Quantum TikTok + Memecoin Mania + Chris Hayes on the Attention Wars

Casey, what’s going on with you?

My boyfriend is away for a week for work, so I decided to entertain myself by buying electronics.

You did. You went on a shopping spree.

I did. I went to the Apple Store and said, “I’m going to get a new iPad Pro with the fancy keyboard.”

Mm.

Have you seen the fancy keyboard?

No.

It is like these Mac keyboards but slimmer. It is way more than I need, but I thought it looked so cool.

Mm. And what are you going to do on that? Just play Balatro?

Yeah, mostly check emails. It turns out, no matter what, every year there’s a fancy new laptop, the battery life is incredible, and the processing power—you wouldn’t believe it. And what am I doing with it? I’m checking emails.

Yeah.

Am I responding to them? Mostly no. But, oh boy, can I read an email on that thing.

No one has ever checked email and ignored it faster.

No.

This week, how TikTok died and came back to life, and what it means for how tech does business with Donald Trump. Then, why meme coins are on the rise and how the Trump family is cashing in. And finally, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes is here to discuss his new book on attention. Kevin, let’s ask him a few questions while we play Subway Surfers on our phones.

Can you say that again? I’m watching YouTube.

Well, Casey, big week in Washington, obviously. We had the inauguration of President Trump for his second term in office.

I noticed you weren’t on the dais. Did you not give him $1 million?

No, I only gave half a million.

Ah.

So I was watching it from the subway down the street.

Sad.

We did have a lot of news coming out of the tech world in relation to the first days of the Trump presidency. Monday, obviously, at the inauguration itself, we had Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai—all of the titans of tech—standing right behind the Trump family. Elon Musk was also there, of course. It’s being reported that he’s likely to get an office in the West Wing.

We’ve also had some announcements coming out of this first wave of executive orders. The Biden administration’s executive order on AI was repealed. There’s also been an announcement of a new major AI infrastructure project, which we’ll talk about in a second, called Stargate. But I think the overriding story of the past week is that we are starting to see how Silicon Valley wants to do business during the Trump administration.

1. TikTok Comes Back Broken

And where I want to start this discussion is with what’s been happening with TikTok, because it has been a wild ride. Obviously, last week we gave our TikTok update, what we called “TikTok V.12: final, final, use this.” But that was not the end of the TikTok story.

No, there was yet another final-final V to be issued, Kevin.

Yes. So what is going on with TikTok? Catch us up.

Well, Kevin, it goes like this: TikTok was banned, and then it went down for about 12 hours, and then it came back, but only sort of. So it is now both alive and dead at the same time, existing in a state of quantum superposition with itself. It is Schrödinger’s app.

People who use TikTok opened their apps over the weekend, I believe it was on Saturday, and saw a message. Casey, what did that message say?

When people opened the app, they were greeted with a screen that said that TikTok “isn’t available right now,” but it added, “We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned.”

I want to ask about this message because I thought it was very interesting. But first, Casey, what did you do during the 12 hours that TikTok was down? How was the outage for you?

I learned Mandarin. It was incredible. I never realized that was all I needed, but Duolingo really did me a solid.

I’ll tell you what happened, Kevin. I was on my way to a friend’s house. He was having a housewarming, and I did pull up TikTok because a friend had messaged me saying, “Oh my gosh, it’s already down.” This was sort of Pacific Time. I had expected that the app wouldn’t go down until Sunday morning Pacific Time, but it was already gone.

I got to the party, and people were buzzing about the fact that TikTok was no longer there. I suspect that’s because some of them were playing King’s Cup, and they were hoping to upload some highlights to TikTok but were prevented from doing so. King’s Cup, of course—

A true disaster.

—is a drinking game, but go on.

In addition to TikTok, a bunch of other ByteDance apps disappeared from the Apple and Google U.S. app stores, including Lemon8, CapCut, and the one that you actually texted me about with a very alarmed tone over the weekend: Marvel Snap disappeared.

Marvel Snap. We have made passing jokes about Marvel Snap over the years. It is a mobile card game. It is so fucking addictive. I don’t actually have it on my phone anymore because it is too addictive for me to be able to get my hands on. But I still watch tons of content from creators playing this video game, and there was never even a hint that it would be implicated in this ban in any way. But it turns out that the publisher of Marvel Snap is owned by ByteDance.

So it just disappeared along with all the other ByteDance apps.

It just disappeared. It was like a Thanos snap, you know? Marvel Snap was snapped out of existence, and it took a couple of days for it to snap back.

Yes. So let’s talk about what is going on with these apps, because many of them are now working again but still not available in the app stores.

Is TikTok banned or not?

2. TikTok Remains Legally Banned

Yes. So here’s the thing. TikTok was banned by a law, PAFACA—

PAFACA.

—that we’ve talked about on the show before, and the law did not leave any exception. What it said was that the president could issue a 90-day extension for ByteDance to find a deal to divest the app. President Biden chose not to do that, and this banning of TikTok happened as Biden was leaving office but before Trump had taken office.

This weekend, Trump said, “No, no, no. There is no need for you, the app stores and all of the ByteDance service providers, to take TikTok down. You can leave it up. I’ve got your back. I’m going to sign an executive order on Monday, and I promise you there will be no legal liability.”

When it gets to Monday, Trump does actually do this, and the companies involved have different takes on the whole thing. Oracle, which provides all of the hosting infrastructure for TikTok in the United States, says, “We believe you, President Trump. We can go ahead and flip the switches.”

Akamai, which is what they call a content delivery network that Oracle uses to make sure you can get your TikTok fix no matter where you are, says, “We believe you, President Trump. We’re going to go ahead and flip the servers on.”

Apple and Google are a little bit more nervous about this whole thing. They’re reading the part of the law that says that not just President Trump but a future president could hold them accountable for enabling this app, which again is banned under the law that was passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. And that fine, by the way, Kevin, is $5,000 per user. TikTok has something like 170 million users in the United States. These fines would stretch into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Yes, these would be ruinous fines if this law were actually enforced according to the letter of the law at any point in the future.

Yes, and so that leads to the wild situation that we’ve been in this week, where if you had already downloaded TikTok onto your device, you can use it essentially as normal. But if you didn’t, and you’re just hearing about TikTok for the first time on Hard Fork today and want to check it out, you cannot download the app.

It literally is not in the App Store. There is no way to get it onto an Android device or an Apple device.

Absolutely not. And, by the way, the same holds true for Marvel Snap and some of these other apps that were affected.

Hmm. And what about updates to existing apps? Can they update the app without going through Google or Apple?

No, they can’t. And this is one of the big questions that we’re all going to have our eyes on: How badly does the quality of the TikTok service degrade?

I don’t know about you, but I’m looking at my app updates more or less every day because sometimes you’ll actually find news in there, right? An app I cover has added some feature, and they’ll just disclose it right in the release notes. What you’ll notice if you do that is that apps like TikTok are updating certainly every week, sometimes every few days. Included in those updates are various bug fixes; sometimes security vulnerabilities are identified and patched, new features get added, and other features get removed.

Now ByteDance is going to be in a situation where, into April, unless something changes, it’s not going to be able to ship updates to American users.

Yeah, so that is the current state of TikTok. It is wild. I don't think we've ever had an app of any size that existed in this limbo state where it is technically illegal under the law, but some service providers are making it possible to access it, while the app stores are not letting you get it. We've never been here before.

No, we really haven't. To underscore this, we are in a position where Congress has passed, the previous president signed, and the Supreme Court upheld a law, and the incoming president said, “No, no, no, that law does not apply because I say so, and I have the executive authority to say that this law does not apply.” In the TikTok case, it feels fairly silly and benign. I can imagine other cases where that would be a huge problem.

Yeah, it does call into question the efficacy of checks and balances, right?

Yeah.

If a president can just come into office on day 1 and declare that a law passed by Congress, upheld by the Supreme Court, and signed by the previous president is invalid, Schoolhouse Rock would have something to say about that.

Yeah. Seems bad, as they say—

Twitter.

3. TikTok Becomes a Bargaining Chip

But let's talk about it. That's where we are today, as of this taping. What happens next? President Trump comes into office. He signs a bunch of executive orders and issues a bunch of declarations. One of the things he says is that he is going to extend the deadline for enforcement of PAFACA by 75 days to give the companies involved a way to try to make a deal.

Yeah, that's right, and specifically what he says, Kevin, is that what he wants to see is for ByteDance to divest TikTok through some kind of joint venture between the United States and TikTok's current owners. There is not a specific plan. It's also not clear what it means that the United States owns 50% of TikTok. Are we turning TikTok into a public utility?

Yes. Let's actually play the clip because I think—

Yeah.

I think what you're saying, in characterizing his remarks, is actually much clearer than what he actually said. I struggled to make heads or tails of it. So let's play Trump's comments when he was asked about the delayed enforcement of the TikTok ban.

Are you open to Elon buying TikTok?

I would be if he wanted to buy it, yeah.

And on your inauguration—

I'd like Larry to buy it, too. I have the right to make a deal. So the deal I'm thinking about, Larry, let's negotiate in front of the media. The deal I think is this: I've met with owners of TikTok, the big owners. It's worthless if it doesn't get a permit. It's not like, “Oh, you can take the U.S.” The whole thing is worthless. With a permit, it's worth, like, 1 trillion dollars.

So what I'm thinking about saying to somebody is, buy it and give half to the United States of America—half—and we'll give you the permit. And they'll have a great partner, the United States, and they'll have something that's actually more valuable because they have the ultimate partner. The United States will make it very worthwhile for them in terms of the permits and everything else. Think of it: You have an asset that has no value or has a 1-trillion-dollar value. It all depends on whether or not the United States gives the permit.

So what I'm saying is, let the United States give the permit, and the United States should get half. Sounds reasonable. What do you think?

So the Larry that Donald Trump is referring to throughout that clip is Larry Ellison, the founder of Oracle, which is a provider to TikTok and maybe also a potential bidder. But what is he talking about with permits and a deal and this thing being worth 1 trillion dollars? Can you translate what he's saying?

I'm glad you asked me this because I have a feeling this is going to come up a lot over the next 4 years. So I just want to say, from here going forward, the answer to “What is Donald Trump talking about?” is: I truly do not know, and I will not speculate. It would be so irresponsible for me to say that I knew.

All we can imagine is that there is going to be some sort of deal, maybe that looks something like what he proposed during his 1st administration, which was that he really wanted TikTok to go to one of his supporters. In the 1st Trump administration, it was either going to be Oracle or Walmart, which had donated a lot to his campaign, or this time around it's going to be Larry Ellison of Oracle or Elon Musk, who is his new favorite donor. But what does the actual shape of this thing look like? I don't know, and it is all starting to feel very silly.

Yeah, and I'm not even sure what mechanism would allow the U.S. government to get 50% of whatever 1-trillion-dollar deal Donald Trump is imagining. There's a universe in which you could nationalize TikTok or partly nationalize it and have, literally, the U.S. Treasury become a 50% shareholder in the new spun-off TikTok, but I'm not sure that's what he means.

But can we just say that is crazy? In particular, it's crazy for a Republican to propose nationalizing TikTok. I don't even know what that means, although, presumably, if the U.S. government did own TikTok, then Donald Trump would have a lot to say about how content gets moderated there and maybe what sort of posts get promoted or not.

Right. So now they have this 75-day grace period, this extension via executive order. Do you know what is likely to happen in the next 75 days? Are there deal talks going on? What do you think is going to happen?

Yeah, so a couple of really important things have happened over the past few days, Kevin, and I think chief among them is that the Chinese government has signaled for the 1st time that it would be okay with ByteDance divesting TikTok. This is huge.

The entire time that we've been covering this story—going back 5 years now—in almost every story, there has been some line about the fact that China likely would not allow this to go through, that this would hurt their national pride. It would set a terrible precedent. You can imagine all the reasons why China would not want the United States to say, “Hey, you have to divest that app.”

But all of this discussion is happening against the backdrop of Trump threatening to place massive tariffs on Chinese goods, which could hurt the Chinese economy. And Trump has explicitly linked, in conversations with reporters, TikTok's fate to the tariffs that he is thinking about placing on Chinese goods. So TikTok has now become a chess piece in helping Trump and the Chinese figure out what the tariffs are going to be, what China is going to be okay with, and so presumably, whatever negotiation is about to take place is going to involve those things.

Hmm. That's really interesting. I'm also curious about the shifting politics of all this. One thing that's been very strange to me over the past week or so is that I have just not been able to predict with any accuracy which politicians from which parties are going to feel which way about whatever's happening with TikTok.

So just before inauguration, we had the Biden administration—which, remember, signed the law forcing the sale of TikTok—trying to distance itself from the ban, saying, “Oh, that's up to Donald Trump to decide what he wants to do about TikTok.” So that was confusing thing number 1.

I was truly so exasperated by this, Kevin. You think about the fact that this is truly the only piece of tech regulation that Joe Biden moved and actually got signed into law during his entire presidency, and just as it is taking effect, his press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, called TikTok's threat to go dark on Sunday “a stunt,” and she also said, “We see no reason for TikTok or other companies to take actions in the next few days before the Trump administration takes office.”

I'm like, “You see no reason?” You passed a law saying it's illegal and that you will fine anyone who ignores this law up to hundreds of billions of dollars. So, yes, the fact that Biden tried to disown his own law, I found profoundly embarrassing.

Yeah, it was super weird. The other confusing thing is that some Republicans who would normally go along with Donald Trump in saying, “Let's make a deal,” are coming out against the extension and the possible reprieve that Donald Trump is considering offering to TikTok.

In particular, Senator Tom Cotton posted on Saturday on X, basically saying to the tech companies that are the service providers to TikTok, “You better not let this thing back or you're in trouble.” He posted: “Any company that hosts, distributes, services, or otherwise facilitates communist-controlled TikTok could face hundreds of billions of dollars of ruinous liability under the law.”

So, basically, some Republicans, even as Donald Trump is expressing interest in making a deal, are saying, “There will be no deal. This is good law, it stands, and God help you if you offer this app in your app stores or through your services.”

So that's true, Kevin, but I think it's notable how few people actually said what Tom Cotton said, right? Remind yourself why Congress passed this law in the 1st place and why Joe Biden signed it. They said TikTok is a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States, that they believe ByteDance might be using this app to spy on Americans, to misuse their data, to spread propaganda, and sow dissent in the United States, right?

They painted this picture of TikTok as this true menace, and then they finally managed to pass a ban.

And then, just as it goes into effect, everyone all of a sudden either says, “No, don’t actually enforce it,” or they just throw their hands up and say nothing. So that, again, I think it is so embarrassing that Tom Cotton was really one of the only loud voices saying, “Hey, remember when we passed a law?”

Right. Right. There’s just this collective amnesia setting in. “Oh, we did that?”

Yeah. And it really makes you wonder: Was this app really that big of a problem if, even after banning it, it seems like nobody actually has the will to enforce the ban?

Yeah. One interpretation is they’re just scared of backlash from TikTok users, many of whom are of voting age, and they’re watching the freak-out over the possible disappearance of TikTok and saying, “I actually don’t want to take that on as a liability.”

That makes sense to me logically, but you remember during the discussions about banning the app, when TikTok users flooded the phone lines in Congress and said, “Don’t you dare do this,” Congress was enraged.

Yeah.

And they said, “How dare you exercise your freedom of speech in this democracy? We’re now going to ban you extra hard—

Right.

—TikTok for daring to challenge us.”

It is so messy. I was trying to explain to someone in my life recently what the latest on TikTok is, and I just found myself twisting up in knots because I truly have no prior precedent for what is happening now.

4. Tech Companies Court Trump

Absolutely not. There is no roadmap for this. We are entering completely uncharted territory. But I want to broaden out beyond TikTok a little bit, because something else that has been catching my eye over the past week or so, as we enter into this new administration, is that I think we are starting to see tech companies learn a lesson about how to do business during a Trump presidency.

And that is to basically do whatever you can to allow President Trump to take credit for things that you were already planning to do, or that were already in motion. Frame it as a win for the Trump administration. Obsequiously fawn over and praise the President for his role, however big or small, in doing this.

We saw this in the TikTok announcement that they put on their app saying, “President Trump has a plan to bring us back,” even if it’s not technically true. And then wait for the moment to pass, wait for the spotlight to shift, and just go about your business the normal way.

We’ve seen this a couple of times now, but the most stark example was something else that happened this week, actually in that very same conference where President Trump was asked about TikTok—

Mm-hmm.

—which is the announcement of this thing, Stargate, this new $100 billion, possibly up to $500 billion, AI infrastructure project.

Yeah. Tell us about Stargate.

So this was announced at a big White House press conference this week. It was attended by Sam Altman from OpenAI, Larry Ellison from Oracle, and Masayoshi Son from SoftBank. And they announced this major infrastructure project, basically spending $100 billion, up to $500 billion, building AI infrastructure, data centers, and so on for the use of OpenAI, in a way that they framed as kind of a national AI project.

Yes. And this is a separate company from OpenAI, but OpenAI is expected to be the major customer.

Yes. So if you watched the press conference, if you heard any of the coverage of it afterward, this was framed by the people leading these companies and leading this project as something that President Trump had decided on and could take credit for.

Sam Altman literally got up in front of a microphone and said, “We couldn’t have done this without you, Mr. President.” This is false. This is a lie. This project was going to happen anyway.

Wait, are you saying that Sam Altman is not being consistently candid about whether Stargate was possible with or without him?

I don’t know of any other way to characterize what happened here, because they had already broken ground on this project. All the money for this project comes from private-sector companies. There is no government funding slated to take part in Project Stargate.

This is purely a private-sector business project, but it is something that they have managed to recast as a win for President Trump. And I have 2 things to say about this. One: probably very effective, right? We know from watching the first Trump administration that this is a tactic that worked over and over again during the first Trump administration. So, probably very effective.

But I just think this is bad in the long term, because what we now have is kind of a constructed fiction that all of the biggest companies in technology are now participating in co-writing, along with President Trump, where everything bad is the fault of one of Donald Trump’s enemies, and everything good is something that he had a major hand in creating.

And I just think, right now, maybe that’s relatively harmless because everyone’s doing it. There’s kind of strength in numbers. But I think over time—I’m a person who believes that lying creates bad karma, and that somehow, at some point, in some way, these CEOs’ willingness to just blatantly lie about their projects and their connection to the federal government is going to come back to bite them. What do you think?

Oh, for sure. Go back to the first administration and look at the half-life of Donald Trump’s relationships with his closest allies. They were not typically longer than a year or 2. So I expect we’re going to see a lot of churning and thrashing in these relationships over the next few years, Casey.

But I also think it’s worth elaborating a bit on what, in particular, OpenAI and other AI companies are hoping to get out of Trump, and why they might have been willing to give him some credit for this Stargate project.

As we mentioned at the top of the show, one of Trump’s first acts was to repeal Biden’s executive order on AI. And that order essentially just tried to place some very light guardrails on the development of AI, maybe make it move just a little bit slower, maybe ask these companies just to do a little bit more about safety.

And by getting rid of that order, President Trump ensured that now there is essentially no regulatory infrastructure governing the development of AI anymore. So if you can somehow get together half a trillion dollars to go build data centers and plug it into OpenAI’s models, there’s now nothing that says that you can’t.

And I suspect that alone is more than enough to make Sam Altman want to stand up and say, “Thank you, President Trump. We couldn’t have done it without you.”

Yeah. Kevin, maybe let’s end this part of the conversation with a prediction. Seventy-five days from now—73 days from now—when the extension period for TikTok is over and PAFACA is finally slated to come into effect and be enforced, do you think that TikTok will have a new owner?

No, I don’t. I think nothing could be funnier or more likely than something happening but not being wrapped up in 75 days, leading to another extension that is required to make something happen, so—

Can he just keep extending it indefinitely?

I think he’s just going to keep trying because, again, if he finds out that he can just rule this country through executive order and never needs to pay attention to any laws passed by Congress, I think that would be really interesting information for him.

Yeah.

What do you think is going to happen?

I’ll take the other side. I think there will be a deal.

Okay.

I think that because TikTok is now a bargaining chip in the overall conflict with China about tariffs and everything like that, the Chinese government will say, “You know, it’s better if we can eke out a better deal on tariffs that won’t wreck our economy. Maybe it’s worth letting go of TikTok, especially if we can sell it to someone who we have some influence over, like Elon Musk.”

Interesting. Well, you know, Casey, many folks believe Elon Musk was radicalized in the lead-up to and after his purchase of Twitter. The more he looked at it, the more he transformed into a diehard poster.

I’m wondering: Do we think something similar will happen to him if he acquires TikTok? What sort of person could TikTok turn Elon Musk into?

I don’t know. Maybe he could become a better dancer or something like that.

I think he could become one of the great dancers in this country. And I think that would be a beautiful thing to see.

Well, Kevin, we’re going to go from TikTok to trick stocks. That’s what I call meme coins.

5. Trump Family Enters Crypto

Well, Kevin, we’ve said before that a big consequence of Trump’s victory is that crypto is once again on the rise. This week, it was President Trump himself, and his wife, who decided to get into the action.

They sure did.

So tell us a little bit about what happened over the weekend with the Trump family and cryptocurrencies.

It’s been a very chaotic few days, but basically, the story is this: On Friday, several days before taking office, Donald Trump announced in a post on Truth Social that he was launching the $TRUMP coin. This was basically a meme coin issued by gettrumpmemes.com under the ticker symbol $TRUMP. Casey, I know you’re saying, “This sounds like a very valuable asset. I wonder what buying this token entitles me to.”

Yeah, what does it entitle me to, Kevin?

Absolutely nothing.

No, no.

This is a purely speculative instrument. It did not entitle you to, I don’t know, a seat at an inauguration or an invitation to an inaugural ball. All it said was that you now own some Donald Trump coin.

That’s unfortunate, because I would think that, at the very least, if you acquire a certain level of Trump coin, you would be allowed to eliminate at least 1 regulation of your choice.

Maybe that’s for V2.

Now, was the president the only Trump who issued a coin this weekend, Kevin?

Well, I’m glad you asked, because it turns out he was not.

Ooh.

On Sunday, Melania Trump went on social media and announced her own coin as well. This currency, the $MELANIA coin, was also issued on the internet, and people could go buy however many they wanted.

Now, Kevin, meme coins come and go pretty regularly. Not all of them hit great heights. How did the Trump and Melania coins do over the weekend?

Over the weekend, both of these coins surged in value, actually becoming some of the most valuable cryptocurrencies in existence. At various points this week, these coins were worth well over $10 billion. Obviously, that’s just a paper valuation. It does not mean that anyone actually made billions of dollars, but it does mean—and I saw posts on social media over the weekend from people saying this—that they had made millions of dollars speculating on these meme coins.

Wow. Okay, now Kevin, this is not the first Trump-related cryptocurrency that I’m aware of. Some of our listeners may have also heard about World Liberty Coin. So what’s the difference between that one and these new coins?

Yes, there have been lots of Trump-adjacent crypto projects. He had an NFT that he sold earlier. There was World Liberty Coin. These were sort of loosely affiliated with the Trump family and the Trump business.

But these new coins, to the extent that we know who is behind them, appear to be linked to entities controlled directly by the Trump family themselves. Obviously, these meme coins don’t have a lot of transparency. They’re not required to disclose everything about their ownership structure. But we know—and people who have been reporting on this have discovered—that Trump and his affiliates own something like 80% of the total supply of the $TRUMP coin and 35% of the supply of the $MELANIA coin.

Got it. Okay, and so lots of folks, myself included, have been referring to these as meme coins. When does a cryptocurrency become a meme coin, exactly?

Well, there are some skeptics who would say all of these are meme coins, right? They don’t have anything fundamental underlying them. I am not one of these people. I think that there’s a stark divide between crypto tokens that are supposed to provide some utility—whether it’s being useful in paying for things, whether it’s being used in smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain, whether it’s—

Money laundering is another one that comes up.

—or money laundering or drug dealing. That is utility. It’s not a legal one, but it is a utility.

What separates these meme coins is that they are purely speculative instruments. Not even the most hardcore crypto boosters are arguing that these things serve a function in the crypto market. They are essentially little bits of code that you can buy and sell, and if you happen to buy at the right time and sell at the right time, you can make some money. If you don’t happen to be that lucky, you lose your money.

All right. And Kevin, it does seem like a lot of people wind up losing a lot of money when they buy and sell meme coins. Why should we care about these coins in particular, given that they might be meaningless within a year?

One of the reasons we should care about this is because it personally affects me and a prediction that I made on this very podcast several weeks ago.

Oh, remind us about that.

One of my predictions for 2025 in the tech industry was that a newly released crypto meme coin would briefly reach $100 billion in market cap before crashing.

Mm.

Now, that has not happened yet. The Trump coins have not yet reached $100 billion in market cap, but I feel confident that before the end of the year, 1 or more meme coins will reach that threshold. I will be proven right, and I’ll get bragging rights.

But more seriously, one reason to care about these meme coins is that they open up a new and worrying avenue of political corruption. It does actually mean that if you are an overseas investor who wants to do business in America during the Trump administration, you can just go buy some Trump coins. You can do so anonymously because of the way these transactions work.

Many ethics lawyers and other experts have been condemning these meme coins, saying, “This is literally allowing people to cash in on the presidency, and it’s giving people who want to transfer money to Donald Trump and his family a way to do so without leaving any trace.”

Hmm. Well, can President Trump cash in in a big way right away?

It’s a little complicated, because there are basically 2 ways that you can make money by starting a meme coin, and I know you’re interested in starting—

Yeah.

—a meme coin. So this might be directly applicable to you.

Okay, I’m taking notes.

One way that you can make money through a meme coin—by selling a meme coin—is by doing what’s known as a rug pull.

Hmm.

You reserve some portion of the coins for yourself and entities connected to you and your family. You hype the coins so that people start buying them because they think they can get rich. Then, at a certain point, when you decide that you’ve made enough money, you sell your coins to the highest bidder. If the price of the thing collapses, you wash your hands and walk away.

Wow, that seems like a great deal for me.

Yes, it is a great deal. Many people have done this to great profit. But in the case of the $TRUMP coin specifically, there are some protections against a rug pull. According to the people behind the project, the 80% share of $TRUMP tokens that Trump and his affiliates directly control can’t be sold all at once. They’re actually doled out over a period of about 3 years.

More relevantly, if they tried to sell all their coins at once, it would immediately tank the price of the coin, and they just wouldn’t be able to do it. So there are some practical considerations that make it hard for them to directly profit from a rug pull right now. But—

All right, so you heard it here from Kevin. This is a safe and good investment, and you might want to move—

—your retirement savings over immediately.

Okay.

No, don’t do that.

But there’s another way that you can make money, which is through token fees when tokens are bought and sold. So even if the Trump family never disposes of its stake in these coins, it can make a little bit of money every time a $TRUMP coin is bought and sold.

We don’t know exactly how many fees they’re making on these transactions, but because of the popularity of these coins among people who like to buy and sell meme coins, a director at Coinbase recently speculated that, as of Saturday, the Trump family had already made an estimated $58 million in fees just from other people buying and selling these coins.

Hmm. I’m curious what people in the crypto industry are saying. Is this a sort of validation for them? “Oh, well, even the president has a meme coin now. We’re really off to the races with crypto and Trump 2.0.”

I think some people in the crypto industry see this as a good thing. This is more people talking about crypto. Maybe a rising tide lifts all boats.

But the majority of people I've talked to and heard from, and seen posting on social media about this in the crypto industry, are very worried about what this means.

Hmm.

So Nick Carter, who is a Trump-supporting crypto investor, called the meme coins preposterous and said that the people behind the coins were plumbing new depths of idiocy. That was a great quote. Another popular crypto podcaster, Scott Melker, called these coins a gratuitous cash grab. So there were just lots of people in the crypto industry who said, “This is not how we envisioned crypto blossoming during the Trump administration. Could you please lay off the scams a little bit?”

I mean, it's interesting to hear them say that, and yet I find myself wondering: If that is the case, what kind of crypto coin is not a blatant cash grab? Are there a bunch of virtuous crypto coins out there that are just raising money to fight climate change or something?

Well, there are, but they're not the popular ones, and they're never going to go viral. You can't use them to bribe the president, so I don't think there's a bright future for them.

But Casey, more seriously, I'm someone who believes that there is a potential that something good does come from crypto once all is said and done. I just think that what's happening now with the open season during the Trump administration for crypto is not going to benefit the long-term future of the industry. Because if you remember, during the Biden administration, when there was this crypto crackdown and all the crypto companies were complaining about how badly they were treated, the thing that they kept saying is, “Let us build. Let us cook, and we will show you how serious and transformative crypto assets could be.”

Yes.

And then the floodgates open, and what happens? The president and his wife start a dang meme coin. So I just think there is this fundamental tension between the people saying, “This is going to be a serious and transformative application of technology to the financial industry,” and the people who want to use it to get rich quick.

Yes. Also, those people didn't build anything interesting over the past 4 years, and it wasn't just for regulatory reasons.

And more to that point, the people who spent the last 4 years telling us about all these serious and beneficial crypto applications that they were going to build tended to come from companies like Coinbase and Kraken, both of which rushed to list the Trump meme coins on their platforms and profit from the interest in trading these coins. So these same companies telling us how serious they were about their plans for crypto under the new administration are also rushing to be the first to benefit from the silly meme coins that Trump and his family members are putting out.

Wonderful. So, Kevin, I'm left asking why now has been such a big moment for these meme coins. It was only last month that Haley Welch's Hawk Tuah digital coin spiked and made a lot of money for some people, of course, before immediately losing 95% of its value. And my understanding is that part of the reason that we're seeing so many of these recently is because of something called Pump.fun.

6. Pump.fun Makes Gambling Easy

Yes. I've been dying to talk about Pump.fun on this show because I think it is a platform that does not get nearly enough attention as a driver of the recent interest in meme coins and speculation, and essentially gambling.

Yeah. What is it?

Pump.fun is about 1 year old. It's a platform that basically makes it super easy to create and launch a new meme coin on the Solana blockchain. It's been possible for years to create meme coins. Dogecoin was created years ago. That's a meme coin. But you needed a little bit of technical know-how, right? You needed to learn how to create a coin, maybe to fork an existing coin, maybe to hard-fork an existing coin.

You needed to know how to code and do things like create smart contracts to govern the coin. But now, with a couple of clicks on Pump.fun, you can create your very own meme coin and start selling it on the open market. And as you might expect from the name Pump.fun, this is primarily an entertainment platform. This is a LARP. This is essentially a crypto carnival, where the explicit goal is to drive as much attention as you can to your coin, pump up the value, and then get out before it all crashes.

I'm just visiting the website for the first time, and when you visit, there's a pop-up that contains a little information about how it works and some terms of service. There's a button that you have to click to access the site, and that button says, “I'm ready to pump.”

Yes. So they're not exactly being subtle about the fact that this is all essentially legalized gambling, market manipulation, and pump-and-dump schemes. It's not even masquerading as a legitimate crypto platform. And yet, this is a very popular platform, and it is driving a lot of the interest in meme coins. So I'm glad we're talking about it today.

So what sort of things are people doing to promote their meme coins, Kevin? President Trump has access to the bully pulpit, and he can go on network TV and tell people to buy his meme coin. But what are the rank-and-file coiners doing?

A lot of it is just what you might consider social media marketing, right? They're posting on TikTok and X about this. Some of them have Discords. I mean, there are these collective efforts to just capture as much viral attention as they can and direct it to their coin for some amount of time to raise the price. And then, as we've seen with meme stocks and things like that, once it gets a certain gravity to it, people just start piling in because they think they can time the market and basically get out before the thing crashes.

Right. And this is, as you say, becoming a form of entertainment for people who love to gamble.

Yes. And in some cases, people are making lots of money. Some people are losing lots of money, probably more people losing money than making money. But Casey, I think we should illustrate a little bit of the vibe of the Pump.fun meme coin ecosystem.

Oh, yeah.

And I want to do that by playing a game with you.

Okay, let's do it.

So I went on Pump.fun this morning, and I looked up some of the leading meme coins that are being bought and sold on that platform. And then I came up with my own list of fictional meme coins.

I want to play a game with you called Meme Coin or Dream Coin, where you take these descriptions of meme coins and guess whether they are real or fake.

All right, let's do it.

Okay. Number 1: Butthole Coin. This is a coin marketed as the foundation of flatulent finance. Casey, meme coin or dream coin?

I'm going to hope that that's a dream coin.

No, that's a real meme coin. Its market cap is $40 million.

$40 million? That's a lot of butthole.

Okay. Number 2: Dad Coin, a utility token powered by dad jokes. Dad Coin aims to build the world's largest blockchain-verified dad joke database. Casey, meme coin or dream coin?

That sounds real. I'm going to go with meme coin.

No, that one's fake.

Oh, God.

I made that up. Okay, you're 0 for 2. Let's keep going.

Damn.

Number 3: Apple Dog Coin. This is a coin inspired by a viral TikTok meme of a dog holding an apple in its mouth.

I will say meme coin.

That's a real meme coin, with a market cap of $14 million.

And they said that watching TikTok would never benefit me, but that's how I knew that that was real.

Okay, next one: Shoggoth. This is a coin inspired by a 2023 New York Times column by Kevin Roose—I’ve heard of that guy—about how a tentacled creature known as a shoggoth has become a viral meme in the AI community.

I'm going to say that you couldn't think of anything else, and so you just started reading your old columns and coming up with them. So I'm going to go with dream coin.

No, that one is real.

Oh, my gosh.

It has a market cap of $31 million.

What?

I was horrified to discover that this had been inspired by my column. I apologize to anyone who has lost their retirement savings gambling on Shoggoth Coin. Please don't do that.

That's crazy.

I had nothing to do with it, for the record.

Oh, my gosh.

Okay, so that's Pump.fun in a nutshell, where everything is so strange that it might as well be made up.

Kevin, I have to say, as you've been very helpfully explaining a lot of important information to me, I've been having an experience of feeling horrified.

Yeah?

Yeah.

You want to say more about that?

Well, you know, we've mentioned on the show a few times now that it seems like vast swaths of American life are being converted into ways for people to gamble. And while, in moderation, I have no issue with people gambling, I worry about this much time, attention, and money going into just sort of crazy speculation.

Yes, it is gambling. It is certainly 1 of many ways that Americans can now do essentially legalized gambling on their phones or computers.

But it also strikes me as the financialization of news, right?

Mm.

We are now seeing, from people on TikTok to people in the White House, that the thing you can do very easily and quickly to capitalize on a surge in attention directed your way is launch your own meme coin. In the old days, you'd see people go viral, and then they'd start to link to their Patreon. But now you can use a much more direct form of capitalizing on attention by just launching your own meme coin. In fact, after the inauguration this year, we saw something like this happen, where Lorenzo Sewell, the Detroit pastor who prayed at Trump's inauguration, immediately made his own meme coin, Lorenzo, and said that all proceeds from it would support his church.

Mm.

So I do think we are starting to see a new kind of financialization of attention, where the minute you become notable for something, the minute people are starting to look at you, you want to launch your meme coin to be able to rake in as much attention in the form of cryptocurrency as you can. I don't think that's a good thing for America.

I think we should go back to doing what we used to do with these news events, which was create a novelty Twitter account for them. Do you remember this? Something would happen at the Oscars, and then it would be, “Oh, that thing has a Twitter account now.” Something to think about.

There you have it. When we come back, attention please: MSNBC's Chris Hayes is here to talk about his new book on attention.

Well, today on the show, I want to have a conversation about attention.

Kevin, ever since you put your phone in prison for the simple crime of being interesting, you've been fascinated by the topic of attention.

Yes, I am fascinated by attention and the various ways that we direct and misdirect our attention, and the various apps and services that are trying to get our attention all the time. Today on the show, we are going to have a conversation about attention. We are going to have on Chris Hayes. Chris Hayes is the host of MSNBC's nightly news show, All In. He just wrote a book about attention called The Siren's Call: How Attention Became the World's Most Endangered Resource. It comes out next week, and I read an advance copy. It's very good.

Chris argues that attention has become a profoundly valuable commodity in today's world. He argues that we are trapped in a system of attention gathering and maximization that we didn't construct, that we don't have a lot of choice over, and that has created a feeling of alienation among many of the people who feel their attention being pulled in ways that they may not want it to be.

Yeah, it does feel like a condition of modern life that, on most days, you will find yourself doing something and think to yourself, “I don't even want to be looking at the thing I'm looking at, and yet I'm not sure how I can look away.”

Yes, and obviously this is a conversation that has a lot to do with technology and the ways that social media apps and other forms of technology have found new ways to harness attention. But I'm excited to talk to Chris about this topic because he is not just a scholar and a critic of the attention economy; he is also a participant in it, just like you and I are. He is a cable news host, and he is in the business of gathering people's attention. He's an attention merchant as well as someone who studies the subject.

I wanted to talk to him not just about his diagnosis of our attention problem, but also about what he personally does to harness his attention. I feel like that's an area where I have a lot of trouble, and I know you do, too.

That's right, Kevin, and in addition to all of the questions we had for Chris, he turned the tables on us and asked us for a little bit of guidance as he attempts to navigate how AI will transform our attention environment. So that wound up being a fun twist.

Yeah, very fun conversation with someone who I think has a lot of worthwhile thoughts about what is going on in our attention economy and how we might start to fix it. Here's the conversation.

Chris Hayes, welcome to Hard Fork.

It's great to be here.

7. Attention Becomes a Commodity

So, Chris, your book is all about the ways that our attention is captured, bought, and sold, and a lot of the book is about tech and the role that new technology plays in determining where our attention goes. I want to start by asking: What, in your view, are the problems with how our attention is currently directed, and is there an ideal state of how our attention is directed?

Well, I think the problems are probably easier. The forms of attention capitalism that we have at this moment are constantly trying to compel our attention. The best example of this is the physical haptic feedback in our phones. We've all had the experience of being at a table with someone whose phone is just going, “Bzz, bzz, bzz, bzz, bzz, bzz, bzz.” That physical buzzing, whether it's happening in your pocket or on the table, is triggering a deep part of your brain chemistry that is like—

Yeah.

“Oh, there's something happening. There's a predator rustling in the bushes. I gotta go check it out.” So we have engineered a situation where our attention is constantly being compelled against our will.

Mm.

In terms of what the ideal form is, look, I think human beings like paying attention to all kinds of crazy stuff, and I think to the degree to which that crazy stuff can flourish and people can do it from some place of volition, that's all great.

Mm.

I don't feel like our experience of where we put our attention right now feels particularly volitional.

Mm-hmm. You make a really interesting point early in your book about how the attention economy—this term that we so often hear used to describe things like social media platforms—is actually much broader than social media. Companies like Amazon are also in the attention business in a way, because they are trying to direct your attention not to posts, but to products. I'd argue that crypto and some of the stuff we're seeing around meme coins is—

100%.

—also part of the attention economy. So I guess my question for you is: If we're not happy about the role that attention and the attention economy are playing in our lives—as you say we are not—and if we're alienated in the ways that you describe, who should we be mad at for that?

Well, I think focusing on the platforms is probably a good place to start. I think that's the place where it's most tangible, and those are the folks that are most clearly profiting off this. They nicely arrayed themselves into a neat little line at the inauguration to frame themselves for our viewing pleasure. All those people who were at the inauguration—the heads of Google, Apple, Amazon, and X—are some of the most responsible entities for what's happening to our attention.

But again, it's broader than just those companies because of the era we've entered into: the digital economy, the information age, this kind of post-material economic production. Crypto is the ultimate example of it. The meme coin is the purest monetization of attention that I've ever seen, and it's elevated above any physical substrate. It just exists in the minds of its purchasers.

Yeah. What people will sometimes say in the tech industry when they're confronted with the challenge, “Oh, you're weaponizing attention; you're harvesting attention,” is that they'll try to reframe it in terms of supply and demand. And we've talked—

Right.

—on this show, and I'm sure you've also had conversations about the two sides of the attention market. There's obviously a case to be made that the supply side is bad, that we should not have exploitative platforms, but I also think there's a demand-side problem that we have to reckon with.

How do you think about the demand side of the attention market?

I think about it all the time. There’s a long chapter in the book about boredom, which to me is the central seed of the demand-side question, right? Why don’t we want to be alone with our own thoughts? Fundamentally, that’s the question. Why do we have such demand for our attention to be taken?

That, I think, is both a situational question, because I think different forms of living, social arrangements, institutions, and technologies expand or contract our threshold for boredom, but also a very old human one. Pascal, in Pensées in the 17th century, says, “I’ve concluded that all the troubles of man stem from his inability to sit alone in his own chamber.”

Mm.

Now, he didn’t have TikTok. He didn’t even have TV. He didn’t have radio. And yet that sense of restlessness is there in the 17th century.

So part of this is the lot of being a human, sitting in this one mind we have, with its whirling consciousness, and the fact that we have to deal with our own thoughts. The demand comes from that. It’s speaking to something essential in us. Very clearly, if you gave Blaise Pascal TikTok, or the people he’s writing about in the 17th century, they would’ve been like, “Hell yes, dude.” Like, “Give it to me.”

They would have died instantly.

They would’ve been on that. They would be dead.

It would kill the medieval peasant.

They would stop eating. They would just be in their chamber—

Yes.

—going through videos and never remembering to eat or drink. 100% true.

It’s interesting to think about the idea that human attention has always wanted to be 100% saturated, that people have always been uncomfortable sitting alone with their own thoughts, and it is only now, because of technological innovations, that we can actually saturate it 100%—that for the first time, there now actually is an infinite supply of things to look at and to do. Maybe that’s at the root of the discomfort that you’re writing about.

I think that is at the root, although I would say one thing to slightly amend that, which I think is quite important. There are certain things we have that are genuinely human universals, like, for instance, hunger, right? There is no human under any social conditions that doesn’t experience it. You have to eat. You have to have calories to live.

Boredom actually is not a universal human experience, and the reason we know that is because there are societies that live entirely outside of modernity—hunter-gatherer tribes—that, from all that we know, do not experience boredom. There’s an anthropologist who studies Aboriginal people in Australia whom I quote in the book, and among the Warlpiri people, which is their name, they don’t have a word for boredom. When they have to describe it, they use the English word. It’s a literal import, both as a lexeme and as an experience.

Mm.

People who spend a lot of time in nonmodern societies will tell you that there is a tremendous amount of sitting alone with your thoughts.

Mm.

Sometimes together, sometimes alone. So there is something about the experience of modernity writ large that has a relationship to boredom that not all humans experience in the same way.

Hmm. Chris, I’m wondering: I can imagine someone hearing this interview or reading your book and saying, “Well, I’m not sure that I buy the assumption that our attention is more fractured and that we have shorter attention spans than at any point in human history.” I observe—and I’m saying this as me—that when I ask people what they’re listening to or what they’re watching, people are out there listening to four-hour podcasts, Chris.

Yes.

People are out there watching YouTube videos that are 2½ hours long. The idea of shortening attention spans, which is the classic complaint that older people have about younger people throughout the eons, just doesn’t seem to be aligned with the reality, which is that people are actually willing to sit through long and, to my mind, boring things when it suits their needs.

So how do you reconcile the crisis that many adults are feeling about, especially, young people’s attention spans with the popularity of these super-long-form shows and media products?

I think it’s a great question. There are a few ways to think about this. The first is that I do think it’s important to distinguish what I’m going to call philosophical questions from empirical ones, and I think this is a place where things get wrapped around the axle a little bit.

What I mean by that is, whether people’s attention spans are getting shorter is an empirical question. Whether people are getting more anxious and depressed is an empirical question. Then there’s a deeper philosophical question about what is a good life.

So here’s an example. If I had a friend who was spending 13 hours a day playing video games, you might say, “Well, that’s bad for you,” or, “It’s bad for your health.” Maybe if you did randomized controlled trials, it turns out it isn’t. There aren’t bad health outcomes associated with it. But if you ask me if I think he’s living the good life, I don’t think he is, and I’ll defend that to my grave.

That’s not an empirical claim. That’s a philosophical and spiritual one about what it means, right? First, I think it’s important when we’re diagnosing this question. A lot of stuff gets wrapped around the axle of whether you’re making an empirical claim about whether, in a technical sense, people’s attention spans are getting shorter, or whether you’re making the claim I make in the book: that there is a genuine and profound feeling of alienation in which we are not in control of our own minds.

Mm-hmm.

So I’m making the latter claim.

As to the specific thing about the shortening of attention spans, I love the fact that people listen to four-hour podcasts. One of the cool things about what’s happened to attention markets, because they do not have gatekeepers who predetermine what people will pay attention to, is that things just get thrown into the marketplace to sink or swim. There have actually been discoveries of stuff people will pay attention to that no one would’ve greenlit before.

I think the fact that podcasts exist out of algorithmic environments and through an open, old-school internet protocol called RSS is a central part of why you have seen the flourishing of them in these four-hour ways. It actually speaks to the fact that the architecture of attentional spaces matters a tremendous amount.

Yeah, I’d buy that. Do you buy it, Kevin?

I’m not sure. My explanation for the rise in popularity of four-hour-long podcasts is basically that they are not competing for the same type of attention that a very long magazine article is.

Right, because it’s background attention—

Because a magazine article—

It’s background attention.

It’s background attention. You may be giving 10% of your attention to it while you’re folding laundry—

Yeah.

—or washing the dishes or driving your car.

And I have another point I would make. I think that, for all of my favorite podcasts that I just listen to for fun, they’re about the niche-iest things in my life, and typically, they’re about the things that none of my friends or family actually want to talk to me about day to day.

Hmm.

I think this is inextricable from the problem that you’re writing about, Chris, because the reason those podcasts are so exciting to me is that part of me can’t even believe that this media exists. I grew up in the ’80s and ’90s, when I just had to absorb whatever was—

Mass culture.

—mass mainstream.

Yeah.

But now media creation is so democratized that, no matter what niche-iest thing in existence you name, there’s a great two-hour podcast about it. So I think that’s the kind of double-edged sword here, right?

But I think the thing that you’re identifying was true of the precommercial internet. That was the great thing about the internet before it got taken over by the platforms, right? So in that sense, I think that’s actually a great thing about the architecture.

Again, I’m a partisan of the internet. I got my first internet connection at 14, and I eschewed AOL. I got a direct internet service provider. I was surfing the web on the Lynx text browser before Andreessen put out Mosaic. I’ve been on the internet for a minute.

Yeah.

Okay? And so all that stuff is true.

I think that question, too, about these different forms of attention is really interesting: people doing more than one thing at once, which is also this kind of supply expansion. I write in the book about coming across my kid playing a video game while watching a video in a little picture-in-picture window and being like, “What are you doing? Don’t do that. I don’t like that. That does not make me feel good.”

And he’s like, “You watch TV with your phone all the time, literally all the time.”

Right.

And I’m like, “Fair point, but not you.”

I mean, I can imagine another reaction that people might be having to hearing three products of the media as it was constructed 10 or 20 years ago complaining about all the kids and their attention, and just saying to themselves, “These guys are just mad that people aren’t paying attention to them,” right?

Right.

You don’t hear Jake Paul complaining about the attention economy, right? Because he is a beneficiary of the changes.

Yes. Read an interview with MrBeast. It’s really interesting, actually, because in interviews, he talks about this guy being a genius at hacking this, and he finds it oppressive, actually.

Hmm.

He said that in interviews. And I want to be clear here: I actually think the kids are in better shape than the elders on this.

Hmm.

I think one of the things that happens with this concern is that it gets projected onto children obsessively. I think it’s worse for older people. I think they’re actually better at screening information. They handle it better. They’re more native to it. And one of the points of the book is that I’m talking about myself. I’m talking about myself and my parents. I don’t think this is a problem with the youth.

Yeah.

I think this is a problem for all of us.

8. Reading Rebuilds Attention

What would make you feel better about your own attention? What are some things that could happen that would make you say, “Okay, we’re starting to get this problem under control”?

Do you mean individually for myself or collectively?

Yeah. For you personally, because you’re saying that a lot of what you’re writing about is about your own experience.

I think a big marker is reading books.

Yeah.

That is, to me, a real concrete example, and I have forced myself to do more reading. Part of writing this book, honestly, was binding myself to the mast that made me read books. I had to go back and read works of philosophy I hadn’t touched either in years or had never touched, and that’s hard reading. That’s the kind of reading—

Yeah.

—that you don’t do when you leave college or grad school. You’re not just sitting at the beach; it’s like, “Ugh,” each sentence.

Yeah.

And getting those muscles back was really hard and invigorating. And us being able to do that collectively is pretty important to me. I think, actually—

Yeah.

—again, I will 100 percent cop to sounding like a fogey.

Yeah.

I genuinely think self-governance hinges on our ability to do that. Truly, genuinely.

What about your own personal tech stack? How do you direct your attention? What’s on your home screen? Do you use any apps or services that are designed to help you focus your attention?

For a while, I really, really relied on being a power user of Twitter and having different feeds and different people, and that has been shot to hell because it’s just a useless tool for what I used to use it for, which was actually getting information. You just can’t really rely on that anymore. I’m trying to recreate a bit of that in Bluesky, with some success. The degree to which you can connect yourself to people with actual, genuine domain expertise in a given thing—that’s the most valuable thing for me to seek out on the internet and to try to maximize my ability to funnel into me.

Yeah.

Right.

Chris, I can’t let you come on this show without asking you about AI.

What is that? I haven’t heard of that. Are they doing something with that now?

They’re doing something.

We talk about it once or twice. I can imagine 2 ways that someone like you could feel about the rise of AI, and they’re essentially mutually exclusive. One is that AI is going to be horrible for our collective attention harnessing and focusing because we’re all going to be confronted every day with a slew of hyper-personalized media that is generated specifically to cater to our tastes. And boy, if you thought people were addicted to their phones before, just wait till they’ve got their chatbots in there telling them that they love them and all this personalized media. Our attention is going to be harder to corral than ever before.

I can also imagine a more optimistic take: that AI is going to help us with our attention because we can dispatch AI to go read all the news for us and summarize what’s most important, or watch every video on TikTok and tell us what the best memes are. We can offload some of that cognitive burden to AI.

I love that.

Of those 2 scenarios—

I love AI as your meme servant.

Yes.

That’s cool.

Honestly, this will be—That, to me, is AGI.

I want the 5 dankest memes today. Please go retrieve for me the 5 dankest memes.

TikTok literally is an AI meme servant.

When you think about AI and attention, do you feel like one of those scenarios is more likely than the other?

I feel totally lost on AI, in the sense that I have zero trust in my own instincts about what it will be. I think about it most like the late ’90s tech boom, where there was both a lot of genuine innovation and a lot of ludicrous froth, and then a lot of things that people were trying to do before the technology was there.

Yeah.

Wait, what do you think?

I’m optimistic about this, in part because I read the chapter of your book where you talk about spam and the equivalent of spam in today’s attention environment. I know that compared to 10 years ago, I encounter a lot less spam in my email inbox than I used to, and that is not because of anything that I’ve done. That’s because AI got better—

It’s gotten better, yeah.

—and I do have some hope that—

Yeah.

—people—

That’s where I am, too.

—are starting to see this. I know someone who programmed a ChatGPT task the other day to give him a message every morning of everything that Donald Trump did the day before, ranked in order of importance.

Hmm.

And that kind of thing feels possible to me in a way that it did not a couple of years ago, and that could actually save us some time watching cable news, no offense.

Well, we don’t want that, but let me ask you: Can I keep asking you questions? Is that all right?

Yeah.

Yes.

Yeah. How much are you two using ChatGPT in your workflow?

Constantly, for everything.

Every day, for everything.

Really?

Sorry.

Okay.

Yes.

I’m not. I feel mixed. I feel a little like I’m just walking around, listening to The Strokes in my skinny jeans, like a dude who just stopped, and I’m—I can’t. It just seems—I don’t know. It’s like a new thing. I’ve got to go interact with a new thing. I don’t want a new thing.

Wait, can I say something about AI and attention, though?

Yes.

Because, Chris, you were joking a few minutes ago about an AI meme servant. That is explicitly what TikTok was set up to be, right?

Right.

We’re going to look at literally everything, and just based on engagement signals, we’re going to serve up the things—

Right.

—that you’re most likely to enjoy. And the state of the art is already pretty good. I think one reason why TikTok got banned is we have this sense that, gosh, it’s kind of spooky good at understanding what I like.

Mm-hmm.

So if the state of the art is that good, I truly believe that the next generation is going to get even more and more compelling. And to the extent you think that we’re in an attention crisis, I don’t see how AI doesn’t just exacerbate that. AI will create the TikToks and distribute the TikToks, and then I will use my AI servant—

—to screen the TikToks.

—to go watch all the TikToks for me.

Yeah.

Can I make another point? We’ve gotten to be very shaggy and loose in this—

We’re way over time.

—but I’m enjoying this.

I’m sorry. I really did hype—

No.

—I’m just curious how you guys use it.

No, it was—I think we can all agree it was Kevin’s fault. You were talking earlier about books, and this is something that I share with you. Every year, I think, “Gosh, I wish I could read more books.”

Last year, The New York Times, a great newspaper, put out a list of the 100 best books of the 21st century.

Of the 21st century.

Of the 21st century.

Yep.

My boyfriend and I would, every day, go through the 10 new books they released and ask, “Which ones have you read?”

That’s great.

I created this list, and I’m now working through it. I’ve just started a 900-page book called 2666 by Roberto Bolaño.

Yes, Bolaño.

I’m about 250 pages in. It’s a bit of a struggle.

It is.

Part of me feels exactly what you said, Chris: gosh, if only Twitter had not destroyed my brain, I’d be sailing through this thing. But there’s this other element, which is that books are not as culturally relevant as they were when I was an English major at Northwestern University.

And I think one of the problems I have getting through books is that none of my friends and family are talking about any of the books that I'm reading. I just think that speaks to the fact that, as the years go on, the culture's evolved, the media formats change—

Yes.

And our attention naturally shifts, and it's less of an algorithmic thing and more of a cultural evolution.

Part of that, I think, is probably true, but I think there's also something happening, which is that the form of things is influenced by the attentional environment they're in. So one of the things I've really been noticing: if you go back and watch movies from the 1970s and 1980s, they're paced so much—

So slow.

More slowly. They are so slow.

Oh my God.

And why are they slow? They're slow because what else are you gonna do, dude? You just spent $15 or $6 or $5. You're in there. You got nowhere to be. You got nothing to do.

If Robert Altman wants to take his sweet time setting up the first 20 minutes of this movie... And so now, because things respond to the attentional environment, everything is conditioned to move much more quickly. And so when you try to get something from outside that, it feels slow. Even—

Yeah.

Writing this book, where I was working so hard to keep people's attention, to stay present vocally in people's ears, it does change the way that everything gets created.

Yeah. But again, fast-forward to today. Watch the fourth episode of any Netflix show. They didn't need to make it. You could just delete it and move right on. Sometimes I think things are still pretty slowly paced.

Chris Hayes, thank you so much for coming on. The book, The Siren's Call, is available next week, January 28. I have read it. It is quite good, and I recommend it. Thanks so much for your time.

Thanks, guys.