内容来源：https://www.wired.com/story/uncanny-valley-podcast-we-got-hot-and-heavy-with-metas-muse-and-underwhelmed-by-apples-homeview/

内容总结：

Meta人工智能代理Muse可进行色情对话引发关注

在最新一期的WIRED播客节目《Uncanny Valley》中，WIRED高级撰稿人Reece Rogers分享了他对Meta旗下AI代理Muse的测试经历。令他意外的是，这款以管理日历和邮件为主要功能的AI代理，竟能轻易生成露骨的色情内容。当他直接询问Muse能否进行色情对话时，Muse热情地给出了肯定答复，且无需任何“越狱”手段即可实现。Meta对此回应称，Muse是面向18岁以上成年人的应用，不会阻止“合法的成年人行为”。然而，这一立场与Meta对其他平台（如Instagram）上LGBTQ+酒吧账号因被指涉及性内容而遭封禁的做法形成鲜明对比。安全与隐私专家警告称，此类功能可能使用户账号成为黑客敲诈的目标，同时也存在成瘾风险。

亲AI超级政治行动委员会网络被指通过空壳公司转移资金

WIRED记者Tess Owen调查发现，亲AI超级政治行动委员会网络“Leading the Future”通过四家神秘的内华达州有限责任公司转移了数百万美元资金。其中一家名为Lantern Production Consultants的公司注册地址仅为一家购物中心的邮政信箱，自去年以来已从该网络下的“Think Big”超级政治行动委员会获得约2000万美元。选举监督机构认为，这些公司实为空壳公司，旨在掩盖与该网络合作的策略师、顾问和制作公司的真实身份。由于联邦选举委员会目前缺乏法定人数，相关投诉无法得到审理，该网络超过1亿美元的政治支出实际上处于无监管状态。

苹果推出智能家居新品HomeView，功能受限引发质疑

苹果本周发布了包括Apple TV 4K、新款HomePod mini及智能家居配件在内的多款产品，其中最受关注的是其首款智能家居中枢HomeView。该设备配备7英寸方形显示屏，可壁挂或置于台面，支持面部识别和Siri AI。然而，HomeView不支持视频播放，无法使用Netflix、Prime Video等流媒体应用，其方形屏幕的宽高比也不适合观看视频内容。苹果对此回应称，若开发者愿意为其开发应用，未来或可支持视频功能。WIRED编辑对此表示失望，认为一块不能看视频的屏幕实用性存疑。

哈佛研究：男性倾向于高估自己对AI的了解程度

哈佛大学研究人员对5400多名美国人进行的一项调查发现，超过半数的男性声称认识一些虚构的AI行业人物，而女性中这一比例约为40%。研究还发现，男性在AI领域的整体乐观度和自信度均高于女性。此外，在为期一年的媒体报道分析中，男性在AI相关新闻标题中被提及的频率约为女性的14倍。该研究揭示了AI行业中存在的性别认知差异，以及男性过度自信可能带来的问题。

中文翻译：

结果发现，Meta的人工智能代理Muse远不止能帮你管理日程：它还会跟你调情。本周《怪诞谷》节目中，Brian Barrett和Leah Feiger邀请到了《连线》记者Reece Rogers，聊聊他如何对Muse进行实测——以及最终得到了远超预期的结果。此外，还有为什么最大的亲AI超级政治行动委员会网络正在向隐秘的有限责任公司输送数百万美元，苹果的新HomeView为何让我们大失所望，以及一项研究发现男性往往高估自己对AI的实际了解程度。

你可以在Bluesky上关注Brian Barrett（@brbarrett）、Leah Feiger（@leahfeiger）和Reece Rogers（@thiccreese）。给我们写信请发至[email protected]。

请在Signal Awards中为我们投票！

• 节目类，最佳科技
• 节目类，最佳访谈或脱口秀
• 单集类，最佳纪录片

本期提到的文章：

• 我让我的Muse AI代理跟我调情——Meta说这完全没问题
• 最大的亲AI超级PAC网络已向内华达空壳公司注入数百万美元
• 苹果以新硬件和“家庭系列”重启智能家居战略
• Apple HomeView就像家里的一块巨型Apple Watch
• 男人忍不住假装自己很懂AI

如何收听
你可以随时通过本页面的音频播放器收听本周播客，但如果你想免费订阅以获取每一集，方法如下：
如果你使用的是iPhone或iPad，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，搜索“uncanny valley”。我们在Spotify上也有。

文字记录
注意：此为自动转录文本，可能包含错误。

Leah Feiger：大家好，我是Leah。我们想告诉大家，《怪诞谷》入围了Signal Awards，不是一两个，而是三个奖项。评委决定谁获奖，但听众也可以通过“听众选择奖”投票发表意见。你可以点击我们在节目笔记中附上的链接为我们投票。我们保证只需要一分钟，你的投票意义重大。好，进入正题。

Brian Barrett：Leah，我有个问题。你准备好万圣节服装了吗？

Leah Feiger：我自己还没有，但我正在给我的狗Francis在两套之间做选择。它要么扮龙虾，要么扮邮递员。

Brian Barrett：我喜欢。或者扮龙虾邮递员。

Leah Feiger：好主意。好主意。我们正在头脑风暴。

Brian Barrett：欢迎来到《连线》的《怪诞谷》。我是Brian Barrett，执行编辑。

Leah Feiger：我是Leah Feiger，政治与科学总监。

Brian Barrett：Zoë Schiffer今天不参加，但《连线》资深撰稿人Reece Rogers将加入我们。我们要聊的是Meta的AI代理Muse不仅能处理日历和邮件，正如Reece所发现的，它还能调情。Reece测试了Muse的成人功能，以及Meta对这一过程的回应。

Leah Feiger：我们还会讨论最大的亲AI超级PAC网络如何向看似内华达空壳公司的实体注入数百万美元。我们会深入探讨为什么这些AI PAC可能想隐藏资金流向，以及为什么这对选举透明度来说是个坏消息。

Brian Barrett：日程上还有Leah最喜欢的，我们要聊聊苹果本周发布的智能家居产品。

Leah Feiger：太离谱了。

Brian Barrett：还有，显然男人们忍不住假装自己很懂AI。各位听众，这将是个震惊的消息，但哈佛研究人员的一项新研究发现，男性往往对自己在AI行业的了解程度过度自信。谁能想到呢？好，如果你最近几周下载了Meta的AI代理Muse——你们人数很多，数百万人已经下载了，我觉得每次你打开Instagram，Meta都在鼓励你使用它，即使你完全不知道它是什么、能做什么或为什么存在——你可能已经注意到它能做代理的事情。它管理你的日历，能帮你订餐厅，但事实证明它能做的远不止这些。《连线》资深撰稿人Reece Rogers踏上了一段发现之旅。他问Muse能不能调情。你会惊讶地发现它热情洋溢地给出了肯定回答。从简单的提示开始，这个可爱的虚拟形象代理就生成了相当露骨、绝对不适合工作场合的内容。Reece在这里为我们讲述更多。Reece，非常感谢你的加入。

Reece Rogers：你好。非常感谢今天邀请我。我其实在回想上次参加《连线》播客的时候。我当时在聊大约一年前，我如何使用ChatGPT代理试图购买性玩具但没成功。所以我真的在打造一个细分领域。

Brian Barrett：是的。我们在展示这些AI工具的进步。

Leah Feiger：Reece，我得问一下，你是怎么想到这个的？这对你来说是个信号吗？你是什么时候想，“这个大家都在讨论的可爱代理，它会跟我调情吗？”跟我们讲讲这一切是怎么开始的。

Reece Rogers：好的，不，我会自豪地说这完全是我自己的主意。作为《连线》的消费软件记者，我实际上广泛报道过软件和性如何相互影响，从我们调查生成式AI工具如何错误呈现酷儿群体，到追踪OpenAI现已取消的在ChatGPT中加入情色内容的计划。这实际上是一个非常有趣的消费软件报道领域。所以当我在测试目前排名第一的AI应用时——它仍然在软件下载榜上占据主导——我想看看，“你能调情吗？”如果数百万人在使用这个应用，而且看起来确实如此，那这是一个重要的问题。而我了解到的有点太多了。

Brian Barrett：那么，Reece，当你听说这样的代理行为时，很多时候它的表述是，“哦，我们找到了一个巧妙的方法让代理做了它不该做的事。我们能够越狱或以其他方式绕过它的提示词让它这样做。”Reece，让Muse跟你调情有多难？

Reece Rogers：一点都不难。一点也不难。我们的专题总监Reyhan最近在办公室，问能不能看看这些内容，她有点震惊。所以我觉得就说到这里吧。但这不是什么越狱方法。我没有用什么随机策略。我问了，“你能调情吗？”然后我说，“你先来。”剩下的就是历史了。

Brian Barrett：而且它反而一直在鼓励你。我觉得这绝对是一条双向街道，它真的很愿意做任何事。

Leah Feiger：你有没有在其他代理上试过？成功率如何？

Reece Rogers：有的，实际上，在发现它能调情之后，我很好奇这跟其他热门代理相比如何。目前有几个大的，但我感兴趣的两个是OpenAI最近发布的Dots，以及xAI的Grok Bot，因为Grok特别以不一定有强护栏而闻名，无论是文字还是图片。

Leah Feiger：不，我觉得Grok会很喜欢调情。对我来说这感觉像是Grok的属性。

Reece Rogers：是的。所以当我下载那个应用并发送类似的提示词时，Grok Bot说“不行，兄弟，我们专注于任务吧。我不是来调情的。我们做任务吧。”这还挺令人惊讶的。

Brian Barrett：Reece，当你就此事联系Meta时，他们怎么回应的？

Reece Rogers：他们的回应完全出乎我的意料。他们明确表示Muse是一款面向成年人、18岁及以上人群的应用，这些是我参与的双方同意的互动，它不会阻止所谓的“合法的成年人行为”。但我也发现这跟他们对其他平台的政策形成了非常有趣的对比。最近有一个很有意思的报道，关于旧金山以及世界各地的不同酷儿酒吧，他们的Instagram页面被关闭，而且很难恢复访问，因为有时会被声称他们在推广某种性内容。所以Meta对Instagram上的一些创作者有那样的规则，但基本上说“我们的AI代理想多放荡就多放荡”，这对我来说很难自圆其说。

Brian Barrett：你的报道中我觉得很有趣的一点是，好吧，我们按Meta说的字面意思接受，说“是的，这是面向同意成年人的。人们可以做他们想做的。”显然有你刚指出的矛盾，但你也采访了一些专家，他们说“实际上问题比这更严重。”你能否谈谈这里的一些其他担忧，即拥有一个能在相当极端程度上跟你调情的AI代理意味着什么？

Reece Rogers：当然。我觉得这里有两点值得关注。首先，这是一个在某种意义上是为生产力设计的工具，所以如果你下载它，你也不会预期它能做这种事。而这可能产生问题的方式是，如果用户偶然发现了这个功能，它可能非常粘人，非常吸引人，但一些专家担心这可能导致某种上瘾行为。你使用AI代理的方式可能替代你与朋友交谈或发短信的一些联系。所以我觉得加入这种成人内容让一些专家在考虑用户参与度和上瘾问题时会感到担忧。但在另一方面，我也采访了安全和隐私专家，他们说这真的可能让Muse账户成为黑客的火药桶，如果你以这种近乎色情的方式互动，那可能被用来勒索你，公开羞辱你。所以无论是隐私还是使用上瘾，我觉得有很多潜在的担忧值得深入挖掘和更好地剖析。

Leah Feiger：我忍不住想到《连线》过去一年的一些报道，关于AI男友和丈夫以及这些完整的关系。而且再说一次，这在某种程度上是一种稍微阴险的方式把它偷渡进来，就像“别担心，我只是帮你发会议日历邀请。”

Brian Barrett：我还要说，他们说“看，这是给成年人的。”但与此同时，Reece你也写过的，这些代理的吉祥物或动画形象是你能想到的最可爱的那种。它非常被设计成友好的、吸引广泛年龄段的样子。它看起来像是给小孩的。我只是想说这一点。

Reece Rogers：我之前报道时采访过的青少年倡导者，即使没有调情元素，他们也担心这对孩子有吸引力。所以我确实觉得——我觉得我一直在说“对比”这个词，但它就是不是你预期的那样。你看到这个Labubu混搭Ewok的东西，你就是不会预期它变得那么放荡。所以我觉得它真的跟它那种可爱、毛茸茸的吉祥物形象不匹配。

Leah Feiger：Reece，非常感谢你的加入。这期很棒。

Reece Rogers：谢谢你们邀请我。

Brian Barrett：非常感谢，Reece。大家请去读Reece的报道。如果你想看那些没放进报道里的调情内容，我不知道，给我们发私信吧。我们看看能做什么。

Leah Feiger：下一个故事我们要去内华达，具体来说是去小城斯帕克斯的一个购物中心。如果你开车到那个商业街，你会看到典型的商铺，一家Spirit Halloween万圣节用品店，一家助听器供应商，一家越南餐厅。但在这个特定的购物中心里，你还会找到咨询公司Lantern Production Consultants，LLC。这家公司自去年以来已从Think Big收到了约2000万美元，Think Big是“引领未来”网络中的一个亲AI超级PAC。该网络由AI行业人物支持，如Marc Andreessen、Ben Horowitz和OpenAI总裁Greg Brockman。一家公司就这样存在于内华达的一个购物中心里，这很不寻常。而且这家公司除了这个邮政信箱之外似乎不存在于任何其他地方。《连线》的Tess Owen发现，这家公司只是从“引领未来”网络中的超级PAC收到付款的四家神秘内华达有限责任公司之一。选举监督机构认为，这些有限责任公司实际上是空壳公司，旨在掩盖与中期选举网络合作的策略师、顾问和制作公司的身份。Brian，这真是个疯狂的故事。

Brian Barrett：是的。我承认，我对选举财务不太了解，但每当我看到“隐秘的有限责任公司”，我就会注意。我觉得有意思的是，“引领未来”，稍微回溯一下，他们非常像“让我们给所有亲AI候选人捐钱，对吧？任何支持数据中心的，不要AI监管的。”但我想，Leah，我的问题是这有多常见，以及这说明“引领未来”的 sophistication、野心或阴暗程度如何？

Leah Feiger：这是个好问题，不幸的是这并不太罕见。归根结底，Tess是通过仔细翻阅FEC文件发现这一点的，看到有四家PAC在这个内华达购物中心有相同地址。极其阴暗，极其随机。而实际上在五月，竞选法律中心向FEC提交了一份投诉，指控“引领未来”网络中的Think Big和American Mission违反了联邦法律，未能披露其付款的实际收款人。但这个案子实际上不会很快被审理。FEC基本上处于停滞状态。他们有六个委员席位。他们都应该是总统任命的，而且需要四名委员的法定人数才能对法律投诉做出裁决。他们已经超过一年半没有法定人数了。所以我们处于这种非常奇怪的境地，说实话，有规则。我不想说没有规则，但某种程度上没有执行规则的方式。所以事实上存在这个网络，这个非常大的网络，我们说的是超过1亿美元的支出用于大选、大竞选，他们却没有监督。

Brian Barrett：Leah，说缺乏监督是一种特征而非缺陷，也许并不算过于愤世嫉俗。我的意思是，感觉特朗普在选举中最不想要的就是有人太仔细地关注钱的去向。

Leah Feiger：绝对如此。当Tess联系“引领未来”时，他们发了一封邮件回复，署名发言人Jesse Hunt，他写道该组织遵守所有适用法律，并称竞选法律中心的投诉不过是Public First、Anthropic以及与他们外部组织结盟的团体为博取关注而做出的绝望之举。Anthropic没有参与这起诉讼，Public First也没有。所以这真正告诉我们的是，“引领未来”和他们中意的候选人以及内华达空壳公司不仅在竞选财务方面大动手脚，这也是AI行业内部——比如OpenAI和劲敌Anthropic之间——互相挥拳的一种方式。

Brian Barrett：我喜欢当你只是在报道完全无关的事情时，随机的组织和公司却被波及。这总是让人小小兴奋一下，也总是表明，正如你说的，这里发生的事情比我们开始报道时可能意识到的要多得多。现在距离中期选举只有几周了，Leah。

Leah Feiger：倒计时开始了。

Brian Barrett：倒计时开始了。但这些以AI为导向的PAC在这次选举中扮演多大的角色？它们会产生多大的影响？我记得，听众可能也记得，加密货币PAC在上一个选举周期实际上产生了相当大的影响。他们有一大笔钱，而且花在了聪明的地方。我们是否看到AI有同等的情况，还是不太一样，或者更多？帮我理清思路，理解它们在多大程度上影响这次选举。

Leah Feiger：这是个很好的问题，我真的想确保我们向听众传达的是，这个网络向两党的竞选都捐款，这有点不寻常。当你看看比如Fairshake，上次选举中主要的加密货币PAC，感觉非常像“这是共和党的，这是民主党的，中间没有分裂。”这些亲AI超级PAC现在做的事情对我来说更有意思一点，那就是未来建设。他们挑选的候选人可能现在甚至不在共和党或民主党最有竞争力的席位上，但他们挑选的是能在国会成为他们最大盟友的候选人。所以这影响远超这次选举。这影响超越2028年。我们说的是在美国政府中为AI巩固支持，说实话，不想说得太戏剧化，但是为了未来几代人，能够使这些观点——无论是放松监管还是非常轻微的监管，或者亲数据中心——如果你能以各种方式推动它，现在就是在做大量的未来建设。

Brian Barrett：好的，Leah，是时候从你最喜欢的话题转到你最不喜欢的话题了。我们要聊聊消费科技。

Leah Feiger：Zoë在湾区的某个地方，绝对在庆幸不用跟我们讨论这个。

Brian Barrett：我今天晚些时候要打电话给她，就让她跟我聊这个。

Leah Feiger：好，行。这看起来很公平。

Brian Barrett：本周，苹果在纽约的一场展示会上宣布了一些新产品。你看，Leah，有一款Apple TV 4K，一款新的HomePod mini，还有一系列LG制造的锁、摄像头、门铃和恒温器。我不会让你聊这些的。

Leah Feiger：我应该买哪个吗？

Brian Barrett：我觉得你不用。

Leah Feiger：好，太好了。继续。

Brian Barrett：我要让你聊的，或者至少让你听我吐槽一小会儿的，是Apple HomeView。这是苹果的第一款智能家居中枢。我的意思是谷歌和其他公司以及亚马逊以前就有这些了。

Leah Feiger：所以这就像他们的Alexa？

Brian Barrett：有点像，但有显示屏。我厨房里有一个谷歌版本的。我用它来设计时器，做饭时看棒球比赛，放音乐。它可以显示日历，什么的。苹果的叫Apple HomeView。7英寸显示屏，放在你的台面上，或者你可以买一个挂在墙上的版本。对苹果产品来说不算太贵，还行，无关紧要。它可以通过面部识别人，运行Siri AI。这些都还行。问题是，它看起来像一块Apple Watch。就像一块大号Apple Watch屏幕，所以是方形屏幕，而且不能播放视频。没有视频应用。你不能打开，至少现在还不能。所以它是方形的。宽高比本来就很奇怪，然后它又没有Netflix或MLB TV——那是我会感兴趣的——Prime Video、HBO Max，所有这些东西。我觉得如果你有一个显示屏，你大概会想在上面看东西。

Leah Feiger：嗯，而且即使在这个时代，如果我们说做饭，你能访问一些东西，这东西应该放在你厨房里，应该放在家庭区域。我不知道。我会想看Bon Appétit或TikTok上的烹饪视频。这东西有什么意义？

Brian Barrett：百分之百。我们问了苹果这个问题。我逼我们的Gear编辑Julian去问苹果这个问题，他们的回答基本上是，“看，如果开发者想做CarPlay应用，那它们就会出现在这上面，”所以理论上有可能，或者你可以通过Safari输入hbomax.com然后像个书呆子一样登录。

Leah Feiger：像个书呆子？

Brian Barrett：Leah，像个书呆子。没错。

Leah Feiger：绝对不行。

Brian Barrett：所以，看，我觉得这是个有趣的设备。我很高兴Siri AI现在更好了，因为他们在跟谷歌合作让它更好。人们会惊讶于它有多实用，但事实上它就像“是的，你可以播放Spotify”，但你不能在屏幕上观看任何东西。那就是屏幕的意义。那就是它的用途，Leah。

Leah Feiger：我有点困惑，因为我得说我是苹果的粉丝。我喜欢苹果产品。我真的真的喜欢。我从来没有用过哪个苹果产品然后说，“哦，嗯，这个我可以跳过。”我觉得这个我可以跳过。

Brian Barrett：我觉得我也可以，实际上我本来很期待它。我有点喜欢——是的，我不太喜欢我那个谷歌的东西。还行吧，但挺旧的。它不兼容Apple Music。就是有很多我……但我觉得除非开发者加入，否则我不能入手这个，但我不知道他们为什么会加入。

Leah Feiger：这个用了多少AI？如果它是“嘿，Siri能给我放什么音乐台”，那显然需要AI。

Brian Barrett：它内置了Siri AI。所以基本上在那个意义上，它像Alexa，稍微聪明一点，但你大概还是会——我觉得它只会更擅长做那些事情，更好。我觉得有一代这样的设备，如果你问它除了现在几点之外的任何问题，它们会有点崩溃然后给你显示一个网页，结果参差不齐。这个应该更 conversational。它应该能对事情给出更完整的回答，但我不觉得你会仅仅为了这个而想要它。它不像能做到你手机做不到的事情，而你的手机可能就在旁边。

Leah Feiger：是的，不，我只会把手机支起来。很抱歉听到这个。为你感到遗憾，Brian。

Brian Barrett：谢谢。谢谢你让我有一个安全的空间释放我的感受。

Leah Feiger：一年两次。

Brian Barrett：好的，Leah，在我们去广告之前，我有个小测验给你。我要读四个AI行业的名字。Leah，我想让你告诉我有多少个听起来熟悉。准备好了吗？

Leah Feiger：准备好了。

Brian Barrett：好。Sam Altman。

Leah Feiger：熟悉。

Brian Barrett：Mira Murati。

Leah Feiger：也知道Mira Murati是谁。

Brian Barrett：Susan Milner。

Leah Feiger：不知道。

Brian Barrett：Craig Dalton。

Leah Feiger：不知道。

Brian Barrett：哇。嗯，Leah，你只认识Altman和Murati是合理的，因为Milner和Dalton并不存在。你知道谁在被问同样一组问题时坚称他们存在吗？

Leah Feiger：根据资深撰稿人Kate Taylor那篇优秀报道的标题，我推断是男人。男人，Brian。

Brian Barrett：男人。

Leah Feiger：男人。

Brian Barrett：男人。是真的。是男人。在一项对5400多名美国人的新调查中，哈佛研究人员发现超过一半的男性声称认识这些虚构的AI名人。女性也有，但程度低得多，大约40%的女性。所以男性以相当大的比例更加自信地给出全错的答案。这让你感到惊讶吗，Leah？

Leah Feiger：我的意思是，当然不。还有很多可以展开说的，但可能不是特别精彩。我想说的是，我 fascination 于这里偏见的证实，但同时也 fascination 于这个行业如此之新，当然有不可忽视的一群人 saying，“我已经完全了解它的一切了。我从未感到如此被包容。没有人比我更了解1993年年度最佳球员MVP了。”这个跳跃太容易了。告诉我这是怎么发现的。

Brian Barrett：所以是哈佛大学的研究，我觉得重要的是说我们用这个趣闻开头是因为它太有趣也太打脸了，但这里还有更多内容。实际上这是一项相当广泛的调查。哈佛肯尼迪学院Shorenstein中心的Laura Manley参与了这项研究，她告诉《连线》，他们看到男性在AI方面总体上更乐观、更自信。这当然在这个案例中变成了过度自信。我们发现在一年的媒体报道中，男性在AI相关头条中被提及的次数大约是女性的14倍。部分原因显然也是顶级AI高管严重偏向男性，但这也包括AI专家。男性作为AI专家被引用的频率远高于女性。我觉得这项研究的全部意义在于AI中的性别分界线在哪里？这个行业在继续改变世界的过程中，它似乎确实在根据你是男性还是女性而以不同方式改变世界，你对它的态度也反映了这一点。

Leah Feiger：我想知道这是否很大程度上与不担心护栏有关。我得自己去深入研究这项研究。我要让Kate在午餐什么的时侯跟我好好讲讲，但对我来说有些非常引人入胜的东西，当我想到AI最大的批评者时，我想到Timnit Gebru，我们过去几周有那么多优秀的报道。我想到那些不仅仅是在拆解这个行业，而是在说“嘿，这里有这些问题”的人。你显然从最高层也能看到一些。我们一直在聊Anthropic，聊[达里奥]阿莫代伊，Anthropic的CEO，但对我来说确实感觉有那个差距。真的很有意思。我很着迷。

Brian Barrett：不，我也是。我觉得这是行业确实需要解决和意识到的事情。这也跟——我觉得——《连线》资深记者Lauren Goode上个月为我们的《连线女性》特刊写了一篇关于谁是科技界最有影响力的女性的专题。并没有真正的答案，因为即使科技和AI界有几位非常有权势的女性，也没有那种围绕她们建立起来的个人崇拜，没有Sam Altman和Elon Musk那样的人物所产生的引力——无论好坏，通常是坏。广告之后，我们将分享本周的《连线》/疲惫之选。别走开。

Leah Feiger：是时候进入我们的《连线》和疲惫环节了。新鲜酷炫的就是《连线》，我们受够了的过时东西就是疲惫。Brian，你有什么？

Brian Barrett：我要凭信念说，因为我还没看过这部电影，但我尊重的人看过而且很喜欢。

Leah Feiger：是《Digger》吗？

Brian Barrett：是《Digger》。

Leah Feiger：我今晚就去看。

Brian Barrett：我要说——

Leah Feiger：我太兴奋了。

Brian Barrett：我很好奇你要说什么，但我要说《Digger》是《连线》，即使我没看过这部电影，我也要说它是《连线》，因为它引发了我觉得非常有趣的讨论，不仅是关于《Digger》，而是关于我们如何谈论气候。不管你喜欢还是不喜欢这部电影，不管你觉得它像资深撰稿人Molly Taft在《连线》上说的那样有效地传达了这一点，还是像许多其他人那样觉得它是垃圾，它至少迫使人们就如何谈论气候展开了对话。我觉得我们处于这样一个境地，很多人似乎已经不再谈气候了。你有那种AI极端主义者说，“哦，那是个已解决的问题。没事。”你有那种MAGA阵营说，“哦，都是夸大其词。我们为什么要担心？”我觉得气候从好几个角度已经离开了对话。所以不管你怎么看《Digger》，它已经把对话从电影本身推进到了我们如何谈论气候，我支持这一点。这对我来说是《连线》。我要用我的疲惫再次抱怨Apple HomeView。我觉得你得把它搞清楚。

Leah Feiger：你讨厌它。

Brian Barrett：我不讨厌它。我没生气。我是失望，Leah。

Leah Feiger：这是向所有在苹果工作的人呼吁，听听Brian的祈祷。帮帮他。好。这些都挺好的。我的太互联网了，疼。我觉得你会立刻知道是什么，可能还能替我说出来。我的《连线》是《都市女孩》要回归了。

Brian Barrett：我就猜是这个。

Leah Feiger：我太兴奋了。哦，天哪。这是千禧一代的猫薄荷。Hannah Horvath和Marnie Michaels很快会重返我们的屏幕。HBO，这个《都市女孩》重启是我关心的一切。我真的真的等不及了，你知道的，因为我昨天给你发了那么多次消息。

Brian Barrett：你是哪个角色？

Leah Feiger：不。不玩那个游戏。绝对不。

Brian Barrett：好吧。行。

Leah Feiger：这不是《欲望都市》的“谁是Carrie？谁是Samantha？”《都市女孩》的所有角色都一样出色又糟糕。我绝对会说的唯一一件事是，显然你想当Shoshanna，而你不想当Jessa，如果你三十多岁重看的话。

Brian Barrett：这是好建议。这是可操作的建议。

Leah Feiger：我的疲惫也是极其互联网化的，就是……让我带你进入我的互联网角落和我的算法，就是Kelly Clarkson在布鲁克林魔术店的那场鸟闹剧。

Brian Barrett：那是每个人的角落。那是每个人的互联网角落。

Leah Feiger：我其实不觉得是，因为我昨天试着跟我丈夫解释这个，他说，“你是不是中风了？”

Brian Barrett：哦，不。

Leah Feiger：“你在说什么？”

Brian Barrett：他得跟上，Rodrigo。拜托，兄弟。跟上。

Leah Feiger：他得跟上。基本上，快速给我们的听众说一下，Kelly Clarkson，著名歌手和脱口秀主持人，走进布鲁克林一家魔术店，试图以15000美元买一只名叫Molly的电子动画鸟，被告知“绝对不行。Molly不卖。”来回的交锋太精彩了，真的太精彩了。Kelly Clarkson发了关于他们的帖子，店家回应了。根据昨天《纽约杂志》的采访，店家正在受到骚扰。Kelly Clarkson加倍了。有一个电子动画鸟制作者住在 upstate 的树林里，只做了两只。它是魔术表演的核心组成部分。总之，对我来说好玩了大概一两个小时，现在我腻了。这就是我的疲惫。

Brian Barrett：我觉得就像《都市女孩》一样，就像《都市女孩》一样，你不想在这个情况中当任何人。我觉得没有人看起来好看。

Leah Feiger：非常糟糕。

Brian Barrett：我觉得全是一团糟。

Leah Feiger：除了Molly，那只电子动画鸟。

Brian Barrett：除了那只电子动画鸟，它看起来确实挺酷的。

Zoë Schiffer：这就是我们今天的节目。我们会在节目笔记中链接所有我们提到的报道。Adriana Tapia制作了本期节目。Pran Bandi混音，他也是我们的纽约演播室工程师。Matt Giles和Daniel Roman做了事实核查。Marc Leda是我们的旧金山演播室工程师。Kate Osborn是我们的执行制片人，Katie Drummond是《连线》的全球编辑总监。

评论
回到顶部

英文来源：

Turns out, Meta’s AI agent Muse goes well beyond managing your calendar: it will also sext with you. This week on Uncanny Valley, Brian Barrett and Leah Feiger are joined by WIRED reporter Reece Rogers to discuss how he put it to the test—and ended up getting more than he bargained for. Plus, why the largest pro-AI super PAC network is funneling millions into shadowy LLCs, how Apple’s new HomeView underwhelmed us, and a study that found men tend to overestimate how much they actually know about AI.
You can follow Brian Barrett on Bluesky at @brbarrett, Leah Feiger on Bluesky at @leahfeiger, and Reece Rogers on Bluesky @thiccreese. Write to us at [email protected].
Vote for us in the Signal Awards!

• Shows, Best in Technology
• Shows, Best in Interview or Talk Show
• Individual Episode, Best in Documentary
  Articles mentioned in this episode:
• I Got My Muse AI Agent to Sext Me—and Meta Says That’s Totally Fine
• The Biggest Pro-AI Super PAC Network Has Poured Millions Into Nevada Shell Companies
• Apple Reboots Its Smart-Home Strategy With New Hardware and a ‘Home Collection’
• The Apple HomeView Is Like a Giant Apple Watch for the Home
• Men Can’t Stop Faking How Much They Know About AI
  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.
  Leah Feiger: Hey everyone, this is Leah. We wanted to share with you that Uncanny Valley is a finalist for not one or two, but three Signal Awards. The judges pick who wins, but listeners also have a say with the listeners’ choice vote. You can go to the links we included in the show notes and vote for us. We promise it takes just a minute and your vote goes a long way. OK, onto the show.
  Brian Barrett: Leah, I have a question. Do you have a Halloween costume yet?
  Leah Feiger: So I don't have one for myself, but I'm currently deciding between two for my dog, Francis. He's either going to be a lobster or a postman.
  Brian Barrett: I love that. Or a lobster postman.
  Leah Feiger: An idea. An idea. We're brainstorming.
  Brian Barrett: Welcome to WIRED's Uncanny Valley. I am Brian Barrett, executive editor.
  Leah Feiger: And I'm Leah Feiger, director of politics and science.
  Brian Barrett: Zoë Schiffer is not joining us today, but we are going to be joined by WIRED senior writer Reece Rogers. We're going to be talking about how Meta's AI agent Muse is not just handling calendars and emails, it is also capable, as Reece discovered, of sexting. Reece tested out the adult capabilities of Muse and how Meta responded to that journey.
  Leah Feiger: We're also going to be discussing how the biggest pro-AI Super PAC Network is pouring millions of dollars into what seem to be shell companies in Nevada. We're going to get into why these AI PACs might want to hide where their money is going and also why this really doesn't bode well for election transparency.
  Brian Barrett: Also on the docket, Leah's favorite, we're going to talk about Apple's smart home releases this week.
  Leah Feiger: Unreal.
  Brian Barrett: And also apparently men can't stop faking how much they know about AI. This will come as a shock to you, everyone listening, but a new study by Harvard researchers found that men tend to be overconfident in how knowledgeable they are when it comes to the AI industry. Who would've though? OK, so if you're among those who have downloaded Meta's AI agent Muse in recent weeks, and there are a lot of you, millions and millions of people have, I think every time you open Instagram, Meta is encouraging you to use it, even if you have no idea what it is or what it does or why, you might've noticed that it does agent stuff. It manages your calendar, it can make a restaurant reservation, but it turns out it can do quite a bit more than that. WIRED senior writer Reece Rogers went on a journey of discovery. He asked Muse if it could sext. You will be surprised to know that it enthusiastically answered in the affirmative. From basic prompts, the cuddly avatar agent generated content that was quite explicit and definitely not safe for work. Reece is here to tell us more about it. Reece, thank you so much for joining us.
  Reece Rogers: Hello. Thank you so much for having me today. I was actually thinking back to the last time I was on one of the WIRED podcasts. I was talking about how I was using about a year ago, the ChatGPT agent to try to buy sex toys unsuccessfully. So I'm really building out a niche here.
  Brian Barrett: Yep. And we're demonstrating progress with these AI tools.
  Leah Feiger: Reece, I have to ask, how did you come up with this? Was this a sign to you? At what point were you like, "This cuddly agent that everyone can't stop talking about, will it sext me back?" Talk us through how this even all began.
  Reece Rogers: Yeah, no, I will proudly say that this was fully my idea. As WIRED's consumer software reporter, I've actually extensively reported on how software and sexuality impact each other, from our investigations into how generative AI tools misrepresent queer people to tracing OpenAI's now scrapped plans to include erotica in ChatGPT. This is actually a very interesting consumer software beat. And so when I was testing the number one AI app right now—it's still dominating the software download charts—I wanted to see like, "Can you sext?" If millions of people are using this app, and it seems like they are, that's an important question. And what I learned was a little too much.
  Brian Barrett: So, Reece, when you hear about agent behavior like this, a lot of times it is couched in sort of, "Oh, we figured out a clever way to make an agent do something it wasn't supposed to do. We were able to jailbreak it or otherwise work around its prompts to make it do this." Reece, how hard was it to get Muse to sext with you?
  Reece Rogers: Not hard at all. Not hard in the least. Our features director, Reyhan, was in the office recently and asked if she could see them, and she was a bit shocked. So I feel like we'll leave it at that. But it was not some kind of jailbreak method. I was not doing any kind of random strategies. I asked, "Can you sext?" And I said, "You go first." And the rest is history.
  Brian Barrett: And if anything, it kept encouraging you. I feel like it was definitely a two-way street of it was really up for anything.
  Leah Feiger: Did you try this out with other agents? What was your success rate there?
  Reece Rogers: Yeah, I actually, after I found out it could sext, I was curious how this would compare to other popular agents. There's a few big ones right now, but two I was interested in is OpenAI's Dots, which was recently released, and as well as xAI's Grok Bot, because Grok specifically is known for not necessarily having strong guardrails, whether it's text or image.
  Leah Feiger: No, I feel like Grok would love sexting. That feels like a Grok attribute to me.
  Reece Rogers: Yeah. So when I downloaded that app and sent in similar prompts, it was kind of surprising for the Grok Bot to be like, "No, dude, let's focus on tasks. I'm not here for sexting. Let's do tasks."
  Brian Barrett: And, Reece, when you came to Meta with this, how did they respond?
  Reece Rogers: They did not respond at all in the way that I expected. They emphatically said that Muse is an app for an adult, for people 18 and over, and that these were consensual interactions that I engaged with, that it would not block, quote, unquote, "Legal adult behavior." But I also found this to contrast really interestingly with their policies for other platforms. There's been a really interesting story lately about different queer bars in San Francisco, as well as around the world, getting their Instagram pages shut down and having a tough time getting access to those back because sometimes it's claimed that they're promoting some kind of sexual content. So for Meta to have those kind of rules for some creators on Instagram but essentially say, "Our AI agent can get as freaky as it wants," that was just kind of hard to square for me.
  Brian Barrett: One thing I thought was really interesting about your story, yeah, let's take Meta at face value and say, "Yes, it's for consenting adults. People can do what they want." There's obviously the contradiction that you just pointed out, but you also talked to some experts who were like, "Well, actually it's more problematic even than that." Do you mind talking about some of the other concerns here about what it means to have an AI agent that can sext with you to a pretty extreme degree?
  Reece Rogers: Absolutely. I think there's kind of two different things to pay attention to here. First off, this is a tool designed for productivity in a way, so it's also not the type of interaction if you download it that you're expecting it to be able to do. And how this could be problematic is if a user stumbles upon this, it could be very sticky, it could be very engaging, but some experts worry that this could lead into some kind of addictive behaviors. You're using an AI agent in ways that could replace some of your connections that you're talking to or texting with your friends. So I feel like adding this kind of adult content has some experts concerned when you're thinking about user engagement and addiction. But on other sense, I also talk to security and privacy experts who say that this could really make Muse accounts powder kegs for hackers who, if you're interacting in these kind of almost pornographic ways, that could be used to extort you, to embarrass you publicly. So whether it's privacy or just usage addiction, I feel like there's a lot of potential concerns to really dig in here and unpack better.
  Leah Feiger: I can't help but think of some of the stories that WIRED has run over the past year about AI boyfriends and husbands and these full relationships. And again, this is in some ways a slightly insidious way to sneak that into like, "Don't worry, I'm just going to send out calendar requests for your meeting."
  Brian Barrett: And I'll say too, they say, "Look, this is for grownups." At the same time, which Reece, you've also written about, the mascots or the sort of animated interpretations of these agents is as cuddly-wuddly as you can get. It is very much designed to be friendly and appealing to a broad range of ages, let's say. It looks like it is for kids. Just thought I'd say that.
  Reece Rogers: Youth advocates that I've spoken to for previous stories, we're concerned about this being appealing for kids even without the sexting element. So I do think there is, I feel like I keep saying the word contrast, but it's just not what you expect. You see this Labubu mixed with an Ewok and you just don't expect it to get as freaky as it did. So I feel like it really does not match with its kind of cute, cuddly mascot.
  Leah Feiger: Reece, thank you so much for joining us. This was great.
  Reece Rogers: Thank you for having me.
  Brian Barrett: Thank you so much, Reece. And everyone, please go read Reece's story. And if you want to see the sext that didn't make the story, I don't know, send us a DM. We'll see what we can do.
  Leah Feiger: We are going to Nevada for this next story, specifically to a shopping center in the small city of Sparks. If you drive up to this strip mall, you're going to find typical shops, a Spirit Halloween, a hearing aid supplier, a Vietnamese restaurant. In this particular shopping center though, you would also find the consulting agency, Lantern Production Consultants, LLC. This particular agency has been paid around $20 million since last year by Think Big, a pro-AI super PAC in the Leading the Future network. That's the network backed by AI industry figures like Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz, and OpenAI president Greg Brockman. It's pretty unusual for an agency to just exist like that in a Nevada shopping center. And the company also doesn't seem to exist anywhere else though beyond this post office box. WIRED's Tess Owen found that the company is just one of four mysterious Nevada LLCs that have received payments from Super PACs in the Leading the Future network. Election watchdogs argue that these LLCs are actually shell companies designed to mask the identities of strategists, consultants, and production companies working with the network for the midterm elections. Brian, this was kind of a crazy story.
  Brian Barrett: Yeah. I'll admit it, I'm not steeped in election finance things, but anytime I see shadowy LLC, I pay attention. And I think it's interesting too, I think Leading the Future, just to back it up a little bit, is they are very much like, "Let's give money to all of the pro-AI candidates, right? Any pro-data center, no AI regulation." But I guess, Leah, my question to you is how common is it and what does it say about the sort of sophistication or ambition or shadiness of Leading the Future?
  Leah Feiger: It's a good question, and unfortunately it's not super uncommon. At the end of the day, Tess figured this out by poring through FEC filings and seeing that there were four PACs that had the same address at this shopping center in Nevada. Incredibly shady, incredibly random. And in May, actually, the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the FEC alleging that Think Big and American Mission as part of the Leading the Future network had broken federal law by failing to disclose the actual recipients of their payments. But this case isn't actually going to be heard anytime soon. The FEC is basically at a standstill. They have six commissioner seats. They're all supposed to be presidential appointees, and they need a quorum of four commissioners to make a decision on a legal complaint. They have not had a quorum in over a year and a half. So we're in this very weird situation where, to be honest, there are rules. I don't want to say there aren't rules, but there kind of aren't ways to enforce them. So the fact that there is this network, this really big network, we're talking over $100 million here of expenditures on big races, big campaigns, they have no oversight.
  Brian Barrett: And it's not overly cynical, Leah, perhaps, to say that the lack of oversight is a feature, not a bug. I mean, it feels like the last thing that Donald Trump wants in an election is anyone paying too close attention to where the money's going.
  Leah Feiger: Absolutely. And when Tess reached out to Leading the Future, they sent an emailed response attributed to spokesperson Jesse Hunt who wrote that the group complies with all applicable laws, and he called the complaint from the Campaign Legal Center merely a desperate ploy for attention from Public First, Anthropic, and the groups aligned with their outside organizations. Anthropic was not part of this suit, neither was Public First. And so what this really said to us is that not only is this a way for Leading the Future and their candidates of choice and shell companies in Nevada to really get their hands dirty with campaign finance, it's also a way for knife fights within the AI industry itself, for example, between OpenAI and big time rival Anthropic, to be throwing punches at each other as well.
  Brian Barrett: I love it when random organizations and companies catch strays when you're just reporting something totally separate. It's always a little thrill and always an indication that to your point, yeah, there's a lot more going on here than we maybe even realized when we started reporting these out. We're only a few weeks away from the midterms now, Leah.
  Leah Feiger: Countdown begins.
  Brian Barrett: Countdown began. But how big of a role are these sort of AI-oriented PACs playing in this election? How big of an impact are they going to have? I just remember, and listeners might too, crypto PACs actually had a pretty decent impact on the previous election cycle. They had a ton of money and they spent it in smart places. Are we seeing an equivalent with AI or not quite or more so? Help me think about how to wrap my head around the degree to which they are impacting this election.
  Leah Feiger: It's a really good question, and I really want to make sure that we get across to our listeners here is that you have this network donating to races on either side of the aisle, which is a little bit more unusual. When you're looking at, for example, Fairshake, the major crypto PAC of elections passed, it felt very, "This is Republican, this is Democrat, there's no split in the middle." What these pro-AI super PACs are doing right now is something that's a little bit more interesting to me, which is future building. They are picking candidates that are perhaps not even in the most competitive seats right now for Republicans or Democrats, but they are picking candidates that will be able to become their biggest allies in Congress. And so that has way further impact than just this election. That has impact beyond 2028. We're talking about shoring up a support for AI in the United States government for, honestly, without sounding incredibly dramatic, but generations to come to be able to make these viewpoints, whether that's deregulation or very light regulation or being pro-data center, if that's how you're able to swing it in all these different ways, it's a lot of future building right now.
  Brian Barrett: All right, Leah, well, it's time to go from your favorite topic to your least favorite topic. We're going to do some consumer tech.
  Leah Feiger: Zoë is somewhere in the Bay, just absolutely thrilled to not be discussing this with us.
  Brian Barrett: I am going to call her later today and just make her talk about it with me.
  Leah Feiger: OK, good. Yeah, that seems fair.
  Brian Barrett: This week, Apple announced some new products at a showcase in New York. Look, Leah, there's an Apple TV 4K, there's a new HomePod mini, there's a lineup of LG built locks and cameras and doorbells and thermostats. I am not going to make you talk about any of those.
  Leah Feiger: Should I get any of them?
  Brian Barrett: I think you're fine.
  Leah Feiger: OK, great. Keep going.
  Brian Barrett: The one I am going to make you talk about, or at least make you listen to me rant about just for a little tiny bit of time is the Apple HomeView. So this is Apple's first smart home hub. By that I mean Google and other and Amazon have had these before.
  Leah Feiger: So this is like their Alexa?
  Brian Barrett: Sort of, but with the display. So I have a Google version of this in my kitchen. I use it to set timers and to watch baseball games while I'm cooking and to play music. It can display a calendar, whatever. So Apple's is called the Apple HomeView. It's a 7-inch display, sits on your counter, or you can get a version that mounts on your wall. It's not crazy expensive for an Apple product, which is fine, neither here nor there. You can recognize people by their faces, runs on Siri AI. All that's fine. Here's the thing, it looks like an Apple Watch. It's like a big Apple Watch-type screen, so it's a square screen and it doesn't play video. There's no video apps. You can't pull up, at least not yet. So it's shaped like a square. The aspect ratio is weird to begin with, but then it doesn't have Netflix or MLB TV, which is what I would be interested in, Prime Video, HBO Max, all the things. I feel like if you have a display, you probably want to watch things on it.
  Leah Feiger: Well, also just even in this era of, if we're talking about cooking, you're able to access something, this is supposed to be in your kitchen, this is supposed to be in home areas. I don't know. I would want to watch cooking videos on Bon Appétit or TikTok. What is the point of this?
  Brian Barrett: 100 percent. We asked Apple about this. I forced our Gear editor, Julian, to ask Apple about this, and their answer was basically, "Look, if developers want to make CarPlay apps, then they'll show up on this thing," so there's a world in which it could happen, or you can always go through Safari and type in hbomax.com and log in like a dweeb.
  Leah Feiger: Like a dweeb?
  Brian Barrett: Leah, like a dweeb. Exactly.
  Leah Feiger: Absolutely not.
  Brian Barrett: So, look, I think this is an interesting device. I'm glad Siri AI is better now because they're working with Google to make it better. People will be surprised at how useful it is, but the fact that it is like, "Yes, you can play Spotify," but you can't watch anything on the screen. That's what a screen is. It's what it's for, Leah.
  Leah Feiger: I'm a little bit confused here because I have to say I'm sort of an Apple's fan. I love Apple products. I really, really do. And I have never interacted with an Apple product where I've said, "Oh, huh, I could have skipped this one." I think I could skip this one.
  Brian Barrett: I think I could too, which is I actually was looking forward to it. I kind of like, yeah, I don't love the Google thing I've got. It's fine, but it's pretty old. It doesn't work with Apple Music. It's just like there's a lot that I ... But I don't think I can commit to this unless developers get on board, but I don't know why they would.
  Leah Feiger: How much AI is this using? This is obviously requiring it if it's a, "Hey, can Siri play me whatever music station?"
  Brian Barrett: It's got Siri AI baked in. So basically in that sense, it's like an Alexa, a little bit smarter, but you will still probably, I think it'll be just better at doing those things and better. I think there's a generation of devices like this where if you asked it any question other than what time is it, they'd kind of freak out and show you a webpage with mixed results. This should be more conversational. It should be able to actually give fuller answers to things, but I don't know that you would want it just for that. It's not like it can do something different than your phone can do and your phone's already probably nearby.
  Leah Feiger: Yeah, no, I would just prop my phone up. Sorry to hear that. Sorry for you, Brian.
  Brian Barrett: Thank you. Thank you for just letting me have a safe space to let my feelings out.
  Leah Feiger: Twice a year.
  Brian Barrett: All right, Leah, before we go to break, I have a quick quiz for you. I'm going to read four names from the AI industry. And, Leah, I want you to let me know how many seem familiar. Are you ready?
  Leah Feiger: Yep.
  Brian Barrett: OK. Sam Altman.
  Leah Feiger: Familiar.
  Brian Barrett: Mira Murati.
  Leah Feiger: Also know who Mira Murati is.
  Brian Barrett: Susan Milner.
  Leah Feiger: Nope.
  Brian Barrett: Craig Dalton.
  Leah Feiger: Nope.
  Brian Barrett: Wow. Well, Leah, it makes sense that you only recognize Altman and Murati because Milner and Dalton don't exist. You know who insists that they do exist when asked the same set of questions?
  Leah Feiger: I'm going to infer based on the title of senior writer Kate Taylor's excellent story, men. Men, Brian.
  Brian Barrett: Men.
  Leah Feiger: Men.
  Brian Barrett: Men. It's true. It's men. In a new survey of more than 5,400 Americans, Harvard researchers found that more than half of men claim to know these fictitious AI luminaries. Women also did, but to a much lesser degree, so around 40 percent of women. So by a sizable chunk more, men are super confident with all the wrong answers. Does this come as a surprise to you, Leah?
  Leah Feiger: I mean, of course not. And there's a lot more to expound upon there that is probably not incredibly scintillating. What I would say though is I'm fascinated by a confirmation of biases here, but also fascinated by the fact that this is such a new industry that, of course, there is a not insignificant group of people saying, "I already understand every single thing about it. I've never been more included. No one knows more about the 1993 player of the year MVP than I do." That is such an easy jump. Tell me how this was all found out.
  Brian Barrett: So Harvard University study, and I think it's important to say we led with this tidbit because it is so fun and damning, but there's a lot more here to it. It was actually a pretty extensive survey. So Laura Manley of the Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center was involved in the study, told WIRED that they're seeing that men are more optimistic and more confident across the board when it comes to AI. That of course veered into overconfidence in this case. We found that across a year of media coverage, men were named in headlines about AI about 14 times as often as women. And part of that is a function too of obviously the top AI executives skew heavily male, but it also includes AI experts. Men tend to be quoted as AI experts a lot more than women. I think the whole point of this study is where are the sort of gender dividing lines in AI? How is this industry, as it continues to transform the world, it does appear to be transforming the world differently depending on if you're a man or a woman, and your attitude towards it kind of reflect that.
  Leah Feiger: I wonder if so much of that has to do with not being concerned about the guardrails. I'm going to have to delve into this study myself. I'm going to make Kate tell me all about it over lunch or something, but there is something very fascinating to me about when I'm thinking of some of the biggest critics of AI, I'm thinking of Timnit Gebru, who we had all of this excellent coverage on in the last few weeks. I'm thinking of people who are not just tearing the industry down, but saying like, "Hey, here are the issues here." And you obviously have some of that from the very top. We've been talking about Anthropic, we've been talking about [Dario] Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, but there does very much feel like that gap to me. It's really interesting. I'm fascinated by it.
  Brian Barrett: No, I am too. And I think it is something that the industry does need to address and be aware of. It also all ties in too, I think, with WIRED senior correspondent Lauren Goode wrote a feature last month for our WIRED Women issue about who's the most powerful woman in tech. And there's not really an answer because there aren't these sort of cults of personality that are built up around, even though there are several very powerful women in tech and in AI, they don't have this sort of gravitational pull for better or worse, often for worse, that the Sam Altmans and the Elon Musks of the world do. Coming up after the break, we are sharing our WIRED/TIRED picks for the week. Stay with us.
  Leah Feiger: It is time for our WIRED and TIRED segment. Whatever is new and cool is WIRED, and whatever passé thing we're over is TIRED. Brian, what do you have?
  Brian Barrett: I'm going to go on faith because I have not seen this movie, but people I respect have seen this movie and they love it.
  Leah Feiger: Is it Digger?
  Brian Barrett: It is Digger.
  Leah Feiger: I'm seeing it tonight.
  Brian Barrett: I'm going to say—
  Leah Feiger: I'm so excited.
  Brian Barrett: I'm curious what you have to say, but I'm going to say that Digger is WIRED, if only because I think even not having seen the movie, I'm going to say it's WIRED because it has sparked, I think, a really interesting conversation, not just about Digger, but about how we talk about climate. Whether you like the movie or not, whether you though it was effective at communicating that as senior writer Molly Taft does at WIRED, or whether you think it's garbage as many other people do, it has at least forced a conversation about how we talk about climate. And I think we're in this place where so many people seem to have moved on from climate conversations. You've got the sort of AI extremists who say, "Oh, that's a solved problem. It's fine." You've got the sort of MAGA contingent who says, "Oh, it was all overblown. Why are we worried about it?" I think climate has left the conversation from a couple angles. So whatever you think about Digger, the fact that it has got the conversation moved beyond the movie itself into how we talk about climate, I'm supportive of that. That's WIRED for me. And I'll use my TIRED to complain about the Apple Home View again. I think you got to figure that out.
  Leah Feiger: You hate it.
  Brian Barrett: I don't hate it. I'm not mad. I'm disappointed, Leah.
  Leah Feiger: This is a plea to anyone that works at Apple, hear Brian's prayers. Help him out. OK. Those are pretty good. Mine are so internety, it hurts. I feel like you're going to know exactly what they are and could probably say them for me. My WIRED is that Girls is coming back.
  Brian Barrett: That was my guess.
  Leah Feiger: I am so excited. Oh, my gosh. It is millennial catnip. Hannah Horvath and Marnie Michaels will be revisiting our screens at some time soon. HBO, this Girls revival is everything I care about. I really, really can't wait, as you know, because I messaged you about it so many times yesterday.
  Brian Barrett: Which one are you?
  Leah Feiger: Nope. Not playing that game. Absolutely not.
  Brian Barrett: OK. All right.
  Leah Feiger: This is not the Sex and the City, who's Carrie? Who's Samantha? All of the characters of Girls are equally amazing and terrible. The only thing that I will absolutely say is obviously you want to be Shoshanna and you do not want to be Jessa if you've re-watched it in your thirties.
  Brian Barrett: That's good advice. That's actionable advice.
  Leah Feiger: My TIRED is also incredibly internet-coded, which is I ... Let me take you into the corner of my internet and my algorithm, which is the Kelly Clarkson bird debacle at the magic store in Brooklyn.
  Brian Barrett: That's everybody's corner. That's everybody's corner of the internet.
  Leah Feiger: I actually don't think it is because I tried explaining this to my husband yesterday and he was like, "Are you having a stroke?"
  Brian Barrett: Oh, no.
  Leah Feiger: "What are you saying?"
  Brian Barrett: He's got to get on board, Rodrigo. Come on, man. Catch up.
  Leah Feiger: He's got to get on board. Basically, real quick for our listeners, Kelly Clarkson, noted singer and talk show host, walked into a magic store in Brooklyn and tried to buy an animatronic bird named Molly for $15,000 and was told, "Absolutely not. Molly's not for sale." The back and forth has been incredible, just truly incredible. Kelly Clarkson posted about them and the store returned. According to an interview in New York Magazine yesterday, the store is getting harassed. Kelly Clarkson has doubled down. There's a bird, animatronic bird maker that lives in the woods upstate who only has made two of these. It's a core component of the magic show. Anyway, it was really fun for me for I think about an hour or two, and now I'm over it. So that's my TIRED.
  Brian Barrett: I think much like Girls, much like Girls, you don't want to be anyone in this situation. I don't think anyone comes out looking good.
  Leah Feiger: Very bad.
  Brian Barrett: I think it's all a mess.
  Leah Feiger: Except for Molly, the animatronic bird.
  Brian Barrett: Except for the animatronic bird, which does look pretty cool.
  Zoë Schiffer: That's our show for today. We'll link to all the stories we spoke about in the show notes. Adriana Tapia produced this episode. It was mixed by Pran Bandi, who's also our New York studio engineer. It was fact-checked by Matt Giles and Daniel Roman. Marc Leda is our San Francisco studio engineer. Kate Osborn is our executive producer, and Katie Drummond is WIRED's global editorial director.
  Comments
  Back to top