Ed Helms 回答你的棘手问题
工作中应越来越默认使用 AI,评价标准也应从工具选择转向产出质量。 Kevin 认为,“重要的是最终成品”,尤其是软件只需要成功编译的情况下;Ed 同意商业工作应如此,但反对将同一标准用于教育,因为成绩应衡量学生学到了什么,而不是聊天机器人产出了什么。
对 Ed 来说,ChatGPT 已经在研究和敏感内容起草上取代 Google,并直接冲击依赖流量的生意。 他称 ChatGPT 是“我的新 Google”,说自己搜索得更少了,并提醒,靠用户点击 Google 链接生存的行业将面临“AI fallout”。他还怀疑,好莱坞高管已经在提交 AI 辅助生成的意见,说明组织尚未建立披露规范,采用却可能已经以非正式方式推进。
创意行业面临的风险不只是岗位替代,还包括人类能力与动力的流失。 Ed 对 AI 的创作能力“震惊不已”,但他追问:当“人类创造力不再有需求”后,人们还会不会继续创造美好事物。随着模型变得更强大、更“令人陶醉”、更令人兴奋且更会给予肯定,这种风险还会放大——即使像用眼镜显示歌词这样的增强工具,也可能让音乐人随时拥有“1,000首歌”。
手机越来越像捆绑了必需基础设施的有害产品,让人很难从结构上 disengage。 Ed 把当下的设备使用比作 1990年代的香烟:社会知道它有害,但企业仍在持续改进产品。关键差异在于锁定效应——“你只能靠抽烟来办理银行业务或购物”——因此同一台设备既有毒,又无法回避。
面对诈骗者和保护薄弱的加密货币,理性回应是不参与,而不是自作聪明地反击。 回复可能让一个号码被标记为“活跃号码”,并在诈骗者之间流转;而许多诈骗操作员自己也可能遭到贩运或胁迫。Ed 的额外判断标准是,骚扰别人“不是你最好的一面”。当一位听众发现区块链上有几个价值数千美元、私钥容易猜中的账户时,Ed 建议远离这摊浑水;Kevin 则建议,如果项目设有漏洞赏金计划,可以通过负责任披露来处理。
当产品为被限制的行为提供便捷替代方案时,隐私和协作都会改善。 与其只是禁止祖父母公开发布孩子的照片,主持人建议设置共享 Photos 相册、WhatsApp 群聊或群发短信。日历也适用同一原则:解释共享邀请不会暴露整个日历,先建立协作规范,再降低遵守规范所需的操作成本。
当 AI 焦虑被放在“选择”而非“宿命”的框架下,它就能转化为建设性讨论。 Ed 建议,当恐惧开始造成孤立时,可以把治疗作为出口;Casey 则认为,面对具体风险,人们至少有“10%或20%的时间可以当个扫兴的人”。Kevin 的经验是,高“P doom”的对话会剥夺人的行动能力;条件式框架——好的决定可能带来好的路径,坏的决定可能带来坏的路径——则为参与留下空间,而不是把人推向瘫痪。
1. 当能力跑在判断力前面,灾难就开始了
Helms 认为自己最尖锐的 SNAFU,是 1950年代冷战时期用核弹头轰击月球、以恐吓苏联的计划。研究人员发现,核弹可能打偏,被月球引力甩回,最终击中地球;尽管投入了大量时间、资金和资源,这项计划最终还是没有执行——“谢天谢地”。Carl Sagan 当时就在研究团队中。
Elk Cloner 病毒是同一种失败模式的缩小版:程序员写了一首“蠢诗”,原本只是觉得可爱、俏皮,结果却演变成灾难。Kevin 将这种恶作剧文化与当代围绕窃取“500万美元 Bitcoin”构建的攻击作了对比。
Helms 曾是早期采用者,会购买新款笔记本,也作为坚定的 Mac 用户加入 iPhone 浪潮。但在“5年、10年”间,科技已经“甩开”了他,因为应用默认用户熟悉一套不断演化的视觉语言。如今更新软件不再像超市只是调换货架位置,而是“他们换了食物”,直到牛油果看起来像外星物种,“西兰花变成了蓝色”。
2. AI 已经有用到足以威胁自己的输入
参与者罕见地把各自的立场和利益关系说得很清楚:Kevin 的雇主 The New York Times 正因 AI 训练中的版权问题起诉 OpenAI 和 Microsoft;Casey 的男友在 Anthropic 工作。Ed 的披露则是情绪化的——“奇点就在眼前,我绝对吓坏了”,随后又加上一句保留:“我喜欢 AI。”
Ed 主要用 ChatGPT 查询、研究,以及起草困难或“带有负担”的邮件,称它是“我的新 Google”,并确认自己搜索得更少了。他仍然会用 Google,也记得主持人曾讨论过 Google 的 AI 可能让人们不再访问链接;他称,依赖 Google 导流的行业可能遭遇的威胁,是“众多 AI fallout 之一”。
电影技术一直在扩展媒介边界,从摄影、镜头运动,到数字图像处理和动画。ChatGPT 给 Ed 的感觉却是“完全不同的范式”:他认为自己已经看过几乎不加掩饰的 AI 生成意见,而 AI 完成创意任务的能力让他“彻底震惊”,也让创意圈“有充分理由”感到恐惧。
他最深层的担忧不只是商业损失,而是没有需求后创造力是否还能存在:“当人类创造力不再有需求,我们还会有创造力吗?”但与此同时,作为音乐人,他也想要能显示歌词的眼镜,让自己随时拥有“1,000首歌”。这份矛盾构成了他的立场:保留人类创作,同时接受能够扩展表演能力的工具。
3. 手机把类似烟草的伤害与类似公共设施的依赖绑在了一起
Instagram 是 Ed 最大的注意力陷阱,不过他说它“还没有毁掉我的生活”,自己也从未设置过使用上限。有时它会让他熬夜,因为恶作剧合集带来的笑点比许多电影或剧集更强;他妻子抱怨的也不是抽象的屏幕时间,而是他试图压低笑声时,整张床都在震动。
即使自称对恶作剧有很强雷达,Ed 也被 Instagram 的推荐算法“黑过”。他拒绝坠落、身体受伤和真正造成创伤的惊吓,却会被突然跳出的惊吓逗到“笑哭”,比如有人躺在地板上,只把脑袋从门口、贴近地面的位置伸出来。
他的宏观判断是绝对性的:设备使用“显然对我们有害”,也“显然正在伤害我们”。这和 1990年代所有人都知道香烟有害、但企业仍不断推出更好或所谓更健康的版本很像。他希望社会最终也能迎来类似的拐点,说出:“这东西真的太糟糕了。”
但手机与香烟的类比止步于依赖:银行业务、购物和日常管理都通过手机完成,仿佛必须抽烟才能使用基本服务。Casey 的喜剧式政策——Instagram 只能在户外使用,距离门至少 15英尺,而且使用后还要让人闻到烟味——反而凸显了问题:当有害参与和现实必需共存于同一设备上,自愿克制会变得多么困难。
4. 当规范与激励不匹配,数字礼仪就会失灵
对于未来孩子的隐私,Ed 的态度非常明确:“我绝不会把孩子的照片放上网。”家庭聚会后,他也要求亲属收敛。实际解决方案是直接沟通并提供替代渠道:建立共享 Photos 或 iPhoto 相册、WhatsApp 群聊或群发短信,让祖父母获得大量照片,但不必公开发布。
一位匿名管理员讲述了一个朋友的情况:她会在自己的日历上安排会议,却从不邀请另一位参与者,结果变成“两只日历在太空中彼此分离”。Ed 认为,这可能是代际或组织文化的错位:同一组织内的同事可以默认共同标准,但独立合作方应该先确认彼此的“日历文化”,明确表达偏好,而不是假设所有人都遵循同一套规则。
Kevin 的第一判断是技术误解:这位朋友可能不知道,共享一个日历事件并不会暴露整份日历。Casey 更偏运营层面的做法是,双方确定时间后由自己接管流程,发送所有邀请;Ed 则补充说,管理员应先弄清楚对方是否出于某种原因主动排斥邀请。
公共场合外放手机声音,反而更容易形成明确规范。Sarah 已经会要求别人戴耳机,Ed 认为这是正确做法,尽管他没有制止过一名在飞机上外放篮球比赛的乘客。Casey 猜测耳机大约 15美元就能买到,对这种趋势感到费解。Kevin 的备选方案是参与式恶作剧:询问比赛情况、Temple Run 的规则以及对方的最高分,直到对方开始觉得隐私更有吸引力。
5. 面对数字掠夺,最安全的回应是不参与
当 Calvin 承认自己喜欢与诈骗来电者和短信发送者长时间纠缠时,Ed 建议“冷处理式无视”。反向恶搞或许能带来“邪恶的快感”,但对方的身份、知识和能力都未知:“根本别打开这罐麻烦。”
Casey 强调,听众报告称,许多诈骗从业者遭到贩运、勒索,或被迫进入诈骗中心;因此,报复可能只是把负担继续施加给那些人生已经陷入困境的人。自利角度也指向同一个结论:任何回应,哪怕只是一句辱骂,都可能把你的号码标记为“活跃号码”,随后被分享给更多诈骗者。
Ed 补充了一个不取决于诈骗者处境的品格测试:让另一个人的生活更难,“不是在强化你最好的一面”。至于最终实现自动化,Casey 认为,如果让有说服力的 AI 取代受胁迫的来电者,而被控制的工作人员因此可以回家,这反而可能是一场人权胜利。
Lewis 的约 2016年加密货币困境同样直接。他根据用户可能采用的习惯猜测出薄弱私钥,发现一个地址里存有数千美元。他找到的其他账户大多已经被清空,而清空这些账户的地址又被多个区块链浏览器标记为欺诈地址。Ed 说应“远离这摊浑水”;Kevin 则指出合法且有建设性的路径:如果该区块链项目设有漏洞赏金计划,就以安全研究人员身份报告漏洞。
6. AI 进入工作场景后,评价负担转向产出质量
一名团队负责人偷偷用 AI 头脑风暴,随后在一名初级开发者提出的方案中认出了同一个 AI 建议。Ed 认为,提出质问的做法很虚伪,并主张更透明地说明 AI 使用情况;但他也承认,披露之所以滞后,是因为人们喜欢把模型的贡献包装成“自己的想法”。
Casey 将管理问题重新表述为:他认识的大多数开发者都知道同事在使用 AI,所以真正的问题是方案是否足够好。失败了,就解释为什么;成功了,工具本身就是次要的。Kevin 认为,跨行业默认使用 AI 应成为趋势:对软件团队而言,“重要的是代码能不能编译”。
Kevin 引用了经济学家 Tyler Cowen 的做法:他要求 George Mason University 的学生使用 AI 聊天机器人,只评价最终成品。Ed 的反驳指出了关键例外:教育“不是制造小部件”的环境,一份打磨精良的作业,未必能体现学生受教育程度,也未必能证明批判性思维能力已经形成。
一位 NASA 科学家称,同事把 AI 使用者视为智力较低的人,并赞美不借助 AI 工作所带来的“认知刺激”。Ed 怀疑,一些批评者私下其实也在使用 AI;Kevin 则认为,这种姿态部分源于恐惧和职业优越感。Casey 保留不使用 AI 的权利,但预计随着生产率优势变得明显,采用范围会扩大;Kevin 则提议把批评者的计算器换成算盘。
7. 关系需要边界,而不是强迫对方接受 AI
Dan 的新女友一听到 AI 就产生强烈反应,除非这里的 AI 指的是 Adobe Illustrator 或 A.1. Steak Sauce;而 AI 又是 Dan 工作和兴趣的核心。Ed 认为,这种错位“非常容易解决”:每段伴侣关系中都有一方热爱、另一方不感兴趣的话题,Dan 可以为这些讨论找一个朋友。
Casey 更广泛的关系原则是“分散兴趣的重量”,而不是要求主要伴侣吸收自己所有兴趣。AI 可以像体育迷文化:当俱乐部、朋友、播客和其他社群能够提供额外出口时,一个会翻白眼的伴侣并不意味着关系必须结束。
Kevin 建议从一个真实需求切入,去接触怀疑 AI 的伴侣。找出对方重视或正在苦恼的事情,测试 AI 模型能否提供帮助,然后展示结果,不要强迫对方采用。人们很少会在 AI 解决一个可识别的问题前相信它与自己有关,所以兴趣应当自然产生,而不是为了迎合 AI 爱好者而表演出来。
Ed 的反驳是让 Kevin 的实验保持合乎伦理的边界:“接受对方的拒绝。”暂时冷却 AI 话题,等女友自己重新提起,再把那一刻视为可能的切入口。
8. 只有留下行动空间,末日式讨论才有帮助
Elle 规避科技,但会关注预测内容,以便为未来做准备。她“现实/悲观”的 outlook 让自己害怕种下吓人的念头,也让她在存在层面与亲近的人隔绝;同时,她更决心把时间用好,“以防它比我希望的更快耗尽”。
Ed 建议把治疗当作探索恐惧的场所,不要不断把负担转嫁给亲友。“我们谁都不知道未来会发生什么”,AI 乐观主义者可能是对的;在结果仍不确定时,像 Chicken Little 一样行动虽然可以理解,但“感觉有点过早”。
Casey 不赞成彻底沉默:民主生活要求人们讨论担忧,每个人至少有“10%或20%的时间可以当个扫兴的人”。他更支持讨论具体且边界清晰的风险,比如阿谀奉承的聊天机器人、有人与聊天机器人产生神秘体验,或有人说服自己是弥赛亚;而不是笼统地宣称一切都注定毁灭。
Kevin 说,自己最高“P doom”的对话往往结局很糟,因为听众离开时相信“我们全完了”,并且无能为力。条件式框架能够保留行动空间:好的决定可能把事情带向好的方向,坏的决定可能把事情带向坏的方向。Ed 同意,既要诚实地在社群中讨论,也要在恐惧变成“过度负担”时寻求外部帮助。
9. 技术支持最有效的形式,是把它当作爱的表达
Ed 自己的棘手问题,是如何帮助 85岁的母亲而不失去耐心,并判断什么时候一个问题其实没必要解决。这种不确定性部分来自教学层面:每次修复都必须变成一堂课吗,还是只要让设备恢复正常就可以?
Kevin 已经改变看法,如今更倾向于直接介入。他不再远程引导母亲修改设置,而是等两人见面后迅速修好一切,并把设置改成难以撤销的状态。有些人并不想学会完整流程;替他们卸下这份负担,可以让双方都少受折磨。
Casey 仍然会培养母亲主动出现的好奇心。他的母亲曾用 Claude 为自己 50周年结婚纪念日的歌单选歌,随后担心结果“好得过头了”,还把 Claude 阿谀奉承的截图发给他。实际而又有温度的总结是:先解决眼前的问题,若对方愿意,再分享一个有趣细节,把技术支持视为“爱的绝佳表达”。
What's going on with you?
Well, I'll tell you what's going on with me: allergies. It's allergy season—the sneezing.
Mm. It's allergy sneezing.
It's allergy sneezing season. There's the congestion. I'm taking multiple pills. I feel better today than I've felt at any point in the past 3 days, and thank goodness, because it's a recording day.
Are you a Zyrtec guy or a Claritin guy? Or a Flonase guy?
So here's the best allergy medicine: Singulair is the brand name for it. The active ingredient is something called montelukast. This thing changed my life, seriously. I was a runny-nosed monster for years, and then montelukast came into my life, and it really helps me breathe through my nose.
Wow. Have you ever tried dissolving it in a tea of any kind?
No, why would I do that?
Because then you'd be getting the Singulair-ty.
How did I walk right into that? All right, start the show. That was great.
I'm Kevin Roose. I'm a tech columnist at The New York Times.
I'm Casey Newton from Platformer.
And this is Hard Fork.
This week, Ed Helms from The Office comes to our office to talk about his new book and answer your hard questions about tech. I hope this episode wins a Dundee, Kevin.
I have a hangover. Well, we are very excited about today's episode. We told you this was coming a few weeks ago, and today we are going to be joined by Ed Helms for some conversation and some hard questions submitted by you, our listeners.
I am so excited about this, Kevin.
Me too. So this came about because of a chance encounter that we had in Austin, Texas, when we were down there for the iHeartPodcast Awards. We are both big Ed Helms fans, and we were excited to bump into Ed in the backstage area. And we were surprised to learn that he listened to Hard Fork.
Yeah. And how did that happen? Was that a mistake on your part, or were you sort of subscribed to the Kara Swisher feed? How did you start listening to Hard Fork?
That's a great question. I have no recollection of how I started, but you guys are pretty good.
Oh, thanks.
You're good at what you do.
Thanks. So Ed has a new book out called SNAFU: The Definitive Guide to History's Greatest Screwups. It should have a chapter or two in there about Casey.
Yeah, I sent him all of your screwups, but they didn't make the cut.
And Ed is here with us today in San Francisco, and we said, "Come on down to the studio, and let's hang out and answer some questions." So without further ado, Ed Helms, welcome to Hard Fork.
I am very excited to be here, gentlemen.
So what are you doing here? Why are you in San Francisco?
I'm on my book tour.
Yeah.
I'm bouncing all around the country. I went to New York, Philly, D.C., Atlanta, Chicago, Boston, and now I'm here. Tomorrow I go to L.A., and I'm hallucinating. I have no idea what's happening anymore.
That's common in San Francisco. Did you get the little baggies in Dolores Park?
Yeah, right.
1. Ed Helms Explains Tech Snafus
So Ed, your book is all about history's greatest screwups. Do you have a favorite tech-related snafu that you could share?
Oh, wow. Well, do nuclear warheads count as tech?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Sure.
Okay, great. This one's amazing. This was during the Cold War, in the 1950s. The Cold War did not bring out the best in us, as it turns out. A plan was hatched to shoot a nuclear warhead at the moon, and you might be wondering why. Why would anyone think this is a good idea?
The thinking was that we're in fierce competition with the Soviets. Everyone's living in nuclear existential dread. If we can hit the moon with a nuclear warhead, the Soviets will be so terrified that we'll win the Cold War. Research showed that it was very likely it could easily miss the moon, slingshot around the gravitational field, come right back, and hit us.
Which, frankly, would've served us right.
Yeah. You know what?
Yeah.
That is fair punishment.
Yeah.
And eventually, it was not followed through on, thank God, but a lot of time, money, and resources went into it. Carl Sagan was part of that research team.
It sounds like an idea that Elon Musk would come up with after a ketamine bender. He's like, "Let's nuke the moon."
There's an episode of The Simpsons where Mr. Burns wants to blot out the sun, and this kind of reminds me of that, except it really happened.
Yeah.
Yeah.
There's a fun section in your book about the top 5 computer viruses of the '80s. We don't have to go through all of them, but I'm curious if you have a favorite virus from the viruses that you've covered.
I like the guy who just wrote a dumb poem that pops up on everybody's computer.
Was this the message of peace to Mac users, or was this a different one?
Uh—
No, this was the Elk Cloner virus.
Yeah.
God, Casey.
Oh, sorry. I'm still catching up on my '80s virus history.
It's one of those things that a programmer thinks is cute and a little cheeky, but then it's just disastrous.
Right. Yeah, I feel like the hackers aren't so cheeky anymore. You don't see the good-time prank hacks.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah.
You just see the stealing of $5 million in Bitcoin pranks.
Right.
Yeah, bring back fun hacks.
Yeah.
Yeah, like the ones that make us chuckle.
Mm-hmm.
2. Technology Blows Past Ed
So Ed, whenever we get a notable guest like you on the show, we always ask them about their relationship with technology. So what's your relationship with technology like these days?
Well, it's really evolved. I used to be very much on the ball, and I would say almost ahead of the curve. I was an early adopter of technology as it came out. I was getting the latest laptop. I jumped on the iPhones as soon as they came out. I've always been a Mac guy, so it was fun, and I was charged up by it. I liked technology.
Somewhere in the last 5 or 10 years, it has just blown past me, and now I feel I'm just that old guy, mad that I can't log into my Citibank account or whatever. It just is—
We'll help you, but just share your account name and the routing number, if you would.
Yeah.
But I feel like there's a language, or a visual language, to the iconography within apps, and an assumption that you speak that language. Sometimes I'll open a new app or upgrade an app, and all of a sudden I'm just useless.
It's like going to the grocery store and they've changed the location of all of the food?
No, they've changed the food. Avocados have turned into something you've never seen before.
Yeah, the broccoli's blue.
Yes.
Yeah, yeah.
Do you have a problem app, or an app that you spend way more time on than you would like to?
Probably just Instagram.
Yeah.
Like everybody else.
Yeah.
Right? Does that make me old?
No.
No.
I mean, I feel like it does.
Not at all. Not at all.
That's very millennial-coded, actually.
Okay, all right.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
If you said TikTok, it'd skew you a bit younger, but there are billions of people using Instagram.
Right.
Have you ever deleted Instagram or set a screen-time limit on it because you thought, "I just can't be looking at it these days"?
No, I've never put a limitation on it.
You think that's for quitters?
Yeah. It's not ruining my life.
Yeah.
I don't feel controlled by it. It just keeps me up too late some nights. Honestly, I've laughed harder watching Instagram than I have at a lot of movies and TV shows lately.
Mm-hmm.
It drives my wife crazy because I'm shaking the bed, and she's trying to fall asleep. She's just like, "Turn it off." She's not concerned about my screen time. She's just like, "Stop shaking." And I'm trying to laugh quietly.
It'd be funny if the sleeping-in-separate-beds thing from the 1950s came back among couples.
But just because of TikTok.
Because of TikTok.
Yeah.
I could see it happening. What makes you laugh on Instagram the most? Is it the native creators who are just doing fun bits and sketches? Or is it that people have sliced up every movie and TV show known to exist, and they know how to serve you your very favorite ones?
It's usually prank-related stuff.
Mm-hmm.
And I have a pretty keen radar, but Instagram has hacked it. I hate anything that hurts someone physically. I just can't get into that. I don't like watching people fall or bonk into things. That's very unnerving to me. But I also don't like scare pranks that are clearly traumatizing to somebody, and there's tons of that stuff.
Yeah, I feel like you just described 80% of all pranks.
Yeah, right? But what's left over are the jump-scare pranks. They'll just be a compilation of jump scares.
Yeah.
And I'm crying laughing. Or just weird scare pranks where there was a trend for a little while of people who would lie on the floor with just their head sticking out of a door at floor level, and someone would walk in and see the head on the floor—
Ah.
Apparently it's terrifying because the reaction is amazing.
Well, if you ever come back to Hard Fork, I know how I'm greeting you.
Perfect.
Exactly.
Perfect.
Exactly like that.
3. AI Changes Creative Work
What about AI? Are you using any AI stuff in your life? How do you feel about it?
Yeah, I definitely use ChatGPT.
For what?
Mostly just queries. Just picking its brain for research or when I want to know about something. It's kind of my new Google, I guess.
Do you feel like you're Googling less because you're using ChatGPT?
Yes.
Yeah.
For sure.
Yeah.
Although I still Google. Didn't you guys do a whole episode about how, now with Google's AI, no one goes to the links anymore?
Yeah, exactly.
And there are all these industries that have built their entire business models on the Google links, and that's a bummer. That's just one of the many AI fallouts. I use it occasionally to help think of an email that I'm having trouble with, especially if it's something kind of loaded and I just want some—
You have to fire somebody.
Yeah.
Yeah.
The relationship between Hollywood, actors, writers, people who work on films and TV shows, and technology has been pretty strained. First it was the streaming platforms coming in and disrupting that part of the business. Now actors and writers have been some of the loudest critics of AI, talking about how it steals work from people. What do you think about the film industry's relationship to tech?
Well, do you mean tech or just AI in particular?
Both.
With tech, the relationship has long been integral to filmmaking. Obviously, technology goes back to the dawn of photography, through all the evolution of camera operation, movement, and manipulation, and then digital manipulation of the image. That grew into digital animation, and it's just so powerful and exciting on many levels.
I do think that ChatGPT introduces a completely different paradigm of tech in entertainment. I feel like sometimes when you read notes on a project, you're like, “Did this executive just feed this into ChatGPT?” Or maybe it's thinly veiled ChatGPT.
You're pretty confident you've seen some AI notes at this point?
I do, yeah.
Yeah.
I think so. But I'm also stunned by ChatGPT's facility with creative tasks. If you give it an assignment, it's totally stunning. I think the creative community is terrified, and for good reason.
I'm also terrified, not even from a business standpoint, but just from a human standpoint. When the need for human creativity disappears, will we still be creative? What will drive us to create beautiful and amazing things? Whether it's a movie for the movie business or just a piece of art for art's sake, that does terrify me.
Yeah. Obviously, that's a very difficult question, but do you have any thoughts on how creative people should be approaching this moment? It sounds like you've landed in a place similar to Kevin, which is that this can be a useful tool, maybe a creative partner, but there's probably some part of your creativity that you want to reserve for yourself and not give over to a machine.
Yeah. That's a good characterization of my relationship with it now, but it's only going to get better and more powerful, and I feel like it will also become more intoxicating to use, more exciting, and more affirming. But yeah.
4. Devices Become Toxic
Is there any tech product or service out there right now that you think will become a historical snafu that you might write about in a future volume of a book? What out there today in the field of technology do you look at and think, “Oh, that can't possibly be good”?
Wow. I actually have kind of a macro take on this, which is that we're at a point with device usage where it's clearly bad for us. It's clearly harming us. It feels like cigarettes in the '90s, right? Everybody knows, but come on, we're still doing it, right? All the corporate interest in it is still just dumping money and more advancement into it. And in the '90s, they were releasing better cigarettes—
Right.
—and healthier cigarettes.
Yeah.
But everyone still knew it was bad, and it feels like—I hope at some point we will recognize that, or that we'll come to that inflection point in the same way that cigarette smoking did, where it's just like, “No.” Where, as a society, we're like, “This is actually terrible.”
I should say, there are a lot of differences between phones and cigarettes, but one of the scariest differences is that it's like if someone told you the only way to do your banking or your shopping is to smoke your cigarettes.
Right.
And so you have no alternative to this thing that is also toxic to you. It becomes so integrated into your life. I don't know. I use my phone a ton, and I still feel like I use it too much. It's a conundrum.
Here's how you solve it. You actually borrow a lot of ideas from the cigarette example, and you make it so that you can only use Instagram outside, and you have to be 15 feet away from the door. Maybe that does something.
Also, you stink when you come back.
Yeah. Yes, exactly.
It makes you stink.
Exactly, yeah.
It gives you terrible breath.
5. Listeners Bring Hard Questions
So Ed, for the last few weeks we have been collecting questions from our listeners about their moral and ethical dilemmas involving technology, and we're excited to get your take on some of these too.
Fantastic.
Let’s do it.
Yeah, I would just mention that this really has become one of our favorite segments to do, not only because our listeners are great and ask such interesting questions of us, but it really lets us get a peek into people’s relationship with technology, which I think is at the heart of what we love to talk about on the show.
Yeah, so every time we’ve done this, we’ve gotten tons and tons of questions about AI and the ethics around AI use. That will be a trend that continues today. We got a ton of questions, the most popular topic by far, but for this installment, I thought we could start off with some of the non-AI questions from listeners and then work our way to the AI pile.
All right. Ready to go?
Yep.
So first up, we have a video from a listener asking that age-old question: “What do I do about my mom?”
Hi, Kevin and Casey. My name’s Charlene. I love your podcast. Thank you so much for doing it. I listen every week. I’m listening up in Canada. My question for Ed is a little internet privacy-related: How do I break it very gently to my Gen X mom that I do not want her posting any pictures of her future grandkids onto her Facebook wall?
Ooh, interesting.
Ooh, yeah.
What do you think, Ed?
Well, that’s a good one. I’m a Gen X dad, and I’m like, “No way am I putting pictures of my kids online.”
You don’t put any pictures of your kids online.
No, nowhere. And I have had that conversation with family members, like, “Please pull back on this or that,” because sometimes you’re just off at your cousin’s house, and they’re taking pictures, and it’s all great. It’s like a family barbecue, but you just have to be a little careful. I mean, there’s just no substitute for a direct conversation about this, although you could consult ChatGPT on how to approach the subject in a tactful and tender way.
That would work. The thought that comes to mind for me is maybe the way to have the conversation is to present an alternative, right?
Yes.
And say, “Hey, the baby’s coming next month. We’re all very excited. We would like for you not to post these photos in public forums like Facebook, but we would love you to post them to our shared iPhoto library, where only our family members can see it. We’re going to get it started for you, and I’m going to add it to your phone manually, and now you’re going to get an endless stream of photos, and you can share all of them this way.” That might help the situation.
Yeah, I know a lot of families with young kids who do this either on the Photos app—you can create this shared album and post photos there, and people can comment on them. It feels like social media, but without the publicness of it. Or you can do a WhatsApp thread or a group text or something. But, yeah, I think that’s a really key thing: You do not want to deprive grandparents of photos of their grandkids, or else they will just start taking them and posting them on their own.
All right. Well, I think we solved that one.
Yeah, so next up, we have a voice memo from a listener who wonders what’s going on with her friend’s online calendars, and this listener asked us not to use her name in case the friend listens to the show.
I’ve recently started doing some admin work for a really good friend. Most things are going really well, but when we need to meet virtually or do a call, I contact my friend to find a time, tell her I’m flexible, as my calendar is a lot less slammed than hers. I say, “Just send me a calendar invite at a time that works for you, and I’ll make it work.” The first time I did this, I waited, and there was no calendar invite a few hours later, so I said, “Do you want me to send you an invite?” And she said, “No, I put it on my calendar,” but without adding me. She wants me to make my own calendar invite on my calendar, so there are just 2 calendars off in space, not collaborating and with no visibility between them. I think this is insane and very weird, as well as unproductive, self-defeating, and frankly inconsiderate. She definitely doesn’t think it’s weird at all. I’ve worked in offices for many, many years, and I’ve never encountered this. Am I being hypercritical about this, or is it as weird as I think it is?
What do you think, Ed?
Well, I want to make sure I understand correctly. So she’s really upset that her friend just feels like she wants to have separate calendars.
And is not adding her to the calendar invite. It’d be like if I were wanting to hang out with Kevin and I added it onto my calendar, “Hang out with Kevin at noon,” and I didn’t add Kevin, so now he has to go make his own calendar entry, being like, “Hanging out with Casey.”
Right. Yeah.
I mean, what occurs to me is that I’m not sure if this friend of hers understands that you can do a shared calendar invite without giving the other person access to your entire calendar.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, it feels a little generational. My take is that I just manage my own calendar. I find myself accepting calendar invites here and there, but I rarely send them out.
That’s a flex.
Yeah. Well, I don’t know. I just don’t think that way.
Yeah.
I’m just like, it’s an old-school way of doing it: Everyone manages their own calendar. You agree on a date and time in an email or a text or whatever, and then you add it to your own calendar, but, yeah, I don’t know.
Now, here’s a question for you both.
Yeah.
Do you let other people see your calendar? Because you can give people access to see all the appointments on your calendar, and I’m curious if either of you do that.
Ed?
I have someone that I work closely with who has full access to my calendar, but of course I have multiple calendars. My wife has access to another calendar, and I don’t know if anybody other than me has access to all of them.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I’m basically the same. I have an assistant who can see my calendar, and I have a boyfriend who can see my calendar, but that’s it. How about you?
My wife can see my calendar, but because there are some security settings around it, it only says “busy” or “not busy.” It doesn’t say what I’m doing.
Interesting.
So—
That’s an interesting way to do it, but also, what is the working relationship of these 2 people? If they’re in an organization where this standard is set, then, yeah, it’s a reasonable expectation to have. But I think if you’re dealing with 2 people in different organizations that are—
Yeah.
Collaborating, then you’re just allowed to assert your preferences.
Right. So for our anonymous listener, I think our advice is to make sure that your friend, who you’re doing some admin work for, knows how calendars work and that you can create shared events without turning over your entire calendar. If it’s not an issue that results from a lack of understanding, then maybe have a conversation about how much harder it is to operate in this close collaboration without being able to have the same calendar invites.
I have slightly different advice, which is that if I were her, I would just take the initiative to send all the calendar invites.
Mm.
If it is a technical issue, I think it’s going to be easier for her to be like, “Let’s agree on a time. Great. I’m sending you the calendar invitation. Now the problem is solved.” And if she’s not open to that, this friendship is over.
I’m going to add another layer to that—
Do it.
Which is that first, just assess whatever cultural difference—your calendar culture—you guys are dealing with, because this person may really not like to use calendar invites for any number of reasons. Whatever you’re used to is practical.
Yeah. You’ve got to find out what kind of freak your friend is. Step 1. All right, let’s take the next one. This, I think, Kevin, is a question that just about everyone with a cellphone will resonate with.
Hey, Kevin and Casey. Love the pod. My name’s Calvin. I’m from the East Bay, and here’s my hard question. I get a lot of scam emails, texts, and phone calls, and I love stringing them along for as long as possible or just making them mad. My wife hates that I do this, but it brings me great joy. Here’s my dilemma: Recent reports have come out revealing that many of these scammers are being trafficked, extorted, and forced to do this work against their will. It has become a form of modern slavery. I know this is true for some of the people I probably interact with. So is it wrong for me to mess with these scammers? Should I just ignore them, or can I keep having fun even if it feels morally complex? Thanks. Also, last thing. I, I know an heiress that recently came into billions of dollars and wants to support a tech podcast for people. Send me your socials, and we can make it happen.
Hmm, that’s intriguing. We’ve got to follow up with him. Well, what do you think, Ed? I imagine you might get these texts. How do you react when you get them?
I just cold-ignore them.
Mm.
It’s so much easier that way. I can see getting a little bit of evil glee out of taunting somebody who’s out to scam you, but you’re also opening yourself up to more risk that way. You’d really never know who you’re talking to, what they know about you, and just don’t open that can of worms at all.
You know, I have to say I think Ed’s approach is the right one here. What Calvin told us is true: The people who are doing this, for the most part, this was not their chosen lot in life. Something has gone horribly wrong for them—
Yeah.
—that they have to participate in this, and you’re just taking somebody who has a very hard life and making it even harder. So while I get that it is so satisfying to text these people back, and I will admit I have texted these people back and cursed them and insulted them, I have gotten to a place where I just don’t do it.
I would also appeal to Calvin’s self-interest, because my understanding is, even if you are just responding to say, essentially, “Screw you,” you do get identified as a warm phone number, and that information is shared with other scammers. So by responding in this way, Calvin, you may be making your own problem worse.
Now, how long do you guys think that we will actually have human scammers calling people? How long before all of these are just hyper-convincing AIs speed-dialing people?
I mean, if you believe the research about persuasion that we’ve been talking about on this show, it might not be all that much longer. But I have to say, Kevin, that might be a human rights victory, because then maybe they would take these people who are locked up in these scam centers and actually let them go home.
Yeah, that’s one job I would love to see automated very quickly.
Also, it’s not your best self to do this, right? It’s not reinforcing the best side of you to be making someone else’s life harder, even if they’re not in a terrible situation and they’re just a scammer. Strive for better—
Yeah.
—in yourself too.
Do better. As Melania Trump once said, “Be best.”
Yeah.
Yeah.
All right. Next up, here is an email that came to us from a listener named Lewis, or Louie, I suppose. He wonders, essentially, whether it is ever right to commit a crime in order to prevent another crime.
Oh, here we go.
So I’ll read an excerpt from the email. He says:
“A couple of years ago, circa 2016, I had an idea I pursued, abandoned, and have wondered about ever since. I started guessing private keys of a well-known blockchain using some heuristics that I thought some less-aware people might try to use to generate their addresses. It worked quite well, and I found one address with several thousand dollars’ worth of cryptocurrency on it. Most of the accounts I found had transactions on them that had been completely emptied. And when checking the accounts that had emptied them, they were marked as fraudulent by several blockchain explorers.
“So, to recap, I had found a stack of gold, and it was only a matter of time before a bad guy swooped in and stole it. After some deliberation with my parents and girlfriend, now wife, I decided that the safest course of action was to do nothing. What do you think should have been the best and legally sound reaction? Inaction? Taking the tokens as my own? Donating them to charity? Or maybe something else I have not thought about?”
What do you guys make of this?
Yeah, this is not complicated to me. Just stay out of the mess. It’s like jumping into a meeting with a bunch of mobsters and being like, “What’s this? This is a moral quandary. Should I join in with them, or should I just leave?”
Mm-hmm.
This is actually the plot of No Country for Old Men.
Yeah. I have to say, we should disqualify this for not being a hard question. This is just: Do not commit a crime, and hopefully that will save you.
Now, I will say, as far as some advice—
Yeah.
—on what they could do that would be productive with this, some blockchain projects, a lot of tech projects, have these kinds of bug bounty programs. If you discover a security flaw in their system, you can contact them and say, “Hey, I’m a security researcher, and I found this bug,” and sometimes they will pay you money for doing that. So if this blockchain project, whatever it was, has a bug bounty program, this person could actually turn that in and make the whole system safer for everyone—
Great idea.
—and maybe get a reward out of it.
That’s a great idea, Kevin. Do that.
So one last one before we get to our AI questions. This is from a listener who wonders: When did headphones become optional?
Hi, my name is Sarah, and I’m calling from Stratford, Ontario, Canada. I have noticed that there’s an epidemic these days of people watching videos out loud on their phones in public—in restaurants, movie theaters, on trains—and I’ve tried various ways to politely ask people if they have headphones or if they could turn off the sound on their games or videos on their phones, to varying degrees of success. Often, people are quite rude to me and just flat-out say no. So I was wondering how you would handle this. Thank you.
I love this question. Ed Helms, how would you handle this?
It sounds like she’s handling it exactly right. You say something, and I rarely see this. I did see it on an airplane recently, and I was stunned, because on an airplane you have to listen so loud.
Right.
This person had their phone just cranked all the way up, watching a basketball game or something, super loud. And, yeah, I think her approach—
Did you say something?
—her approach... I didn’t. I was a few rows back. It wasn’t that bad. For me, it wasn’t that bad, but I could tell it was crazy. But, yeah, I don’t get it. I feel like there are just some people who don’t understand how awful that is.
It’s so true. The reason I was so excited to get this question is because I see this all the time now. I just spent 2 weeks in New York. I would say every other subway car I was on, somebody was doing exactly this thing. The behavior seems insane to me.
I’m an extremely conflict-avoidant person. I would never once think to do what Sarah did and actually ask these people to maybe turn it down, although that does seem like the right thing to do. So I don’t know what I could do. The only thing I’m left thinking you could do is try to guess this person’s private keys and steal their crypto. What would you do?
Or put your own headphones on.
Yeah, yeah.
What I would do, and I don’t encounter this that much, because I don’t spend a lot of time in places where this is going on, but—
Kevin only takes private cars everywhere.
No. No, but I think my strategy, if the earnest request to put on headphones or turn down the volume failed, I think I would just start asking them questions. I’d be like, “Hey, what game are you playing there?” “What are the rules of Temple Run?” “What’s your high score?”
Yeah.
“You just troll them.”
Yeah, like, “I see you’re watching a basketball game. Fill me in. Who are the hot draft picks this season?” Eventually, maybe they just catch on and get so annoyed that they turn it off and do something else.
I actually would love—I don’t think I could ever do that, but I would love to observe you doing that.
It is crazy because headphones are so cheap at this point. I mean, you can get earbuds for $15, I bet. And yet, it seems like the cheaper they get, the more people are just saying, “You know what? The heck with it. Everybody can listen to the basketball game with me.”
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, the weird thing, too, is when people are actually having conversations on speakerphone.
Yes.
Yeah.
Like, just hold it up to your—
Yes.
Well, they’ll hold the phone in front of their face like a little piece of pizza and talk into it with the speaker on.
Yes.
Just put it up to your ear.
Again, in New York, I saw multiple people just walking down the street, FaceTiming with people, and I’m like, is it because you look so cool walking through the streets of New York and you really want people to have the visual? I do not understand. You’re so likely to just fall into an open manhole cover.
It’s true.
Anyway.
That is always happening.
Yeah.
All right. When we come back, we will tackle your hard questions about AI, including a worker who fears backlash for using AI at work, and a boyfriend who worries that AI could doom his relationship.
Uh-oh.
Well, Ed, every time Casey and I talk about AI on the show, we have to do our AI disclosures, so we'll do them real quick in our best speed read. I work at The New York Times. We're just suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright violations related to the training of AI systems.
And my boyfriend works at Anthropic.
Ed, do you have a disclosure about AI that you'd like to add?
No.
Okay.
I'm terrified of it. I'm terrified—
Okay. No, that's good.
I feel like the singularity's around the corner, and I'm absolutely petrified. So I like AI, I guess, is how I hedge that.
Yeah. No, that's a good disclosure.
6. AI Changes The Workplace
Okay, so one clear theme that has emerged from the questions that our listeners submitted is that there is a lot of uncertainty around how and when to use AI at work. So our next 2 listeners are both grappling with that subject, but from quite different perspectives. Let's start with the perspective of a manager. This comes to us from Scott K., who asks, “Should I call out a junior person using AI and be a hypocrite?” His email reads, “As a team lead, I sometimes use AI to help brainstorm solutions when my developers hit a wall, but every so often I'll see one of my junior developers magically land on the exact same AI-suggested solution, and it's painfully obvious they didn't invent it themselves. And then I'm stuck thinking, ‘Do I call them out and ask, “Hey, walk me through your thought process here,”’ while fully aware that I'm over here secretly tag-teaming with AI myself?” So what do you think about this? Is it hypocritical to call out a junior employee for using AI when you are using it yourself?
Yes, it is. But I also think that we're just in this early moment with AI, and we haven't quite figured out how to navigate these things. It seems like maybe everyone should just be owning their AI use a little more transparently, but that sort of diminishes the magic of AI. I guess people are thrilled to present things as their own ideas.
I think this is sort of a strange question for this reason. Most of the developers I know who are using AI understand that everyone is using AI, and that if you solved a problem using AI, most people would be like, “Yeah, we're all solving problems with AI.” I'm curious: if Scott were here right now, I would say, “Why is this an issue? Is it that the junior dev is suggesting really bad suggestions from the AI?” Because if that's the case, then I think AI isn't really the issue, right? The issue is that your junior colleague is bringing bad ideas into the workplace, and that is worth calling out and saying, “Hey, this actually wouldn't work, and here's why.”
Yeah, I agree with you both. I think we just need to presume that, unless specified otherwise, people are going to start using AI in their jobs, basically whatever their job is. I was hearing a talk from the economist Tyler Cowen the other day, who teaches at George Mason University, and was talking about how he now requires all of his students to use an AI chatbot for their assignments, and he doesn't consider it plagiarism. He just grades the finished product. And I think that's how we should evaluate work at our jobs, too: Is it good or not? If it's not good, then you used AI wrong or you didn't use it in the right ways. And if it's good and you used AI, more power to you. What matters is the finished product.
I just am not sure, especially in an academic context, if the finished product represents how educated the student is on the subject, and that that's what the grade should reflect. An educational environment is not a widget-making—
Yeah.
I guess that's right. I mean, that's definitely a fringe position in academia, where we still do care that people are thinking things through on their own. But in the context of a software team—
Yeah.
At a big company, what matters is whether the code compiles.
Yes. For sure.
Not whether—
For sure in that context.
You used a certain tool. So—
But do you worry, though, like, as somebody with kids, that they're going to get to school and they're going to be using ChatGPT for everything and they might not develop the critical thinking skills you want them to have?
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it goes back to what I was saying before about just the generation of creative things. I work in an industry where the people who are good at that are really rewarded for it, and it's highly competitive. But when no one is as good as the AI, then not only does the question emerge, “What's the point of doing it if the AI can just keep doing it better?” The other, darker question is, “What's the point of learning to do it or studying the art forms?”
Right.
And I mean, that's a very dystopian long view, but it's not something I'm worried about in the near term for my kids. But I do feel like that's kind of—
I would just be happier if it let me learn more easily. In The Matrix, when Keanu's like, “I know kung fu,” because they just uploaded it into his brain, I would also like to know kung fu—
I would love that.
—and put that amount of effort into it, you know?
And I will say, I'm a musician. I really struggle to remember song lyrics. I can't wait until I can put on glasses and just read song lyrics and suddenly have 1,000 songs at my disposal. That sounds really, really fun and cool.
Totally.
All right, we're going to get emails from people who say that they've invented this, so we'll pass those along to you.
Okay, great.
All right, now let's consider the perspective of somebody who is just starting out in their career. This listener asked to be anonymous for fear of backlash from colleagues, but she emailed the following: “What do you all think about people who are AI snobs? I am a NASA scientist, and surprisingly, I found that for an organization full of scientists, there is a lot of snobbery over being better than using AI. People basically act like those who use AI are too stupid to solve problems themselves, and that they are smarter than everyone else because they are capable of an existence free of AI assistance. I've even heard, quote, ‘Even if AI can help you solve a problem faster, why would you avoid the cognitive stimulus? That's the whole fun of being alive.’” So I guess my question is, how do you respond to people who keep acting like they are better than you simply because they don't use AI?
Wow.
Have you heard a version of this, Ed?
No, I'm not sure I've heard this bubble up.
Yeah.
My hunch is that those people are probably lying—that they are using AI behind closed doors—but I haven't encountered anti-AI snobbery.
Oh, I have. I think there are people who are reacting this way basically as a fear response. They worry that if they use AI and it makes them smarter, then maybe they weren't that smart to begin with, or maybe they're going to lose their job. I think there are a lot of reasons that people react this way to AI, including the fact that they just cannot believe that a computer could do what they do better than them.
Hmm.
And everyone seems to have a version of this for their own job. Everyone kind of thinks that—
You're right. Yep.
AI's going to take everyone else's jobs, but me, I'm the special one, and what I do can't be replicated. And I see that attitude a lot.
Yeah, I mean, this is one where I want to be careful because, look, I do believe if you have a job and you don't want to use AI, you don't have to use AI if you don't want to.
If you love the cognitive stimulus of everything you're doing, that's great. You probably have a great job. How should you relate to people who do use AI? I would say with kindness, particularly if they're using it well.
I think a lot of folks, and I would include myself among these people, do feel like it's giving me at least some kind of advantage in some set of things. So I do believe that over the long run, more and more people are gonna come around because they're gonna see people like our emailer here just doing well at their jobs, and they're going to assume that not just the AI but all the productivity tools that they're using are helping them get a little bit of an advantage. So, yeah, I guess that's my answer to that one.
That's a very kind and empathetic response that both of you have given. There's also the option of just trolling your coworkers. Like, you could go over with an abacus—
Yeah.
—and take away their calculator and say, “I just didn't want to deprive you of the cognitive stimulus of using the abacus by taking this cheap shortcut.”
You know what? Let me take the abacus.
Yeah.
Just use all cognitive power.
That's good.
Yes.
7. AI Complicates Relationships
All right, so we have 2 related final questions that I think get at the heart of how AI is complicating many people's deepest and most meaningful relationships. Let's play the first video.
Hey, Kevin, Casey, and Ed. Dan here from Chicago. I'm a devout listener of the show. I recently started a new relationship, and after sharing an episode of Hard Fork with my girlfriend, I realized that she hates AI. She has a visceral negative reaction anytime I mention something AI-related, unless it's Adobe Illustrator or A.1. Steak Sauce. And it makes her so uncomfortable that she doesn't even want to entertain a thought about it.
Now, this has become a real point of tension because I use AI in my everyday personal and professional life, and I'm really interested in these thornier questions around the future of work, society, and what it means to be human in this new era. So how can I navigate a situation where I can't even bring up something that is so intrinsic to my life with my significant other? Kevin, I'm especially curious to hear your thoughts given that AI almost broke up your relationship too. Thanks, guys.
Great question. Kevin, what are your thoughts?
So, look, I have a lot of sympathy for this. I think a lot of people in my life are not as into AI as I am. My wife is sort of getting more interested in it. We talk about it sometimes, but for a long time it wasn't of immediate concern to her, and so it was sort of my thing.
And that's why it's so important when you're in that situation to start a podcast—because then you do actually have someone to talk about AI with without ruining your relationship.
Ed, what do you think?
Every relationship has things that are tough and that one person is into and another person isn't, and this feels very surmountable to me. At a certain point, the culture will probably start to—AI will start to just infiltrate his girlfriend's life in ways that make her more open to it. But even if not, it just seems like: find your buddy that you can have these conversations with.
Yeah. I have to confess this is not a problem I have in my relationship. If anything, the issue in my relationship is, could we talk about something other than AI? But I feel like in so many relationships there is a subject like this. Sports comes to mind. Maybe you're obsessed with the Golden State Warriors, and your partner isn't, and every time you bring it up, you see them rolling their eyes.
I just think this speaks to the fact that it helps to have people in your life other than your primary partner that you can just distribute the weight of your interests in.
Yeah. There are a lot of AI clubs popping up around the country. I've met people when I've been out doing various events who say, “Oh, I'm part of the local AI club,” and this is a thing that I think is starting to emerge over the last couple years. So maybe if there's one in Chicago, you could find the local AI club and join that and find a way to have a weekly discussion about these things.
What do people do at AI Club?
Casey, the first rule of AI Club is—
All right.
—you don't talk about AI Club.
I walked right into that one.
But I will give my earnest piece of advice here, because I think this is something really important: people don't automatically buy that AI is going to be meaningful to them until they see something that they struggle with in their life that it is useful at solving.
Mm.
So I think one thing that you could do if you're in a relationship where one partner cares a lot about AI and the other person hates it is just to figure out what they value. What things do they like doing? What do they struggle with? What are some places, maybe at their job or in their personal life, where they might be able to use AI?
And don't force it on them, but maybe take one of those problems and prompt an AI model with it and see if it solves something or does something interesting for them, and then show it to the partner. Maybe try to meet them where they are and make their interest organic rather than just pretending that they're into it for your sake.
Yeah, but I would also say: take no for an answer from your partner here, and maybe just cool it on the AI talk for a while. See if she brings it up at any point, and maybe then you'll have an entry point. But until then, I don't know if it's worth it.
All right. Let's go to our last question here. This comes from a listener who goes by Elle.
Let's take the L.
And Elle asks, “How do I help people get prepared for AI without totally freaking them out?”
Hi, Kevin and Casey. I'm Elle, and I live in the Deep South. Here's some context for my question. I've been getting anxious in conversations where AI comes up. I'm tech-avoidant but interested in tech forecasting because I wanna feel prepared for what's ahead.
But most people I know aren't as tuned in as I am, so I'm hesitant to share my realistic/grim take on the potential of AI. I don't wanna plant scary seeds in their brains. As a result, I'm feeling mentally and existentially isolated. I'm doing better at making the best of my time in case it's running out faster than I'd hoped, which is how we should live anyway, so that's positive.
On the other hand, I'm feeling distant from my peers and loved ones in a way that is hard to articulate. What should I say to my loved ones if it comes up? I want them to be mentally prepared, but not super sad. Living in the moment, but worried about frightening others, Elle.
Now, Ed, I'm curious to hear your take on this, because it sounds like you may have a version of this yourself. You mentioned earlier that you are worried about the singularity, and you're—
Right.
—sort of terrified that it might be coming soon. So what should Elle do about trying to live in the moment, take advantage of the time that we have, but also avoid freaking out her friends and family?
It's hard not to talk about something that is scaring you or that you're obsessing over. And this may sound glib, but I think she could benefit from a therapist.
Yeah.
Someone that she really can explore these feelings with and help her process them, and also give her an outlet where she's not burdening friends and family with that. Because the other thing is, none of us really know what's coming, and there are a lot of AI optimists out there, and maybe they're right. So to be Chicken Little and gloom and doom, as much as it's not a choice sometimes, feels a little premature.
And again, finding an outlet—a therapist, perhaps—to explore these feelings could be good. I'm glad you said that. I had the same thought. This really could benefit from therapy. And I guarantee you, Elle, you will not be the only person talking about your fears about an AI future in therapy.
I think it's actually quite common here in the Bay Area for folks to talk to their therapist about that. While I totally understand you're hesitant to bring everybody down with your fears about AI, I do think that part of living in a democracy is bringing up the things that you're concerned about.
And there's no reason why you couldn't take, maybe, break it into small chunks and talk to your friends about things that you see out there that worry you. So if you see that all of a sudden the chatbots have gotten super sycophantic and you're reading stories about people having mystical experiences with chatbots and convincing themselves that they're the Messiah, and you worry about that technology being used by young people, let's say, there's no reason why you shouldn't talk about that.
In fact, I think you should talk about it, and I think one reason why we started this show, Kevin, was we like talking about these issues, and we wanna get other people talking about them. So I totally hear you, Elle, on not wanting to be a bummer, but I think everyone's allowed to be a bummer at least 10 or 20% of the time, don't you, Kevin?
Yeah.
Although I should say, I spend a lot of time talking with people about AI in my life, and I have found that when I'm in my gloomiest mood about it, when I'm feeling like my P(doom) is quite high, I tend not to have good conversations with people because they come away feeling like we're all screwed and there's nothing we can do about it. It sort of strips agency away from them when I talk—
Mm.
—about it like that. Whereas when I'm feeling more optimistic, I tend to have conversations that are rooted in wanting to help people understand things, make them excited, or give them some hope for the future. And I think that when you give people a sense that they are not just inexorably marching toward this future that they have no control over, it just goes a lot better.
My advice for the AI doom crowd is always not to frame things in terms of what will happen no matter what, but to sketch out paths for people and say, “Well, if we make good decisions, it could go in a really good way. And if we don't, it could go in a really bad way.” But it's very important not to make people think that they just have no choice in the matter.
Mm. Hmm. Well said.
What do you think, Ed?
I don't know. I'm getting anxious talking about it, honestly, but in what I think is a good, healthy way. I do really like what you said, Casey, that we're allowed to be a bummer sometimes, and it is important to be honest about where we're at with things with our communities and the people who care about us and love us—and also, if it's really feeling like an excessive burden, to seek help and assistance with it, whatever form that takes.
Absolutely. Well, before we go, Ed, we want to give you the opportunity: Do you have a hard question you'd like to ask Kevin and me? Anything going on with technology, any dilemma you've confronted recently that we can offer you our expert assistance with?
8. Tech Support Shows Love
Let's see. I give my mom, who's 85, a lot of tech support, and it can be quite frustrating. I would love some advice on moving through that with grace—
Mm. Mm-hmm.
—and also to what extent it's necessary. There are times when it feels like maybe this is just not something to get figured out, and is that okay?
Hmm. Kevin, what are your thoughts about that?
Yeah, so I have shifted my views on this recently. My mom also requires some tech support from time to time, and I'm not physically there, in the same place as her, so I often end up doing it over the phone. What I have found useful is to just fix things for her.
Yeah.
Do not try to walk her through it. The next time I am in the same place as her, just take her phone and fix all the things she doesn't like—
There you go.
—and do it very quickly, and make it very hard for her to undo those fixes.
Mm-hmm.
Basically, I think that there is a point at which people just do not want to learn the entire process of changing some settings on something. So if you can just set it up for them, they are eternally grateful, and you save yourself and them a lot of grief.
I think that is a perfect answer. The only thing that I would add to it is, to the extent that you feel like your mom may have any curiosity about technology, I do think it's fun to nurture it a little bit. Yes, I think you're almost always going to be better off just fixing it. That's just an act of love that you can give your parents, fixing things for them.
But you can also see if, in the process of fixing it, you might share a little bit about how it works or what you think is interesting about it, and see if that sparks anything for them. Maybe they'll go off and learn a little something themselves. I have to say, I talked to my mom this week, and she told me that she had just used Claude to pick out some songs to put on a playlist for her 50th wedding anniversary party, which is coming up in a couple of months.
I was beaming with pride because she had had a good experience. She did think that it was too sycophantic, which actually worried her. She sent me a screenshot. She was like, “This thing is being way too nice to me.”
What did it say?
It was like, “You can't be having your 50th wedding anniversary. You're only 40 years old.”
That's right. It was something in that neighborhood. But what I loved about it was, in the process of me talking to her all the time about AI, she was sort of like, “You know what? Let me investigate and see if this thing could do anything for me.” I think that is a really nice gift we can give our parents, too.
Amen. I do think that tech support is a great expression of love—
Yes.
—tech support.
It's the least we can do for our moms and other—
After what we put them through.
—parental figures. Exactly.
You better believe it.
All right, Ed Helms, thank you so much for joining us. Ed, this was great.
Thanks so much for having me, guys.
I feel like we made it out of this without a single snafu, and that was important to me.