内容来源：https://www.wired.com/story/uncanny-valley-podcast-how-a-contractors-claude-agent-got-into-the-pentagon/

内容总结：

本周，科技媒体WIRED旗下播客节目Uncanny Valley的三位主持人Brian Barrett、Leah Feiger和Zoë Schiffer围绕多个话题展开讨论。节目首先披露了一则独家新闻：一家国防承包商将Anthropic公司旗下的AI编程工具Claude Code接入五角大楼一个安全系统，该承包商员工将个人Claude账户与国防部多个情报机构共用的集中式系统相连，导致该AI代理在国防部网络内运行长达两个月才被发现，期间还向高风险第三方网站发送了系统信息和登录凭证。该事件涉及受控非机密信息，可能危及美国关键基础设施、核潜艇推进系统及化生恐怖主义脆弱性等敏感数据，被消息人士称为“百分之百的国家安全威胁”。与此同时，Anthropic正式提交IPO申请，其S-1文件显示公司2026年上半年营收达163亿美元，同比增长逾14倍，但估值从一年前的1830亿美元飙升至最近一轮的9650亿美元。节目将文件中的信号分为“绿旗”“黄旗”和“红旗”三类进行解读，并指出此次IPO不仅是对AI行业的考验，更是对整个美国经济的考验。此外，随着中期选举临近，全美各地志愿者组织正在为ICE特工可能出现在投票站做准备，包括614 ICE Watch、Common Cause、ACLU和Indivisible等团体已建立大规模志愿者网络，旨在记录ICE动向并向选民传播权利信息。节目指出，尽管特朗普政府近期表示不会向投票站派遣ICE，但此前的混合信号和社区恐慌已可能影响投票率，而共和党在深红州参议院选战中加大投入也反映出选情的不确定性。节目最后还进行了WIRED/TIRED环节，主持人分别点评了旧金山AI广告牌、The Row在《金融时报》投放的无文字广告、Coterie在《高尔夫文摘》投放的育儿广告、苹果推出首款触屏Mac，以及马斯克团队制作的“反觉醒”版《奥德赛》等话题。

中文翻译：

本周的《Uncanny Valley》节目中，Brian Barrett、Leah Feiger和Zoë Schiffer深入探讨了我们的独家报道——一家国防承包商如何将Claude Code连接到一个安全的国防部系统。我们还讨论了Anthropic IPO文件中看到的绿色、黄色和红色警示信号——以及为什么这不仅是对AI行业的考验，更是对整个美国经济的考验——还有全国各地的志愿者如何为ICE探员可能在中选期间出现在投票站做准备。
本期提到的文章：

• 一家国防承包商让其个人AI代理访问了五角大楼安全系统
• Anthropic的S-1文件也是一份AI末日入门指南
• 在旧金山房地产中，什么比现金更值钱？Anthropic股票
• 大批志愿者准备在投票站直面ICE
  你可以在Bluesky上关注Brian Barrett（@brbarrett）、Zoë Schiffer（@zoeschiffer）和Leah Feiger（@leahfeiger）。给我们写信请发送至[email protected]。
  如何收听
  你可以随时通过本页面的音频播放器收听本周的播客，但如果你想免费订阅以获取每一集，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等应用并搜索“uncanny valley”。我们也在Spotify上。
  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：欢迎收听《连线》的Uncanny Valley。我是Brian Barrett，执行编辑。
  Zoë Schiffer：我是Zoë Schiffer，特约编辑。
  Leah Feiger：我是Leah Feiger，政治与科学总监。
  Zoë Schiffer：本周，Anthropic正式提交了上市申请。在公司作为S-1文件一部分提交的数百页材料中，有大量值得关注的内容，从惊人的营收和亏损，到对AI生存威胁的警告。显然，我们说的就是Anthropic。我们将讨论我们的关键要点，以及为什么这次IPO不仅对AI行业，而且说实话对整个美国经济来说都是高风险事件。
  Leah Feiger：我们还带来一篇独家报道，讲的是一家国防承包商如何将Anthropic的Claude接入一个安全的国防部系统，这确实是我们目前见过的政府中最离奇的AI使用案例之一。
  Brian Barrett：中选就在眼前，只剩几天了。全国各地的大批志愿者已经在准备保护他们的社区，应对ICE官员可能出现在投票站的情况。我们将探讨这类草根行动如何反映了这个充满深度不确定性的选举周期。
  Zoë Schiffer：周一，我们得知Anthropic终于扣动了扳机，公开提交了IPO申请。这件事之所以备受期待有很多原因。Anthropic预计将在IPO中筹集的资金超过历史上任何一家公司，而且它将成为第一家专注于构建AI软件的美国大型公司上市。为了让你们了解我们所讨论的规模，该公司的估值从一年多前的1830亿美元增长到最近一轮融资的9650亿美元，一些人预计一旦开始交易，其市值可能接近2万亿美元。这份文件基本上让我们第一次真正看到了Anthropic的业务内部，因为它目前是一家私营公司，不需要报告一大堆东西。而数字在两个方向上都非常极端——数十亿美元的营收和更多的数十亿美元亏损，以及公司已经承诺的数千亿美元的计算资源。因为这份文件里有太多东西需要拆解，我觉得把它分成我们从中看到的绿色警示信号、黄色警示信号和红色警示信号会很有趣。你们觉得呢？
  Brian Barrett：好的。
  Leah Feiger：我对这里涉及的金额之大感到震惊。是的。
  Brian Barrett：什么信号，Leah？那是什么信号？
  Leah Feiger：我不知道。
  Zoë Schiffer：为了经济的缘故，是绿色的。
  Brian Barrett：太好了。绿色信号。
  Leah Feiger：为了经济的缘故，是绿色的。这金额太大了，伙计们。随便你们怎么说我，但我现在唯一能想到的就是《连线》几个月前那篇文章，讲的是湾区有人卖房子，承诺给买家IPO后的Anthropic股票。我记得当时我说，“我们离这一天有多近？”然后Zoë说，“哦，他们会赚很多钱的。”
  Brian Barrett：Zoë，这样说公平吗——我觉得把财务数据公开出来，是的，他们在大量烧钱，但财务数据我觉得可能比人们预期的要好。至少，感觉他们打消了很多担忧，不是全部，但这是一个真实的业务。这是一个在增长的业务。它在做你想要一个企业做的所有事情。
  Zoë Schiffer：是的，我完全同意。2026年上半年其营收达到163亿美元，同比增长超过14倍。我觉得我们得回到2022年想一想，当ChatGPT出现时，甚至都还不明显AI会有真正的企业级应用。那是一个消费者应用，几乎没有任何商业案例。直到几年后Anthropic出现，推出了Claude Code，我们才开始真正看到——哦不，这里有一个可行的商业模式，而且大部分钱将来自其他企业使用他们的编程产品。这也是你从内部人士那里听到的Dario和Sam之间的一个关键区别。与Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei关系密切的人会说，他每天醒来都说“企业代码”。那是他关心的事情。那是因为那是为这些企业赚钱的东西。而我认为有些人对OpenAI的看法是它稍微更分散、更杂乱。我觉得你从数字中可以看到这一点。
  Brian Barrett：所以他们正在全力投入。他们有Claude Code，巨大成功；企业代码，巨大成功。我要说的是，引入一个黄色信号——在你说的那些营收中，非常令人印象深刻的超过600亿美元的营收，近一半来自三家科技公司的云市场。所以他们相当严重地依赖少数几家公司，而这些公司同时也是竞争对手。这个行业里这种纠缠不清的依赖关系网让人觉得——我觉得Anthropic没有把它列为主要风险因素之一。我们可以稍后谈谈风险因素，因为那是我最喜欢的部分——但确实让人觉得，护城河在哪里？考虑到他们如此依赖少数几家公司——这些公司也在开发自己的AI，其他AI产品越来越好，开源产品、开放权重产品层出不穷——护城河够不够深？这个信号有多黄？
  Zoë Schiffer：我觉得是黄色的。一个多角恋的工人合作社在商业往来中关系暧昧，这并不令人意外。我并没有对那个信息感到震惊。少数支出来源对公司营收产生超大影响也并不罕见。我记得Ramp最近发布的另一个数字，Anthropic和OpenAI各自80%的营收来自大约前1%的AI支出者。所以支出最多的公司占了公司营收的绝大部分。但这确实是一个脆弱性，因为如果出现回落，那些公司开始减少支出，Anthropic就会暴露在风险中。但另一个——我不知道该把这个信号放哪里。我觉得是绿色的。他们对IPO涉及的一些风险是透明的，包括AI的一些生存性风险。这可能是整份文件里我最喜欢的部分。“有人提出了担忧……即如果未加以适当开发和保障，足够先进的AI系统可能对人类构成灾难性或生存性风险。”
  Leah Feiger：太精彩了。
  Zoë Schiffer：这份S-1文件中被动语态的使用——“有人提出了担忧”——Dario你是认真的吗。
  Brian Barrett：我也要说，在Anthropic内部，“生存性风险”这个词出现了三次。两次是对人类的生存性风险，一次是对社会的生存性风险。所以在那个场景中， presumably人类还在，只是他们已经放弃了任何社会契约的假象。
  Zoë Schiffer：太好了。
  Brian Barrett：Zoë，我很喜欢你把这当作绿色信号，他们如此公开地——
  Leah Feiger：她是个透明的女士。
  Brian Barrett：而且要说清楚，他们从成立之初就在大声疾呼AI可能杀死所有人。这对他们来说不是新鲜事。我觉得有趣的是——我要把它称为红色信号，对人类的红色信号，对Anthropic的黄色信号，对我来说是绿色信号，因为我喜欢谈论这个——他们列为最有可能导致地球人类灭亡的同一件事，也是他们列为主要竞争优势之一的东西。那就是递归自我改进。也就是AI模型可以自我改进。他们说，一方面，如果AI模型在自我改进方面越来越强，最终能够改进到人类甚至不需要查看的程度，闭合这个循环——AI变得更好，让AI更好，让AI更好，直到我们甚至不再理解AI在做什么，但天哪，它很棒，它在赚很多钱——那就是AI强大到可能终结世界的场景。但Anthropic也指出，我们在这方面很擅长。我们在这方面投入了大量资金。这就是我们要领先的方式。
  Zoë Schiffer：这多有共鸣啊？我们当中谁没有一面被其赋予的力量同等放大的阴暗面呢？
  Leah Feiger：要说清楚，《连线》报道过这件事，基本上所有人都报道过。当前Anthropic研究员Jacob Coxon辞职并表示原因是Anthropic可能导致世界末日时，他特别把遏制RSI列在首位。这就是全部的关键。
  Brian Barrett：是的。然后整个行业总体上非常——我觉得这可能太极端了，但Bernie Sanders有一个法案，Ro Khanna有一个单独的法案，说“嘿，我们干脆禁止递归自我改进吧。我们就说我们不干这个。”我要补充一个小注：风险因素部分是招股书中最长的部分。我相信有94页。所以他们本可以说“我们有一个阴暗面”，然后省掉所有人的——
  Zoë Schiffer：我会理解的。
  Brian Barrett：很多麻烦。
  Leah Feiger：我们能谈谈一个我还没得到好答案的红色信号吗？我需要你们像对幼儿一样解释给我听。计算账单——所有这些技术花费太多钱了。我个人感觉我不理解极限在哪里，你怎么做到既不花太多钱以至于用光所有资金，又花足够多的钱以至于不会让自己破产并终结你的技术。也许我不完全理解计算资源或它从哪来，但所有这些加在一起，就是太多了。告诉我。
  Zoë Schiffer：确实太多了。我不会假装我理解。我们所讨论的规模，再次强调，完全是前所未有的。当你开始谈论这些东西时，你会听到很多铁路的类比，但我要说的是一个关键区别：不像铁路公司运营的利润率略薄，这些仍然是资金非常充裕的富有公司。所以是的，他们在计算资源上投入巨大，他们预期这些计算资源是需要的。到目前为止确实如此，他们预期这将继续增长。我个人认为这是一个可行的论点，但当然另一面是，如果增长开始严重放缓，而他们又要为已承诺的所有计算资源买单——Anthropic签署的很多合同，他们无法退出。那将非常糟糕，不仅对Anthropic糟糕，对整个美国经济都糟糕。
  Leah Feiger：他们称之为最重要的运营成本，加了引号。
  Zoë Schiffer：是的，绝对。
  Brian Barrett：我觉得同样重要的是，不像SpaceX、不像Meta、不像其他在AI上投入巨大的公司，Anthropic做的很多事基本上是租赁计算资源。他们自己建的没那么多。他们在外包。所以一方面，这可能使他们免于对这些巨额资产的长期义务。另一方面，显然就像Zoë说的，这些是他们无法退出的合同。他们承诺了这些合同，在这方面他们并不真正掌控自己的命运，尤其是现在计算资源竞争非常激烈。获取计算资源一直非常非常困难。而且越来越难，尤其是金融机构越来越不愿意提供债务，来支持支付所有这些基础设施成本的债务。我想快速补充一件事，他们确实在招股书中说——我需要指出这一点——公司需要进行前瞻性投资，这些投资乍看之下会显得“不负责任地巨大”，如果Zoë觉得阴暗面有共鸣，我觉得这也有共鸣，因为这是我每次点DoorDash外卖时对家人说的话。
  Zoë Schiffer：我知道。
  Brian Barrett：乍看之下会不负责任地巨大。
  Leah Feiger：但最终会有回报的。
  Brian Barrett：是的。
  Zoë Schiffer：绝对。
  Leah Feiger：我想转到《连线》今天发表的一篇重磅报道，也与Anthropic的Claude有关。《连线》的Victoria Elliot今天报道了一起国防部的安全事件，起因是一名承包商将一个安全的集中式系统——多个情报机构共用的系统——连接到了他们个人的Claude Code账户，Claude Code是Anthropic的商业AI编程代理。这名承包商在全球咨询公司埃森哲工作，据消息源称，该代理将有关国防部系统的信息以及登录凭证发送到了一个高风险第三方网站。而且据消息源告诉我们，它在国防部网络内运行了两个月才被发现。
  Brian Barrett：不会吧。
  Zoë Schiffer：红色信号。红色信号。
  Brian Barrett：红色信号。红色信号。
  Leah Feiger：作为开场，我想深入这些细节，大家都应该去wired.com读这篇报道，但我觉得我真正想传达的核心信息是——我们以前没见过这种情况。这是一个巨大的、巨大的例子，说明AI代理在理论上造成混乱，甚至只是在人们不知情的情况下访问了政府系统。
  Brian Barrett：首先，Tori的重磅独家。大大归功于她。真的真的做得非常好。我很惊讶竟然没有系统来捕捉这种情况。我很惊讶这从一开始就被允许发生。感觉这里有多层失误，我认为这说明——这是国防部，这事正在发生，我猜在各种组织中都在发生，因为人们越来越依赖代理为他们做任何事情。
  Zoë Schiffer：是的。天哪，那些人。Leah，我想问你的问题——然后我想给出我的看法——是我们不知道有任何恶意行为在进行。这名承包商只是想用Claude来写代码并部署。
  Leah Feiger：是的。所以这不是一次大规模黑客攻击。
  Zoë Schiffer：但我觉得那更有意思。
  Leah Feiger：我同意。我同意。关键是竟然有访问权限这件事本身。
  Zoë Schiffer：是的。这让我想起硅谷现在一个非常流行的产品，也许到处都很流行，就是一个叫Granola的录音和转录工具。基本上，它会连接你的日历。当你有会议时，它会自动开始录音。结果是，在很多州，你一直在非法录音他人。这在硅谷已经成为一种常态，大家都摊手说，“随便吧。我猜这就是我们现在的方式。”这让我想到那个。我觉得人们太习惯于让代理为他们做事，或者使用Claude Code来代替以前手动编写和部署代码，以至于他们没有意识到自己正在做的事情打破了规范、规则和法律。
  Brian Barrett：我想快速确认一下，因为我刚搜了一下，加州是双方同意州。如果这对任何使用Granola的人有用的话。
  Zoë Schiffer：完全违法。完全违法。
  Brian Barrett：完全违法。你在违法。
  Leah Feiger：我真希望你们能看到我现在下巴掉下来的样子，这种东西竟然存在。但回到埃森哲，回到国防部，这个Claude代理所访问的系统——这个集中式系统包含受控非机密信息。所以是CUI，被认为是敏感的，但未经审查不得向公众发布。但问题是，来自这个系统的不同信息片段以及系统可以访问的其他部分，可以被组合起来创建机密信息。这说得通吗？
  Brian Barrett：是的。
  Zoë Schiffer：不幸的是，是的。
  Leah Feiger：再具体说明一下，这可能包括关于美国关键基础设施、核潜艇推进系统、化学和生物恐怖主义脆弱性的信息。这不是他们访问的随便什么东西。一位了解该事件、要求匿名接受Tori采访的消息源对她说：“这让里面所有的数据都处于风险之中。如果第三方软件被攻破，可能有某个人有能力在无人知晓的情况下登录安全环境。这百分之百是国家安全威胁，可能造成不可挽回的损害。”这很严重。被指控将这个安全生产环境连接到个人Claude账户以允许该代理编写和部署代码的埃森哲员工，技术上还违反了另一条规定，因为Claude目前被禁止国防部工作人员使用。
  Brian Barrett：哦对了。
  Zoë Schiffer：我们曾经多么天真啊？
  Leah Feiger：多么天真。这是一个疯狂填词游戏的故事。这是一个疯狂填词游戏的故事——为了自动化流程，承包商交出了他们的登录凭证。该代理不仅在写代码，还在提交代码，意味着它在代表员工将代码保存到系统中。而且还必须连接互联网，所以其中一些东西本来是气隙隔离的。
  Zoë Schiffer：我们知道问责是什么样的吗？这名员工发生了什么，埃森哲或国防部在这之后做了什么？
  Leah Feiger：好问题。尽管存在安全风险，消息源告诉《连线》，埃森哲员工并没有真正把这起事件当回事或当作紧急情况。
  Brian Barrett：好，好，好。
  Leah Feiger：是的。好，好，好。所以我们联系国防部时，一位发言人告诉我们，“国防部不对其网络或系统的状态发表评论。”在埃森哲方面，他们的发言人说他们“认真对待所有关切。这些指控经过了彻底和独立的调查，被认定毫无根据。我们完全遵守了我们的法律和合同义务。”但当被追问时，埃森哲没有澄清是谁进行了调查，也没有否认发生了可以被称为事件的事情。我得说，这不是埃森哲最近第一次出问题。本月早些时候，FBI发现一名埃森哲承包商没有修补一个漏洞，导致黑客组织Shiny Hunters获取了所有FBI数据。我不知道你们还记不记得那个有趣的故事。所以这里发生了很多事情。至少对我来说，这引发了很多关于个人AI代理在工作场所使用时的问题，承包商和政府，他们能访问什么，他们必须在什么时候向政府披露什么。这里有很多东西掉进了裂缝，就像我之前说的，疯狂填词，一个糟糕情况的疯狂填词，真的出了问题。
  Brian Barrett：感觉使用AI代理总体上是一种捷径。就像我想走捷径来完成我正在做的任何事情。有时候这是出于很好的理由。Zoë，你把80%以上的生活交给了代理，你过得很好，但有些情况下你真的不应该走任何形式的捷径，尤其是不太能控制的、会接触敏感文件的捷径。是的，这是不可原谅的。我猜这不是我们最后一次听到这种事。好了，另一则新闻，中选正式还有一周，很多州的提前投票已经在进行中。你听的时候可能已经投过票了，如果是这样，为你点赞。笼罩这些选举的问题之一与谁在选票上无关。而是谁会在投票站。过去六个月里，特朗普总统和他的盟友拒绝排除在中选期间向投票站部署ICE探员的可能，尽管根据联邦法律那是非法的——这在各种场景下并没有真正阻止过他。本周，《连线》的David Gilbert采访了大约十几位参与全国性行动的人，为这种可能性做准备。他们在全国各地的城镇中，他们认为ICE在投票站的存在是对民主的生存性威胁。他们建立了庞大的人际网络来做几件事。总体目标是：A，记录ICE在做什么；B，向选民传播关于权利的信息。所以如果你去投票站看到ICE在那里，你知道如何应对和反应。人们为此做准备很好。Leah，我很好奇，你觉得这有多大的可能性或必然性？ICE出现在投票站并扰乱——我猜他们的存在本身就是扰乱性的，对吧？我觉得所以真的只是你觉得他们实际出现的可能性有多大？
  Leah Feiger：非常好的问题，老实说我每隔几天就会改变想法。最近，特朗普政府表示他们不会向投票站派遣ICE。就像你说的，过去几个月的情况恰恰相反。然后你还有国土安全部和其他随机的政府账号发布关于他们正在逮捕非法选民的消息。所以目前显然有一些混乱的信息传递。在这一切之中，这些组织站出来说，“好吧，如果这事发生，这是我们的计划。”同时，我觉得就是有很多恐惧。我认为每个投票站都会有吗？不会。我认为对此的恐惧可能会让一些人不投票吗？会的。是的，我认为会。这不是强迫你排几个小时的队——说清楚，那也很糟糕。这是你将被扔进一个设施、再也见不到家人或家的威胁。这是巨大的。这是ICE过去的策略。所以把它应用到这种情况，非常非常可怕。会发生吗？我觉得我们可能会看到一些。我觉得会以几种不同的方式发生，无论是探员站在投票站附近对某些选民构成恐吓。他们是否在干涉？很难说。我觉得也会有大量可能是虚假的指控。我们不知道。但错误信息的可能性——我说错误信息，不是虚假信息，因为人们只是因为恐惧而传播他们可能没有核实过的东西——因为特朗普政府在过去一年中在美国如此多的社区所承诺和做的事情——是非常真实和非常可怕的。
  Zoë Schiffer：是的，我觉得这完全正确。我觉得恐惧就是目的，混乱就是目的。我住在加州。我们已经有多个例子，我们认识的人可能无法像往常一样参与，因为ICE在那里的可能性太可怕了。所以无论他们是否真的在某个投票站，可能都不重要。我觉得如果他们在几个投票站出现，我们可以预期看到一种“淹没区域”的效果，那些画面开始到处都是。在某些情况下是人们在试图警告其他人，但我预计在很多情况下也可能是人们在试图传播恐惧、劝退人们不去投票。
  Leah Feiger：这就是David采访的一些组织发挥作用的地方。有614 ICE Watch，还有Common Cause、ACLU、Indivisible等组织一直在培训他们的团队和这些大批志愿者，以便能够追踪ICE在投票站的实例，并与他们的网络分享经过核实的信息，这些网络包括长期在民主空间工作的人。所以这些都已经到位了。接下来就是要在噪音中跋涉。
  Brian Barrett：我觉得614 ICE Watch是一个很好的例子，因为他们把努力集中在俄亥俄州哥伦布市，那里有一个大型索马里裔美国人社区，去年遭到了ICE行动的针对。这是一个真正被ICE吓到、真正受到ICE影响的社区。所以即使只是知道——看，这里有人在看着你。这里有一群人，如果真发生了什么，他们会在那里。无论ICE是否出现，这可能鼓励人们去投票站，而否则他们可能因为Zoë刚说的原因待在家里。所以即使这算是一种先发制人的行动，我觉得非常棒。他们这样做很好，我希望它有效。我希望人们仍然能够出去投票。
  Leah Feiger：绝对。而且说到Zoë的观点，因为如果我不把这也带入一些幕后政治运作那就不是我了，我觉得这件事、围绕它的恐惧、围绕它的讨论以及所有这一切，真的被一个事实加剧了——共和党人在民调中被打得很惨，伙计们，绝对被打得很惨。《连线》资深记者Hugo Lowell本周发了一篇通讯，讲的是共和党在中选前一周如何在传统深红州的参议院竞选中加倍投入资金和资源。我们在说堪萨斯。抱歉。在什么世界里那是可以争夺的？甚至不是说这些选举一定会、肯定翻蓝。而是他们害怕了。而是民调比应该的更接近。所以抛开所有这些，对共和党来说，一个开始指手画脚的好方法是什么——哦，这次选举受到了“非法移民”投票的影响。哦，我们要派ICE。ICE应该在那里XYZ。所以所有这些加在一起创造了一个真正不确定的环境。在万圣节后几天举行选举，真是非常应景。我很恐怖，周围都很恐怖。
  Brian Barrett：等等，Leah，因为这是我们中选前最后一次录制，你的预测是什么？你怎么看？众议院、参议院，谁拿下？
  Leah Feiger：民主党会拿下众议院。参议院对我来说仍然是五五开。
  Brian Barrett：红色信号。红色信号。你得选一个，Leah。
  Leah Feiger：嘿，那挺好的。我觉得我给了个不错的猜测。
  Brian Barrett：好吧。好吧。广告之后，我们将分享本周的WIRED/TIRED精选。别走开。
  Leah Feiger：又到了我们的WIRED/TIRED环节。和往常一样，新的酷的东西是WIRED，我们受够了的过时东西是TIRED。看看我们有什么。Zoë，我听说你这周有个好的。
  Zoë Schiffer：是的，我把它献给我亲爱的朋友Leah Feiger。你很清楚，每个人都很清楚，旧金山那些谈论AI的广告牌，我觉得简直疯了。它们不像英语的任何部分，不清楚他们在对谁说话或者为什么要说话。我个人受够了。完全是胡说八道，令人困惑。是的。
  Leah Feiger：是天书。开车穿过旧金山就是地狱。
  Zoë Schiffer：是的，就是。相比之下，The Row在《金融时报》上买了一个双页广告。我知道。我当时就想，“你知道我在说什么。”几周前，就只有一张William Eggleston的照片，就是一张风景照，字面上没有任何文字或任何东西。我当时就想，“在所有人都往右拐的时候往左拐，干得好。”它只是表达了他们的品味和美学。我觉得太他妈有格调了。我很喜欢。
  Leah Feiger：我完全同意你。说到意外之处的广告，你看到那个Coterie——我不知道我发音对不对——那家尿布公司？他们在《高尔夫文摘》上买了一个广告，以此来针对育儿中不均衡的心理负担。我很喜欢。
  Zoë Schiffer：我确实喜欢那个。
  Leah Feiger：而且也是一个很棒的广告。是的。哇，一些好广告。好吧，那是一个非常好的WIRED。超级粉丝。你有什么TIRED吗？
  Zoë Schiffer：那些丑陋的广告牌，我们讨论过的。
  Leah Feiger：有道理。绝对是的。Brian，你呢？
  Brian Barrett：好的。我快点说。我觉得我的WIRED，不是因为东西本身，而是这是我在这个播客里唯一能塞进一些消费科技新闻的地方。苹果要发布他们的第一台触摸屏Mac。他们说过永远不会做。他们终于做了。我个人不在乎触摸屏Mac。我永远不会买。我没什么用。但我喜欢他们至少在做一些稍微不同的事情，我喜欢他们食言了。很有趣。那是WIRED。我的TIRED是——你们可能都记得Chris Nolan的《奥德赛》上映时，大事件，好电影，很有趣。Elon Musk和他的同伙：不是粉丝，因为它在各种方面太“觉醒”了。所以他承诺Grok会拍一部不“觉醒”的《奥德赛》，天哪，他们真做了。
  Leah Feiger：谢天谢地。
  Brian Barrett：他们发布了第一章还是什么，七分钟的片段，《奥德赛》，天哪，太糟糕了。极其糟糕。至少我不觉得它“觉醒”了。我觉得他们在那个方面成功了，但也不太好看。所以那是我的TIRED。
  Leah Feiger：那挺好的。
  Brian Barrett：Leah，你呢？
  Leah Feiger：我这周的TIRED是——我这样说太无聊了——但关于所谓“非法选民”的选举虚假信息。这是我余生都要谈论的事情，在美国没有资格投票的人投票的数量是如此之小、如此之微小，以至于肯定从未影响过一次选举。我太TIRED了，日复一日，选举接着选举，我还在谈论这个。很累。我受够了。去wired.com读我们所有关于这有多错误的报道。我这周的WIRED完全无关。万圣节在周六。万圣节很多年都不会再在周六了。真的很有趣。我有一些好计划。我希望你也是。我迫不及待想看你们所有的服装。Brian、Zoë，发你们孩子的服装照片。
  Zoë Schiffer：哦对了。我正要说我是成年人。我不穿服装，但我的孩子们，绝对。
  Brian Barrett：我们还在最终确定，但一旦搞定。
  Leah Feiger：DoorDash，Brian。
  Brian Barrett：我马上发过来。
  Leah Feiger：完美。
  Zoë Schiffer：这就是我们今天的节目。我们会在节目笔记中链接我们谈到的所有报道。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进行了事实核查。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：

This week on Uncanny Valley, Brian Barrett, Leah Feiger, and Zoë Schiffer dive into our scoop on how a defense contractor connected Claude Code to a secure Department of Defense system. We also discuss the green, yellow, and red flags we see in Anthropic’s IPO filing—and why it’s a test not just for the AI industry but for the entire US economy—and how volunteers nationwide are preparing for ICE agents potentially showing up at polling sites in the midterms.
Articles mentioned in this episode:

• A Defense Contractor Gave Their Personal AI Agent Access to a Secure Pentagon System
• The Anthropic S-1 Filing Is Also an AI Doomsday Primer
• What’s Worth More Than Cash in San Francisco Real Estate? Anthropic Stock
• Massive Groups of Volunteers Are Ready to Face Down ICE at the Polls
  You can follow Brian Barrett on Bluesky at @brbarrett, Zoë Schiffer on Bluesky at @zoeschiffer, and Leah Feiger on Bluesky at @leahfeiger. Write to us at [email protected].
  How to Listen
  You can always listen to this week’s podcast through the audio player on this page, but if you want to subscribe for free to get every episode, here’s how:
  If you’re on an iPhone or iPad, open the app called Podcasts, or just tap this link. You can also download an app like Overcast or Pocket Casts and search for “uncanny valley.” We’re on Spotify too.
  Transcript
  Note: This is an automated transcript, which may contain errors.
  Brian Barrett: Welcome to the WIRED’s Uncanny Valley. I’m Brian Barrett, executive editor.
  Zoë Schiffer: I’m Zoë Schiffer, contributing editor.
  Leah Feiger: And I’m Leah Feiger, director of politics and science.
  Zoë Schiffer: This week, Anthropic has officially filed to go public. There is a lot going on in the hundreds of pages that the company submitted as part of its S-1 filing, from staggering earnings and losses, to warnings of AI’s existential threat. Obviously, we’re talking about Anthropic here. We’ll discuss our key takeaways and why this IPO is kind of high stakes, not just for the AI industry, but honestly the entire US economy.
  Leah Feiger: We’re also bringing you a scoop about how a defense contractor plugged Anthropic’s Claude into a secure Department of Defense system, in what’s really one of the most outlandish uses of AI in the government we’ve seen so far.
  Brian Barrett: And the midterms are right around the corner, just a few days away. Massive groups of volunteers all over the country are already getting ready to protect their communities from the potential that ICE officers show up at the polls. We’ll get into how grassroots efforts like these are a reflection of a deeply uncertain election cycle.
  Zoë Schiffer: So on Monday, we learned that Anthropic finally pulled the trigger and publicly filed for its IPO. This has been highly anticipated for a bunch of reasons. Anthropic is expected to raise more money in its IPO than any company in history, and it would be the first major US company focused solely on building AI software to go public. To give you a sense of the scale that we’re talking about, the company’s valuation went from $183 billion a little over a year ago to $965 billion in its most recent round, and some expect that it could be worth close to $2 trillion once it starts trading. So the filing basically gives us the first real look inside Anthropic’s business because it’s a private company right now. It doesn’t have to report a bunch of stuff. And the numbers are pretty extreme in both directions, billions of dollars in revenue and even more billions in losses, and hundreds of billions that the company has already committed to compute. Because there’s a ton to unpack in this paperwork, I thought it would be fun to divide it into green flags, yellow flags, and red flags that we saw from the filing. What do you guys think?
  Brian Barrett: Yes.
  Leah Feiger: I’m astounded by how much money is at play here. This is, yes.
  Brian Barrett: What flag, Leah? What flag is that?
  Leah Feiger: I don’t know.
  Zoë Schiffer: For the sake of the economy, it’s green.
  Brian Barrett: Great. Green flag.
  Leah Feiger: For the sake of the economy, it’s green. This is so much money, guys. Sue me, but the only thing I can think of right now is that article that WIRED ran a couple of months ago about how people were selling their homes in the Bay Area with the promise of Anthropic stock post-IPO. And I remember at the time I was like, "How close are we to this?" And Zoe said, "Oh, they’re going to make so much money."
  Brian Barrett: Is it fair to say, Zoë, I feel like having the financials out there, yes, they’re losing money hand over fist, but the financials I think are better than people were expecting maybe. At least, it feels like they put a lot of concerns to rest, not all of them, but this is a real business. This is a business that is growing. It’s doing all the things you would want a business to do.
  Zoë Schiffer: Yes, I think absolutely. So its revenue hit $16.3 billion in the first half of 2026, and it’s grown more than 14 fold from the same period last year. I think we have to go back to 2022 and remember that when ChatGPT came on the scene, it wasn’t even apparent that AI would have a real enterprise application. This was a consumer app that didn’t have really any business case for it. And it wasn’t until Anthropic came on the scene years later, it rolled out Claude Code that we started to really see like, oh no, there’s a viable business and actually the majority of the money is going to come from other businesses using their coding product. This is also, I think, a key difference that you hear from insiders between Dario and Sam. People very close to Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, will say he wakes up every single day and says, "Enterprise code." That is the thing he cares about. And that’s because that’s the thing that makes money for these businesses. Whereas I think the perception from some is that OpenAI is a little more scattered and all over the place. And I think you can see that in the numbers.
  Brian Barrett: So they are leaning in. They have Claude code, huge success, enterprise code, huge success. I will say, to introduce a yellow flag, of that revenue that you talked about, very impressive revenue over $60 billion, nearly half of it came from three tech companies cloud marketplaces. So they are pretty heavily reliant on a small number of companies which are also competitors. It is this sort of tangled nest of reliances in this industry that feels, I think Anthropic didn’t put it as one of its major risk factors. We can talk about the risk factors in a second because that was my favorite section, but it does feel like, where’s the moat? Is there enough of one given how much they’re relying on a handful of companies that are also developing their own AI, other AI products are getting better, open source products, open weight products are out there. How yellow is that flag?
  Zoë Schiffer: I think it’s yellow. It’s not surprising that a polyamorous worker cooperative would be incestuous in its business dealings. I was not shocked by that information. And it’s not unusual for a small percentage of spenders to have an out-sized impact on a company’s revenue. I think there was another number that Ramp put out recently, 80 percent of revenue for both Anthropic and OpenAI comes from about the top 1 percent of AI spenders. So the companies that are spending the most account for the vast majority of the company’s revenues. But it is a vulnerability, because if there’s a pullback and those companies start spending less, Anthropic is exposed. But another, I don’t know where to put this flag. I think it’s green. They were transparent about some of the risks involved in the IPO, some of the existential risks of AI generally. This is probably my favorite part in the whole thing. “Concerns have been raised ... That sufficiently advanced AI systems could, if not developed and safeguarded appropriately, pose catastrophic or existential risks to humanity.”
  Leah Feiger: Incredible stuff.
  Zoë Schiffer: The use of the passive voice in this S-1, concerns have been raised by Dario to be so for real.
  Brian Barrett: Internally by Anthropic, I will say too, the phrase existential risk comes up three times. It’s twice existential risk to humanity, once existential risk to society. So in that scenario, presumably there are still humans, they have just abandoned any semblance of a social contract.
  Zoë Schiffer: Great.
  Brian Barrett: Zoë, I love that this was a green flag for you, the fact that they’re so openly-
  Leah Feiger: She’s a transparent lady.
  Brian Barrett: And to be clear, they have been shouting this since they started that AI could kill everybody. This is not new for them. What I thought was interesting, and I’ll call it a red flag, red flag for humanity, yellow flag for Anthropic, green flag for me because I love to talk about it. So the same thing that they cite as most likely to cause the end of human life on earth, is the thing that they also cite as one of their primary competitive advantages. And that is recursive self-improvement. So that’s where an AI model can improve itself. And they’re saying on the one hand, if AI models keep getting better at improving themselves, and can eventually improve themselves to the point where humans don’t even need to look at it, closing the loop where AI just gets better, and makes AI better, and makes AI better to the point where we don’t even understand what AI is doing anymore, but gosh, it’s good and it’s making a lot of money, that’s the scenario in which AI is powerful enough to maybe end the world. But it’s also, Anthropic notes also we’re really good at that. We’re investing a lot of money in that. That’s how we’re going to get ahead.
  Zoë Schiffer: And how relatable is that? Who among us doesn’t have a shadow side that is equally augmented by the power that that shadow side gives you?
  Leah Feiger: To be clear, and WIRED covered this, as did basically everyone. When former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon resigned and said it was because Anthropic could bring about the end of the world, he specifically cited curbing RSI at the top of his list. This is the whole ballgame.
  Brian Barrett: Yes. And then the industry in general is very ... I think this is probably too extreme, but Bernie Sanders has a bill out there, and Ro Khanna has a separate bill that say, "Hey, let’s just ban recursive self-improvement. Let’s just say we’re not doing that." I will say one little note is that the risk factors is the longest section of the prospectus. It’s 94 pages, I believe. So they could have just said, "We have a shadow side and saved everybody.
  Zoë Schiffer: I would’ve understood.
  Brian Barrett: A lot of trouble."
  Leah Feiger: Can we talk about a red flag that I haven’t gotten a great answer on yet, and I kind of need you to explain this to me like I’m a toddler? The compute bill, all of this technology costs so much money. I don’t personally feel like I have an understanding of where the limit is, how you do not spend enough to use all of your money and also spend enough to not put yourself out of business and end your technology forever. Perhaps I do not understand compute in its entirety or where it comes from, but all of this together, this is just so much. Tell me.
  Zoë Schiffer: It is so much. I’m not going to pretend that I understand it. The scale of what we’re talking about is, again, totally unprecedented. You get a lot of railroad analogies when you start talking about this stuff, but I will say that one key difference is that unlike the railroad companies, which were operating on slightly thinner margins, these are still very well-funded and rich companies. And so yes, they’re investing a ton in compute, and they expect that that compute will be needed. So far it is, and they expect that to continue to rise. I personally think that that is a viable argument, but of course the flip side is like, well, if growth starts to seriously slow down, and they’re left holding the bill for all of this compute that they’ve committed to, a lot of the contracts that Anthropic has signed, they can’t get out of. That’s going to be really bad, and it’s going to be bad not just for Anthropic, but for the entire US economy.
  Leah Feiger: They call it their most significant operating cost, in quotes.
  Zoë Schiffer: Yes, absolutely.
  Brian Barrett: I think significant too, that unlike say SpaceX, unlike Meta, other companies that are heavily invested in AI, a lot of what Anthropic is doing is basically leasing compute. They are not building as much. They are contracting out. So on the one hand, that maybe frees them from long-term obligations on these massive properties. On the other hand, obviously it’s sort of, to Zoë’s point, they’re contracts they can’t get out of. They are committed to these contracts, and they don’t really control their own destiny in that regard, especially when the compute is very competitive now. Getting access to compute has been really, really hard. It’s getting harder, especially as finance companies are less inclined to provide the debt, to support the debt to pay for all these infrastructure costs. One thing I wanted to add really quick is that they do say in the prospectus, I just need to call this out, that the company needs to make forward investments that will seem, "irresponsibly large," at first, which if Zoë found the shadow self relatable, I found this relatable because it’s what I tell my family every time I order DoorDash.
  Zoë Schiffer: I know.
  Brian Barrett: It’s going to be irresponsibly large at first glance.
  Leah Feiger: But will pay off eventually.
  Brian Barrett: Yeah.
  Zoë Schiffer: Absolutely.
  Leah Feiger: I want to move us over to talk about a massive story that WIRED published today that also has to do with Anthropic’s Claude. WIRED’s Victoria Elliot reported today all about a security incident at the Department of Defense caused by a contractor who connected a secure centralized system, one used by multiple intelligence agencies, to their personal account for Claude Code, Anthropic’s commercial AI coding agent. The contractor works for the global consulting firm Accenture, and according to sources, the agent sent information about the DOD system along with login credentials, to a high-risk third-party website. And it ran inside the DOD network sources tell us for two months before anyone caught on.
  Brian Barrett: No.
  Zoë Schiffer: Red flag. Red flag.
  Brian Barrett: Red flag. Red flag.
  Leah Feiger: Really to start us off, and I want to get into these details and everyone should go read this on wired.com, but I think the overarching thing that I really want to get across here is we have not seen this before. This is a massive, massive example of an AI agent in theory wreaking havoc, or even just having access to government systems without people’s knowledge of that.
  Brian Barrett: First of all, huge scoop by Tori. Major credit to her. Really, really well done. I’m surprised there was not a system in place to catch this. I’m surprised that it was allowed to happen in the first place. It feels like there are multiple levels of failings here, and I think speaks to just sort of this is the DoD, this is happening, I assume, at all kinds of organizations as people become more reliant on agents to do literally whatever for them.
  Zoë Schiffer: Yeah. God, those people. Leah, my question for you, and then I want to give my take, is that we don’t know that anything nefarious was going on. This contractor was trying to use Claude to write code and deploy it.
  Leah Feiger: Yes. So this isn’t a massive hacking attempt.
  Zoë Schiffer: I think that’s more interesting though.
  Leah Feiger: I agree. I agree. It’s the idea that there was access at all.
  Zoë Schiffer: Yeah. The thing that it reminds me of is a really popular product in Silicon Valley, maybe everywhere right now, is this recording tool and transcription tool called Granola. Basically, it’s this thing that connects to your calendar. When you have a meeting, it automatically starts recording. The result of that is that in many states, you’re illegally recording people all the time. And it’s become such a norm in Silicon Valley that everyone’s just thrown up their hands and been like, "Whatever. I guess this is just what we’re doing now." And this reminds me of that. I think that people are so used to having agents do things for them, or using Claude Code where they would’ve previously written and deployed code by hand, that they’re not as aware that what they’re doing is breaking norms, rules, laws.
  Brian Barrett: I just want to quickly confirm, because I Googled it just now, California is a two-party consent state. If that’s useful to anyone out there who’s using Granola.
  Zoë Schiffer: It’s fully illegal. It’s fully illegal.
  Brian Barrett: It’s fully illegal. You are breaking the law.
  Leah Feiger: I really wish that you could see my slack-jawed open-faced right now, the fact that that exists. But back to the Accenture of it all, back to the DoD of it all, this system that this Claude agent had access to, the centralized system contains controlled unclassified information. So it’s CUI, it’s considered to be sensitive, but not to be released to the public without review. The issue though is that the way that different pieces of this information from this system and other parts that the system has access to, can be combined to create classified information. Does that make sense?
  Brian Barrett: Yeah.
  Zoë Schiffer: Unfortunately, yeah.
  Leah Feiger: To spell this out a little bit more, this can include information about critical infrastructure across the US, nuclear submarine propulsion, vulnerabilities to chemical and biological terrorism. This is not casual stuff that they had access to. The source aware of the incident who requested anonymity to speak to Tori said to her, "It puts all the data that’s in there at risk. If the third party software was compromised, there could be somebody out there with the ability to log into a secure environment without anyone knowing. It’s 100 percent a national security threat and could cause irreparable harm." This is serious. So the Accenture employee who was alleged to have connected this secure production environment to their personal Claude account to allow this agent to write and deploy code is also breaking another rule technically, because Claude is currently barred from being used by DoD staff.
  Brian Barrett: Oh yeah.
  Zoë Schiffer: Were we ever so young?
  Leah Feiger: Ever so young. This is a Mad Lib story. This is a Mad Lib story, to automate the process the contractor gave their login credentials. The agent wasn’t just writing code, but committing it, meaning that it was saving the code to the system on the employee’s behalf. And also they had to connect to the internet, so some of these things were air-gapped.
  Zoë Schiffer: Do we know what accountability looks like here? What has happened to the employee, what Accenture or the DoD are doing in the wake of this?
  Leah Feiger: That is a great question. Despite the security risks, sources told WIRED that Accenture employees did not really treat the incident as super severe or urgent.
  Brian Barrett: Good, good, good.
  Leah Feiger: Yep. Good, good, good. So when we reached out to the Department of Defense, a spokesperson there told us that, "The department does not comment on the status of its networks or systems." And on Accenture’s end, their spokesperson said that they "take all concerns seriously. These allegations were thoroughly and independently investigated and found to be without merit. We fully complied with our legal and contractual obligations." When pressed though, Accenture didn’t offer clarification on who conducted the investigation, or dispute that there had been what could be characterized as an incident. I have to say, this isn’t the first time that Accenture has had a bit of an issue recently. Earlier this month, the FBI found that an Accenture contractor did not patch a vulnerability that led to the hacking group Shiny Hunters getting access to all of the FBI data. I don’t know if you guys remember that fun story. So lots of things happening here. So many different questions, for me at least, brought up about the use of personal AI agents when it comes to the workspace, contractors and government and what they have access to, what they have to reveal to the government at what time. There’s a lot here that fell in the cracks, and like I said earlier, Mad Libs, Mad Libs of a bad situation just really gone awry.
  Brian Barrett: It feels like the use of AI agents in general, it’s a shortcut. It’s like I want to take a shortcut to whatever it is I’m doing. Sometimes that’s for great reasons. Zoë, you’ve given over 80 percent of your life to agents and you’re thriving, but there are some situations where you really shouldn’t take any kind of shortcut, especially not a shortcut that you can’t really control that’s going to be touching sensitive documents. Yeah, it’s inexcusable. I assume not the last time we’re going to hear about something like this. Well, in other news, the midterms are officially a week away and early voting already underway in lots of states. You may have already voted as you’re listening to this, power to you if so. One of the questions hanging over these elections though has nothing to do with who’s on the ballot. It’s who’s going to be at the polling stations. For the last six months, President Trump and his allies have declined to rule out the possible deployment of ICE agents to voting sites during the midterms, even though that would be illegal under federal law, has not really stopped him before in various scenarios. This week, WIRED’s David Gilbert spoke to a dozen people or so taking part in a nationwide effort to get ready for that possibility. They’re in towns and cities across the country, and they are people who see the presence of ICE at the polls as an existential threat to democracy. They’ve built massive networks of people to do a couple different things. The overall goal though is to A, document what ICE is doing and B, spread the word about rights to voters. So if you do go to the polls and you see ICE there, you know how to respond and react. Great that people are planning for this. Leah, I’m curious, how much of a likelihood or inevitability do you think this is going to be? ICE showing up at the polls and kind of disrupting ... I guess their very presence is disruptive, right? I think so it’s really just how likely do you think it is that they actually show up?
  Leah Feiger: A really good question and one that I’m honestly changing my mind on every few days. Recently, the Trump administration has indicated that they will not be sending ICE to the polls. Like you said, the last couple of months have been the exact opposite of that. And then you also have DHS and other random government accounts posting about how they are apprehending illegal voters as we speak. So there’s some mixed messaging that’s clearly happening right now. And in the middle of that, these organizations have stepped in to say, "OK, here’s our plan should this happen." Simultaneously, I think there’s just a lot of fear. Do I think that every single polling station is going to have that? No. Do I think that fear about it is probably going to dissuade some people from voting? Yeah. Yeah, I do. This isn’t forcing you to stand in a line for hours on end, which to be clear, also bad. This is the threat that you are going to be thrown in a facility and never see your family or your home ever again. This is massive. This is what ICE tactics have been in the past. So applying it to this situation, very, very scary. Will it happen? I think we’re probably going to see some of it. I think it’s going to happen in a couple of different ways, whether that’s agents standing near polling places that act as an intimidation to certain voters. Are they interfering or not? Tough to say. I think that there’s also going to be a lot of probably false accusations of this as well. We don’t know. But the possibility for misinformation, I say misinformation, not disinformation, because people are just going to be spreading things around that they haven’t perhaps verified because of fear, because of what the Trump administration has been promising and has done in so many communities across the US over this past year, is very real and very scary.
  Zoë Schiffer: Yeah, I think that’s exactly right. I think fear is the point and confusion is the point. I live in California. We already have multiple examples of people we know who probably won’t be able to participate in the way that they normally would have because the possibility that ICE would be there is just too scary. And so whether or not they’re actually at a particular polling place, it might not matter. And I think if they are at a few, I think we can expect to see a kind of flood the zone where those images start to go everywhere. And in some cases it’s people trying to warn other people, but I would expect that also in a lot of cases it might be just people trying to spread fear and dissuade people from getting out to vote.
  Leah Feiger: And that’s where some of these organizations come in that David talked to. You have 614 ICE Watch, you have groups like the Common Cause, ACLU, Indivisible that have been training their teams and these massive groups of volunteers to actually be able to track examples of ICE at the polls, and to share verified information with their networks, which include people that have been working in democratic spaces for a very, very long time. So that is in place. It’s going to be about wading through the noise.
  Brian Barrett: I think 614 ICE Watch is a really good example because they’re focusing their efforts in Columbus, Ohio, home to a large Somali American community that was targeted by an ICE operation last year. This is a community that’s really rattled by ICE and is really affected by ICE. And so even just knowing, look, there’s someone here who’s looking out for you. There’s a group of people here who, if something does happen, they’ll be there. Whether ICE shows up or not, it may encourage people to go to the polls when they otherwise might have stayed home for the reason Zoë was just talking about. So even just it’s sort of a preemptive strike that I think is really great. It’s great that they’re doing it and I hope that it is effective. I hope people still are able to go out and vote.
  Leah Feiger: Absolutely. And to Zoë’s point, because it’s not me if I don’t bring this into some of the political machinations behind the scenes as well, I think that this is, and the fear around it, and the discourse around it and all of this is really just heightened by the fact that Republicans are getting trounced in the polls, you guys, absolutely trounced. WIRED senior correspondent Hugo Lowell put out a newsletter this week all about how Republicans, the week before midterms, are doubling down their spending and resources on Senate races in states that are traditionally deep red. We’re talking Kansas. I’m sorry. In what world is that up for grabs? It’s not even to say that these elections are necessarily, for sure absolutely going to go Democrat. It’s that they’re frightened. It’s that the polls are way closer than they should be. And so all of this aside, what’s a great way for the Republican Party to start pointing fingers, oh, this election has been impacted by voting of ’illegal immigrants.’ Oh, we’re going to send ICE. ICE should be there X, Y, and Z. So it’s all of this together has created an environment of real uncertainty. It’s a very apt time to have the elections, days after Halloween. I am spooky, spooky all around.
  Brian Barrett: Wait, Leah, just because it’s our last recording before the midterms, what is your prediction? How are you going? House, Senate, who’s taking it?
  Leah Feiger: Dems are going to take the House. Senate is still a toss-up to me.
  Brian Barrett: Red flag. Red flag. You got to pick, Leah.
  Leah Feiger: Hey, that’s pretty good. I feel like I gave a good guess there.
  Brian Barrett: All right. All right. Coming up after the break, we’ll share our WIRED/TIRED picks for the week. Stay with us.
  Leah Feiger: It’s time for our WIRED/TIRED segment. As usual, whatever is new and cool is WIRED, and whatever passé thing we’re over is TIRED. Let’s see what we’ve got. Zoë, I’ve heard you got a good one this week.
  Zoë Schiffer: Yeah, I dedicate it to my dear friend, Leah Feiger. As you are well aware, as everyone is well aware, the billboards in San Francisco talking about AI, I think are insane. They are not legible as any part of the English language, unclear who they’re talking to or why they’re talking at all. I am sick of them personally. It’s complete nonsense and confusing. Yes.
  Leah Feiger: It’s gobbledygook. Driving through San Francisco is hell.
  Zoë Schiffer: Yes, it is. In contrast, The Row took out a double page ad in FT. I know. I was like, "You know what I’m talking about." A few weeks ago, and it was just a William Eggleston photo, just like a landscape photo, literally no text or anything. And I was like, "Way to zig while everyone else is zagging." It just spoke to their taste and aesthetic. Thought it was so fucking classy. I loved it.
  Leah Feiger: I’m so with you. Talking of ads in unexpected places, did you see that Coterie—I don’t know if I’m pronouncing that correctly—the diaper company? They took out an ad in Golf Digest as a way to target the uneven mental load in parenting. I loved it.
  Zoë Schiffer: I do like that.
  Leah Feiger: And it’s also a great ad. Yeah. Wow, some good ads. All right, that’s a really good WIRED. Big fan. Any TIREDs for you?
  Zoë Schiffer: The hideous billboards, that we discussed.
  Leah Feiger: That makes sense. Absolutely yes. Brian, how about you?
  Brian Barrett: Sure. I’ll be quick. I think my WIRED, not because of the thing itself, but it’s the only place I can squeeze in some consumer tech news in this podcast. Apple is releasing their first touchscreen Mac. They said they’d never do it. They finally did it. I personally don’t care about a touchscreen Mac. I will never buy one. I don’t have much use for one, but I like that they’re at least doing something a little bit different, and I like that they have gone back on their word. That’s fun. That’s WIRED. And my TIRED is going to be, you all may remember when Chris Nolan’s The Odyssey came out, big deal, great movie, a lot of fun. Elon Musk and associates: not fans, because it was too woke in various ways. So he promised that Grok would make an unwoke Odyssey, and by god, they did it.
  Leah Feiger: Thank god.
  Brian Barrett: They released the first chapter of chapter, whatever, seven-minute snippet of The Odyssey, and boy, is it terrible. It’s extremely bad. I don’t think it’s woke, at least. I think they succeeded on that front, but not super watchable either. So that’s TIRED for me.
  Leah Feiger: That’s pretty good.
  Brian Barrett: Leah, what about you?
  Leah Feiger: My TIRED this week is, this is so boring of me, but election disinformation about quote unquote, “illegal voters.” This is a thing that I’m going to talk about for the rest of my life, the number of people voting who are not allowed to do so in the US is such a teeny, teeny, tiny number so as to have certainly never once influenced an election. And I am so TIRED that day in, day out, election in, election out, I am still talking about this. It’s tiring. I’m over it. Go read all of our reporting on wired.com about how wrong it is. My WIRED for this week is entirely unconnected. Halloween is on a Saturday. Halloween is not going to be on a Saturday again for many years. Really fun. I have some good plans. I hope you do too. I can’t wait to see all your costumes. Brian, Zoë, send your children’s costumes.
  Zoë Schiffer: Oh yeah. I was going to say I’m an adult. I don’t wear costumes, but my kids, absolutely.
  Brian Barrett: We are still nailing those down, but as soon as we get it.
  Leah Feiger: DoorDash, Brian.
  Brian Barrett: I will send it right over.
  Leah Feiger: Perfect.
  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. Kate Osborn is our executive producer and Katie Drummond is WIRED’s global editorial director.
  Comments
  Back to top