Monologue: How The Media Keeps Inflating Bubbles

This is an iHeart podcast.

Be honest, how many tabs do you have open right now?

Too many?

Sounds like you need Close All Tabs from KQED, where I, Morgan Sung, Doom Scroll so you don't have to.

Every week, we scour the internet to bring you deep dives that explain how the digital world connects and divides us all.

Everyone's cooped up in their house.

I will talk to this robot.

If you're a truly engaged activist, the government already has data on you.

Driverless cars are going to mess up in ways that humans wouldn't.

Listen to Close All Todes, wherever you get your podcasts.

Cool Zone Media.

Hello, and welcome to this week's Better Offline monologue.

I am your host, Ed Zitron, of course.

Better Offline.

So if you're listening to this as the episode's air, you're in the middle of a two-part episode about the systemic risk caused by OpenAI, a company that's always been unsustainable and is ultimately rigged for collapse.

But today I wanted to turn to a question I've been asked a few times.

What are the ways the media can avoid doing this in the future and what are the things that they could have done differently?

Well, it starts pretty simple.

I don't believe the media, and this partly falls upon the people running media outlets, actually knows enough about the subject matter, be it the technical side or the financial side of these companies.

If you've ever read an article about tech that just didn't seem to make sense, like say about an AI company, like an obtuse series of sentences that sounds rational, but when you really think about it, it doesn't explain what it does, it's because the writer doesn't actually understand what they're saying, and that's because they're rarely given the time or incentivized in any way for knowing what it is they're talking about.

They're just there to kind of get it out the door, and well, that and an alarming amount of tech writers are edited by editors that don't know a fucking thing.

When ChatGPT launched, the press absolutely lost their shit despite nobody being able to describe what it actually did and why it was the future, other than it could create an image or a block of text based on a prompt.

And this was about the level of nuance that we'd see applied to OpenAI for pretty much the rest of history.

Egregious extrapolations were made in part because the media was far too willing to just copy paste or quote whatever Sam Altman said.

When interviewed on stage at the Wall Street Journal's Tech Live event in October 2023, a reporter allowed Sam Altman to say that ChatGPT, and I quote, has this larval reasoning capacity that's going to get better and better.

And this was a great moment to say, I'm sorry, Sam, what the fuck are you talking about?

And to be clear, this was October 2023.

It would would be just under a year later that they would release an actual reasoning product.

No one's bothered to return to that, of course.

I realize I'm sound like I'm being nasty or facetious, but here, right here, was an opportunity to push back on the narrative, in part because the narrative was, a guy will say fucking anything and anybody will print it.

The question, of course, would have been, can you explain what this means?

And once he mumbles out some nonsense, say, I'm still not sure I understand.

I genuinely believe that there are some reporters who don't want to push against the grain, but I think that there are plenty more that are scared of being wrong.

Well, you're still wrong if you allow a man to lie.

Sam Altman became a billionaire because he was able to blather on nonsensically about whatever he wanted, knowing that the crowd of gormless business types would rather say, Wow, he's so smart, AI's the future than admit that they have no idea what he fucking meant.

Really, fixing these problems starts with making people like Sam Altman of OpenAI and Dario Amadei of Anthropic actually explain themselves, and holding their feet to the fire, even lightly lightly on their promises and the economics underlying their companies.

You can beat this shit.

You can do it.

Had early on Sam Altman actually been pushed back on, he would not have been able to do this.

And indeed, had everyone not just copy-pasted anytime Sam Altman said anything about, I don't know, this chat GPT will eventually be your intelligent friend and knows everything about you.

I believe he said that, or he just said AI will be.

These are the times to say, I don't know, print it and say Sam Altman lies.

Sam Altman made something up.

I realize the media writ large large is very bad at this, but it's so much easier in tech.

The fact that both OpenAI and Anthropic burned over $5 billion in 2024 is abominable.

And any and all interviews should have brought this up and doggedly demanded a timeline for profitability, an unaccepted vagueness or dodging.

And I just want to be clear.

I know that this, if you remember the media listening to, like, I won't get Sam Altman again.

I won't get, I won't get Dari Amade.

Who fucking cares?

These interviews suck.

I think I've listened to or watched every Sam Altman interview that's that's online, and they're boring.

They're like eating cardboard.

He's not an endearing speaker.

Wario Amade is even worse.

That bloviating fuckwhere.

Blah, blah, blah.

In 2027, the computer is going to be my best friend and my girlfriend.

Well, he's married.

I'm not saying Dario's.

Anyway, Dario's not going to fuck the computer.

You've got me on the record.

Point is...

You're afraid of losing access, but you're also afraid of having a hostile interview.

First of all, skill issues.

Second of all, why are you afraid?

Why would you possibly be afraid?

These men are far from invincible.

Sam Altman is a solid con artist and a carnival barker, but when faced with blunt questions and even the slightest hint of memory about what he just said, he'd crumble.

All of them would.

Honestly, I media train people for a living.

These people are weak.

They're poorly trained and speciously informed and have no idea what to do.

If you just refuse to

just sit on a question, if you're just like, no, I'm not happy with your answer.

I don't understand.

That doesn't make sense.

Or even, hey, why won't you give me a straight answer?

Crazy, crazy question.

You could just ask any of them, it.

You could do it today.

Now, the other problem is that journalists too regularly find ways to ask these obtuse, muddied questions, in part because they want to find a way to sound like they're being aggressive to their readers without ever really showing any real aggression.

And let me give you one of my favorite examples.

In May 2024, Nili Patel of The Verge, a man who has never met an executive outside of Intuit that he didn't want to let ramble, interviewed Sundar Peshai, the CEO of Google, and gave one of the single worst interviews I've seen in my life.

Nili Patel, as a lawyer, as the editor-in-chief of The Verge and a reporter with over a decade of experience, possibly more, asked multiple questions of over 100 words.

Objection, compound question, which may seem like he's being thoughtful, but is actually what I like to call the buffet.

An attempt to give the illusion of nuanced analysis and conversation where you're actually giving the person you're interviewing the opportunity to answer the question they'd like to.

Sometimes these points are more like rambling statements, which again may seem harmless, like Nilai is trying to have a conversation, but this is the CEO of fucking Google.

You're interviewing him.

Not up.

At one point, Nili spends 159 words asking Sundar Peshai whether he expected publishers to act negatively to AI-powered search results.

But he did so in such a cludgy way that Sundar Peshai is able to wave it off, at which point Nilai commits the ultimate sin, one very common in the tech media, where he doesn't listen to Peshai's answer and immediately asks another question based on some theory he has called Google Zero, where the traffic from Google

ends, which was already happening, Nili.

Talk to one of the many talented people at your fucking out there.

This, by the way, is the real fundamental flaw of American journalism, where an interviewer asks a question, doesn't listen to the answer, then asks another.

I cannot express enough how many times this happens with tech CEOs, how much advantage they take of it, and how quickly they collapse if you listen to their answer and, I don't know, ask the follow-up question relevant to it.

Nili's interview could have been far more direct.

Hey, why does Google search suck now?

I've got eight different examples of it sucking.

Why are these so bad?

Nili does have an example searching for best Chromebook, and he has this clumsy, mumbly, meandering bullshit thing about how and the query.

Well, the query in there, I didn't say what is the best Chromebook.

I did this and that, and he just like fumbles around with it and then allows...

allows Sundar to just kind of ramble him.

Neili, you could just ask a simple fucking question.

You're a lawyer, man.

I don't know.

I don't know, man.

Maybe you're more concerned with being fucking famous.

The reason I'm so angry is that the AI bubble is inflated on interviews like these.

I realize Neili Patel wants to continue getting access to the executives.

But had he directly said, search is bad, here's the proof it's bad, and AI results are worse, and refused to back off of it, that would have had a meaningful effect on Google's willingness to push this shit.

It would have shown other journalists' solidarity that they too could step up and spit in the face of these people.

And I know some of you are gonna say, Ed, you can't spit in the face of them.

I only feel like that because they want to run away so bad, because they don't want to have a real interview.

Because they don't have anything to say.

They don't want to say it.

And the same goes for Sam Altman or Wario Dario Amade or any other AI executive.

They've garnered thousands of headlines and billions of dollars of funding by making shit up or using lies of omission or just being very vague and allowing people to fill in the gaps for them, which then gets published in the media, which then gets pushed to investors who then line up to invest in shit that doesn't work or does not exist or can never exist.

I even believe that access journalism can continue.

We just need to show that there's a deep intolerance across the industry for marketing bullshit, a brick wall in front of anyone who would bullshit, and an interest in having actual conversations versus regurgitated talking points, and nodding to an audience of half-conscious Patagonia gargoyles.

And I want to bring something up.

I run a PR firm.

I media train people.

This is actually how fucking startups are talked to by journalists.

You're a seed startup or a Series A, you get asked these fucking questions all the time.

You get grilled.

You get absolutely beaten to shit.

But once you reach a certain scale, once you're worth, I don't know, some 300 billion theoretical dollars that you fit into a narrative, suddenly the gloves are off.

And that's when the jerkin starts.

I realized that was quite gross.

But look, if you're listening to this as a member of the media and think I'm being mean to these executives, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from having fun, interesting conversations about the shit you love.

There's nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing wrong with knowing subjects deeply and finding reasons to be excited.

But please, fuck, actually learn what you're talking about and be excited about something that's actually happening.

But I think that that might be the problem deep down.

That's the ultimate problem with the tech media.

I don't think enough people writing about technology actually know or give a shit about technology, or at least know enough to do their jobs.

They see these executives as their sports teams, factions to ally behind, only learning enough about the tech to be able to write embargoed articles about whatever the next thing that that OpenAI does, even if they don't really understand or care.

Readers and listeners deserve better.

And when all of this shit collapses, I believe they'll start treating some of the members of the tech media with well-deserved scorn.

Hi, I'm Morgan Sung, host of Close All Tabs from KQED, where every week we reveal how the online world collides with everyday life.

There was the six-foot cartoon otter who came out from behind a curtain.

It actually really matters that driverless cars are going to mess up in ways that humans wouldn't.

Should I be telling this thing all about my love life?

I think we will see a Twitch stream or a president maybe within our lifetimes.

You can find Close All tabs wherever you listen to podcasts.

Tired of spills and stains on your sofa?

WashableSofas.com has your back.

Featuring the Anime Collection, the only designer sofa that's machine washable inside and out, where designer quality meets budget-friendly prices.

That's right, sofas started just $699.

Enjoy a no-risk experience with pet-friendly, stain-resistant, and changeable slip covers made with performance fabrics.

Experience cloud-like comfort with high-resilience foam that's hypoallergenic and never needs fluffing.

The sturdy steel frame ensures longevity, and the modular pieces can be rearranged anytime.

Check out washable sofas.com and get up to 60% off your Anibay Anabay sofa, backed by a 30-day satisfaction guarantee.

If you're not absolutely in love, send it back for a full refund.

No return shipping or restocking fees.

Every penny back.

Upgrade now at washablesofas.com.

Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.

There's a lot going on in Hollywood.

How are you supposed to stay on top of it all?

Variety has the solution.

Take 20 minutes out of your day and listen to the new Daily Variety podcast for breaking entertainment news and expert perspectives.

Where do you see the business actually heading?

Featuring the iconic journalists of Variety and hosted by co-editor-in-chief Cynthia Littleton.

The only constant in Hollywood is change.

Open your free iHeartRadio app, search Daily Variety, and listen now.

Kevin and Rachel and Peanut M ⁇ Ms and an eight-hour road trip.

And Rachel's new favorite audiobook, The Cerulean Empress, Scoundrel's Inferno.

And Florian, the reckless yet charming scoundrel from said audiobook.

And his pecs glistened in the moonlight.

And Kevin, feeling weird because of all the talk about pecs, and Rachel handing him peanut MMs to keep him quiet.

Kevin, I can't hear.

Yellow, we're keeping it PG-13.

MMs, it's more fun together.

This is an iHeart podcast.