device. So we just need an experience that is good enough for people who want the default. If you want to use OpenAI, if you want to use ChatGPT, you've got your iPhone. You're going to do that on your iPhone regardless of what device Jony Ive and Sam Altman are cooking up. They own the main portal through which you're going to experience these things no matter what.
Zoë Schiffer: Yeah. For now, for now. For now. OK. So we're going to see these changes roll out in the United States. They're not going to roll out in Europe or in China. Is that right?
Brian Barrett: That's right. And that's happened before either from delays or not rolling out at all just because the European regulatory environment is a lot more strict than it is in the US. There are a few laws in there. There's the Digital Markets Act, which requires large tech companies to make their products interoperable, which means they have to be able to work with other companies' products. Apple doesn't love doing that. An EU spokesperson gave their perspective this week to reporters.
Archival audio: The decision not to roll out Siri AI in the U is Apple's and Apple's only because absolutely nothing in the DMA prohibits Apple from introducing new products in the EU. What Apple is however not allowed to do just like any other gatekeeper is to close the market. It is not for them to decide who gets to innovate in Europe and it's not for them to choose which AI tools our EU citizens get to use or not.
Zoë Schiffer: I have one thing to say, which is I think Europe needs to write better regulations. I have talked to many people who do legitimately feel like these are prohibitive to innovation and honestly just very confusing.
Brian Barrett: Yeah. It says a lot that Apple is just like, "You know what? Fine. We're out. "That's a pretty high bar and—
Zoë Schiffer: You can have an inferior product. Moving on to the tech reporting Super Bowl, which is on Friday, SpaceX is officially going public.
Brian Barrett: Congratulations to all the newly minted billionaires.
Zoë Schiffer: Thank you. Just kidding. We're not among them, but many people are and we will get into that. It is slated to become the largest IPO in history. It set its price at $135 a share, which would value the company at roughly $1.7 trillion.
Brian Barrett: That is trillion with a T and an R.
Zoë Schiffer: So a lot of companies go public every single year, but SpaceX's debut marks the entrance of AI companies hitting the public markets. Anthropic is slated to go public as is OpenAI. They've both confidentially filed their S1s and then announced those confidential filings very, very publicly. And so this is the first of a series of AI firms going public in a way that's going to really change the industry and also potentially the economy.
Brian Barrett: It is a moment that we're going to look back on as being, oh, this is the moment that launched these AI companies into the stratosphere in SpaceX's case, literally. Or this was the very height of the bubble that we've all been waiting to burst. And I don't know, Zoë, which is it? I honestly, it still feels like ... I'm not trying to hedge too much. It does genuinely feel like it could go either way.
Zoë Schiffer: Yeah. I mean, it could go a lot of different ways. We don't know how the IPO is going to be received. So far, demand seems really, really strong. Obviously if the IPO unexpectedly flops, it could be pretty bad for the entire market. It does seem like it is going to benefit Elon Musk quite a lot. It's already the world's richest man net worth around 700 billion, but he stands to earn quite a lot more due to his 42 percent stake in the company and he could become the world's first trillionaire, we're saying that word quite a lot, if the IP goes well. One other thing that I thought was really interesting is that SpaceX reserved an unusually high amount of the stock for retail investors, 30 percent. I thought this was interesting for a couple of reasons, one of which was just that Tesla is one of the most widely held retail stocks on Robinhood and platforms like that. And I think that it has allowed Elon Musk to keep the company ... The company does pretty well regardless of whether the kind of underlying business fundamentals are going exceptionally well because he has this very loyal fan base that is keeping the stock price really, really high. And so even when there's business issues, Tesla continues to, at least in the United States, perform.
Brian Barrett: I think it's signaling from the jump, “Hey, we're very open to being a meme stock also. We'll be a real stock, but we'll also be a meme stock. So come on in.” And it is sort of like building on this sort of cult of personality and trading on that, which I think it increasingly is going to have to, and we've talked about this before, but I'll keep talking about it forever, that SpaceX was such a interesting company with good fundamentals and a real business model behind it and promising revenue growth. And then it absorbed xAI and became a much less stable company.
Zoë Schiffer: I know. I actually think that this is such an interesting part of assessing Elon Musk as a business person because obviously as someone who reported on his Twitter takeover now X for quite a while, it was so easy to look at that company and be like, advertising is way down. This company's entirely dependent on advertising. He has made very obvious mess-ups in terms of the business. The business did not appear to be going well, but you can't really assess Elon Musk as the owner of a single company because he actually has an empire. So X isn't going well, merge it with XAI. Those companies are spending a lot of money and not making as much. Well, then SpaceX will buy them and suddenly you're looking at a very different company.
Brian Barrett: And even on a more granular level than that, you can't sell any Cybertrucks. OK, SpaceX will buy Cybertrucks.
Zoë Schiffer: Right.
Brian Barrett: It is this sort of, I would say a shell game, but a shell game involves hiding the ball. It's all out in the open. He's just doing it, but it's this really circular. And I'd say too, in terms of that sort of circular logic of everything being interconnected within his own companies, he has now made SpaceX a nexus for other AI companies as well by selling compute.
Zoë Schiffer: Right.
Brian Barrett: Now we're looking at a point where if SpaceX goes down at some point, it's going to hit Anthropic and Google and other people who have bought into spending billions of dollars on compute through its Colossus data center as well. So it's a fascinating tapestry, Zoë, that he's woven. How about that?
Zoë Schiffer: It is a fascinating tapestry. But at the top, we kind of mentioned that a lot of people could end up owning a little slice of SpaceX stock, whether or not they want to. And that is because the NASDAQ-100 recently relaxed its rules to make it easier and faster for SpaceX to be included, which forces funds that track the index to invest in SpaceX practically overnight. So this is now kind of integrated in vast parts of the economy that people might not even necessarily know about.
Brian Barrett: Yeah. It's going to be in your 401k—
Zoë Schiffer: Right.
Brian Barrett: —if you have a 401k, all these places they can't really control. I hope that there's not a big bubble burst systemic failure because if there is, again, it would take down Nvidia, which is already such a huge portion of the stock market, Google. Basically the systemic risks are already there, whether you're in SpaceX or not. Before we go to break, there's one more story that's been unfolding this past week that we'd like to talk about and it directly involves WIRED in a good way. Last week, WIRED reporters, Dhruv Mehrotra and Dell Cameron reported that Meta quietly embedded an unreleased facial recognition system into the Meta AI app, which is installed in over 50 million devices and is what you used to control Meta Ray-Ban and other smart glasses with Meta AI. They never publicly activated it, but they also never disclosed it. Dhruv and DEll found it by looking at the code in the app. We called Meta AI and that's when they confirmed that this code had been discreetly added over multiple updates this year. We'll get into more details about how it works, but here's the thing, one day after we published this piece, Meta deleted nearly all the code from the app.
Zoë Schiffer: Impact journalism.
Brian Barrett: They won't say why. They won't say whether it'll come back, but that is impact journalism. So great job, Dhruv and Dell and everyone else who worked on this story. The system was designed, and again, this is based on going through the code that was saving right there in the app, designed to capture faces through Ray-Ban smart glasses, convert them into biometric face prints. Faceprint is a word that I wish we didn't have to use just in general.
Zoë Schiffer: I know. Same.
Brian Barrett: And then match them against a local database on the user's device. So in other words, it would clock people's faces and put them into a database and just let it sit there on device. If it couldn't identify a face, it would just keep it there for future processing, which is to say, keep it in there until if and when you could actually assign a name to it. So really just capturing everyone's faces that you see.
Zoë Schiffer: Oh my God.
Brian Barrett: Publicly, Meta has said this is something that they're thinking through. Meta has acknowledged that face recognition is a thing that they are interested in potentially doing. They said they would first take a very thoughtful approach before they did it. But while they're saying that publicly, the New York Times has reported on internal memos that show that Meta had planned to time the rollout for a quote dynamic political environment, waiting until people would be too distracted with other stuff going on to give meaningful pushback to face recognition in their glasses.
Zoë Schiffer: Apple said, "We care about privacy." Meta said, "How about this?"
Brian Barrett: How about not?
Zoë Schiffer: Yeah. How about not? I mean, this is really concerning to me for a few reasons, but the pushback that Meta seemed to give to this article was we haven't enabled the system yet, which seems like both acknowledging the reporting and completely beside the point, you are putting this code on these devices so that you can turn it on at any moment. You can flip a switch and suddenly the glasses have facial recognition in them.
Brian Barrett: Well, and tied to that, the direct response we got from Meta was we had Meta's VP of communications. Andy Stone said at first that the feature does not exist. CTO Andrew Bosworth said that the reporting was quote, absolutely dishonest. And then within 24 to 36 hours of those comments, Meta pushed an update that got rid of all the code. So if the feature didn't exist and if it was absolutely dishonest, why then remove it?
Zoë Schiffer: I think that that language is actually very, very sneaky. I think saying the feature doesn't exist is basically trying to get around that the code was there but they haven't designed a fully fleshed out feature to go along with it. You know what I mean?
Brian Barrett: It's sort of like if you have a jack in the box but you haven't wound the arm yet saying the little guy inside does not exist.
Zoë Schiffer: I love your metaphors.
Brian Barrett: Because no one has—thank you so much. They are strained. They are convoluted. Yeah, yeah. Meta's interest, there's an obvious interest for Meta incorporating a feature like this. I think I've heard some Meta people say, look, this is for accessibility. A lot of people have vision problems or whatever other issues that this could potentially help with. I'll buy that there's a use case there, but I think the issue is you can't really push it just for those people. You know what I mean? You have to sort of push it to everybody. And the thing with face recognition glasses is you can't really opt out, right? You can't opt out of someone capturing your face and storing it on their glasses.
Zoë Schiffer: Yeah. I mean, I will say this about Meta. The world that Meta is creating is just quite simply not the world that I want to live in. I do not think that their products reflect a vision of the future that feels exciting or inspiring to me versus companies where you are not fundamentally the product. They are in fact selling you a physical product or trying to enhance your real life in some way, which to me just feel much more aligned with my values frankly.
Brian Barrett: Yeah. Although you do love AI alop.
Zoë Schiffer: I do. I do. That's an exception. And that is purely for entertainment and I'm not proud of that fact. Coming up after the break, we're going all the way to New York to hear about an investigation into Madison Square Garden’s surveillance machine and the man behind it all, James Dolan.
Brian Barrett: So chances are if you're based in the US or at all an NBA fan, you've been following or at the very least aware of the NBA final series between the New York Knicks and the San Antonio Spurs. Championships have been gathering a lot of attention lately as the Knicks celebrate their first championship appearance in 27 years. Massive crowds of New Yorkers around the city have been gathering outdoors to watch the game and have packed the next home arena, Madison Square Garden. The garden has long been an iconic venue for concerts and events, but believe it or not, it's also one of the most aggressive corporate surveillance operations in the country. Earlier this year, WIRED contributing editor Noah Shachtman and reporter Robert Silverman published an investigation into how MSG owner and Knick's owner, Jim Dolan, has built an intricate system that surveils fans who attend the venue from using facial recognition cameras that process 40 people per minute to compiling dossiers on transgender Knicks fan. The track record of this surveillance under Dolan's leadership is astonishing. We've got Noah Shachtman here to talk about it. Noah, thank you so much for coming on.
Noah Shachtman: Sure thing.
Brian Barrett: This investigation from you and Robert Silverman, it was a long time in the making. Do you want to go back to what first tipped you off when you first became aware that MSG was this panopticon this whole time?
Noah Shachtman: Right. So there have been reports leaking out since 2018 that Madison Square Garden was using facial recognition technology of one sort or another in their venues. And I should add that the MSG company both includes Madison Square Garden, the iconic Radio City Music Hall, the Beacon Theater, and more recently the Sphere in Las Vegas. Anyway, report's been going on for several years, but what really started to break things open was a lawsuit in September of 2025 by a former Madison Square Garden security staffer who basically sued his bosses. And so we used that opportunity to go start digging and take a look and we found some remarkable stuff.
Brian Barrett: I want to get into that lawsuit and I want to get into what you found when you started digging, but I want to step back first. For folks who are not as familiar with MSG and more specifically with Jim Dolan, who is a real character and I don't mean that in a colorful, fun kind of way. This guy's a big personality, has a long sort of contentious track record. Could you catch us up on Jim Dolan and how his personality and what we know about him feeds into what he's done here?
Noah Shachtman: Right. Well, I think just the shorthand is that Jim Dolan is a incredibly wealthy, incredibly powerful media and sports executive. The key thing if you've just got to shorthand him is he has a band called JD & the Straight Shot and their most famous tune is about his former friend Harvey Weinstein and it's called “I Should’ve Known.”
Brian Barrett: What a shorthand.
Noah Shachtman: It's incredible.
Brian Barrett: God help us if we can be described in one sentence that way. But yeah, and this is the guy. And he's also incredibly wealthy. Buddies with Donald Trump, as we saw at the recent game 3 in the series, Donald—he was sitting right next to Trump.
Noah Shachtman: Yeah, he got married at Mar-a-Lago. He's known him forever.
Brian Barrett: So Dolan is, I think you described him so well, has built this sort of surveillance dragnet. What has he used it for? What is it made up of and how does he apply it? What's the upshot here?
Noah Shachtman: I'll talk about the current iteration of it because it's evolved over time. So the current iteration of it is that around Madison Square Garden to get into the venue, you have to pass by these kind of new jack metal detectors. It's by a company called Xtract One—that's “extract” with an “X.” Those have a series of cameras attached to them. Those cameras are running facial recognition algorithms. And if there's a hit that's fed into a larger video management system that can either alert security right away or track the person throughout anywhere they go in the garden. Who does he use this on? Well, Dolan would say it's to stop terrorists and to stop criminals or whatever, but there's very little evidence of that, very little. And in fact, what we heard from the NYPD is that they don't supply any facial recognition or any other kind of data to Madison Square Garden for those purposes. So who does he use it for instead? Who does he use this facial recognition for instead? Instead, it's to track a series of people on lists. Most famously on those lists are lawyers, lawyers who have sued the garden in any way, shape or form. Famously, there's a case of a lawyer who was taking her kid to see, I think the Rockettes at Radio City Music Hall. And just because someone else in her firm had sued Madison Square Garden, she was not allowed to bring her kid to Radio City.
Brian Barrett: So it's not even precision targeting, right? It's sort of guilt by association and a ban for life based on whatever criteria Jim Dolan decides on.
Noah Shachtman: Yeah. And then there's accidents too. So for example, in our investigation, we found screenshots of a little girl, she couldn't have been more than, I don't know, eight years old who got flagged by the facial recognition system. Now it's an accident, of course, but the fact that she got logged in at all is a real problem.
Brian Barrett: This gets us into the lawsuit. Do you mind sort of setting us up with who filed this suit? Why? What's the current status of it? Just to give us a little sense of, because I find it so interesting it is from someone who was inside the system.
Noah Shachtman: Right. So the lawsuit was filed by a guy named Donnie Ingrasselino, who's a former New Jersey law enforcement professional who then went on to work for the Tao Group, which was a series of nightclubs and restaurants that was partially owned at the time by Jim Dolan, although he later divested it. And then he went on to work for Madison Square Garden proper. Now this lawsuit has all kinds of stuff in it, but it also has a couple of really shocking claims, including the surveillance of a trans woman whose only crimes seemed to be that she'd gotten too close to players and to Madison Square Garden staffers. And so we went looking to try to track down that claim and others that are in the lawsuit.
Brian Barrett: Can we talk more about that? You referenced Nina Richards, who's the trans Kicks fan who was tracked. What was so striking to me was the detail in which Nina Richards was tracked and the dossier that they put together. Do you mind talking a little bit about that? Just because it feels very, both In terms of I guess the speciousness of how they're deciding who they're tracking and also the level at which I think it goes beyond when you think of facial recognition, you think, "Well, OK, I do that at the airport." It's way beyond that and I think it's a very instructive case.
Noah Shachtman: Yeah, me too. I mean, honestly, I gasped when I got ahold of this secret internal Madison Square Garden report, 18 pages that detailed literally second by second Nina Richard's movements within the garden on a single day. So think about that. 18 pages, second by second, single day. And so what did it track? It tracked when she got in, it tracked which elevator she got into. It tracked when she bought a beverage. It tracked when she said hello to a Madison Square Garden employee. It tracked when she sat down. It tracked when she got up to go to the bathroom. It tracked her going into the bathroom. It tracked her coming out of the bathroom on and on and on. I was a incredibly disturbing dystopian enemy of the state style dossier on this one person, one trans woman on Pride Night, I should add, over the course of a few hours. It was really shocking.
Brian Barrett: Noah, you are a celebrated, venerated national security journalist. You are. You have covered national security for a long time and you have covered, for lack of a better word, real spy stuff. You've been deep in it. How does that compare to this in terms of source handling in terms of the process here? Because it really rhymes, right?
Noah Shachtman: Beyond. So look, for WIRED back in the day, I went to Iraq a couple of times. I went to Afghanistan. For WIRED, I reported on all the intelligence agencies. And I've never had a situation like this where people were so scared and took such elaborate steps to avoid being outed as a source. In spy movies, there's this thing called a brush pass where someone pretends to bump into you or pretends to give you a hug or whatever and slip some information in your pocket. As far as I know, that shit has never happened in real life, or at least not to me. It finally happened in real life during the story.
Brian Barrett: Wow.
Noah Shachtman: You would have people that I'd reach out to, they'd be like, "Sorry, wrong number." And then I'd hear back from them on a different number two seconds later. We had an incredibly cold winter here in New York, the coldest in decades. And yet here I am outside freezing my ass off with a source because the source will not meet inside for fear of being bugged. And you think, well, wow, these people must be just paranoid. They've seen too many spy movies themselves. Well, not exactly. Famously, and we kind of captured this in our story, is two Knicks legends met up one night in the garden, one of whom was Charles Oakley, who was a famous critic of Jim Dolan. And he was told by his former teammate, Patrick Ewing, one of the greatest Knicks of all time, to pipe down because there were listening devices everywhere. So these people acted more paranoid than spies, but they had some reason to act this way.
Brian Barrett: Tell me more about the Charles Oakley of it all, because that was a really fascinating part of this story, I thought, because here's a guy you would think he's a Knicks icon of fan favorite. You would think he would be untouchable just because of his association with the franchise. He's not apparently. Do you mind talking through his experience a little bit more and what you got from talking to Oak?
Noah Shachtman: If you're looking at the finals right now, you see during the broadcast that there are all these Knicks legends there, guys like Luke Charles Brewell, Patrick Ewing, Alan House, and John Starks, what have you. Who you don't see there—the one person you don't see—it's really shocking not to see him there, is Charles Oakley, who was kind of the Knicks brawniest enforcer during the '90s, a great player. Why is he not there? He's not there because for years he was openly critical of Jim Dolan's management of stewardship of the team. And then in the mid 2010s, he got into an altercation. I mean, there's lots of different ways to spin it, but he got into an altercation with MSG security and was thrown out of the garden and he was banned from there on in. And there's been a series of accusations back and forth. There's still all sorts of lawsuits going on, but yeah, he's sort of the one guy that's been ostracized and we've talked to some sources within the Madison Square Garden security community. Let's say there was orders put out to follow him to surveil him. So this is not just a typical situation of a franchise not getting along with a particular player. There's been a long ugly legal battle. There's been accusations of surveillance both digitally audio and physical tailing with the guy.
Brian Barrett: I feel like people listening to this and anyone who's read your story and I right now are probably thinking, how can they do this? How is it possible that this is legal? And we say a lot of these are allegations, but your reporting has stood a lot of them up.
Noah Shachtman: Yes.
Brian Barrett: But what is the accountability? Is there any sort of measure that can say, "Hey, actually Jim Toll and MSG, knock it off." Where should the line be legally? I know we all have our personal opinions and what can be done if they're over it.
Noah Shachtman: Right. So there have been some attempts to reign this in. Oddly, one of them came from New York's state liquor authority because they were like, "Hey, hold on a second. You're discriminating against customers by putting them on this dystopian band list." So they sent an investigator, a former cop to start asking around. Madison Square Garden then put another hired private investigators to tail the private investigator who was investigating the garden.
Brian Barrett: Oh God.
Noah Shachtman: Anyway, point being is when that happened, Jim Dolan also got on TV in New York, posted the head of the state liquor authority's phone number and email and told Knicks fans to tell him to go "stick to his knitting." So that was to mix sports metaphors, that was a real brushback pitch and there hasn't been as much activity afterwards. There has been a lot of talk in local political circles, however, about whether James Dolan deserves some of the special treatment he gets from New York City and he does get special treatment. Madison Square Garden doesn't pay property taxes and it's a benefit that's over the years has been estimated to be worth over a billion dollars. Should he continue to get that? There's been a lot of questions about that. Since our story has come out, the mayor, Zohran Mamdani, the Attorney General Tish James have said they're going to look into this further. We'll see if that goes anywhere.
Brian Barrett: Noah, you're a Knicks fan.
Noah Shachtman: I'm a Knicks Sicko. It's like—
Brian Barrett: You're a Knicks Sicko.
Noah Shachtman: Yeah. Look, I mean, this current run of success regardless, usually being a Knicks fan is more like an addiction than an enjoyable experience.
Brian Barrett: I'm an Orioles fan, so it's not quite the same, but I am familiar with long stretches of losing. They have taken the series to New York. They're playing an MSG. You've been watching, I assume, every second and every minute and every replay. What do you feel when you watch the game and you're seeing everybody court side enjoying the game knowing that they're behind the scenes? There are dossiers being put together probably. There are cameras tracking people. There are people who maybe weren't allowed in potentially. How's that feel?
Noah Shachtman: I've thought a lot about this and I think that if you're to be a sports fan and really to be a fan of almost any entertainment in 2026 means separating out the ownership from the product you're seeing or from the artists that are creating it. And I think, look, more broadly light, we're in this age of media consolidation, billionaire power controlling what we watch and the kind of music we listen to. And you can hate the Paramount Warner merger and still want to see the next HBO show and enjoy it. And so I think you do have to kind of divorce how you feel about ownership with how you feel about the product.
Brian Barrett: Noah, thank you so much for being here. Everyone, please go read Noah and Robert Silverman's story. It is great. It is more relevant now than even when it came out with the playoffs and, uh, Knicks in five.
Noah Shachtman: God willing.
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. Pran Bandi is our New York studio engineer. Mark 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.
文章标题：你为何可能已经持有SpaceX股票、Siri的人工智能升级，以及尼克斯老板的监控机器
文章链接：https://news.qimuai.cn/?post=4328
本站文章均为原创，未经授权请勿用于任何商业用途