
Seriously, What Is ‘Superintelligence'?
Today on the show, we dive into the deal between Meta and Scale AI, including what Meta aims to get out of investment, and we ask the question we are all wondering: What is superhuman intelligence, anyway?
You can follow Michael Calore on Bluesky at @snackfight, Lauren Goode on Bluesky at @laurengoode, and Katie Drummond on Bluesky at @katie-drummond. Write to us at uncannyvalley@wired.com. How to Listen
You can always listen to this week's podcast through the audio player on this page, but if you want to subscribe for free to get every episode, here's how:
If you're on an iPhone or iPad, open the app called Podcasts, or just tap this link. You can also download an app like Overcast or Pocket Casts and search for 'uncanny valley.' We're on Spotify too. Transcript
Note: This is an automated transcript, which may contain errors.
Michael Calore: How is everybody doing this week?
Katie Drummond: Well, I'm back and I'm so happy to be here. I ate so much butter in France last week, the first couple nights I had to myself. And so what would a normal person do in Paris? Maybe they'd go out and sit at the bar and have dinner alone, maybe they'd meet up with a friend. I ate butter and bread alone in my hotel room. And let me tell you, if you're listening out there and you are a mom and you have a young kid or young kids, if you're married, if you struggle with having a spouse and a child and maybe some pets and a busy job, there is no better experience than eating French butter and bread alone in a hotel room.
Michael Calore: Wow.
Lauren Goode: Uncanny Valley , brought to you by the dairy lobby.
Katie Drummond: By the French dairy lobby. I feel incredible. How are you guys?
Lauren Goode: I'm OK. I got bangs.
Katie Drummond: You did?
Lauren Goode: Yeah. So most of our listeners can't see it unless you watch our new video promos online, but I got bangs. There's often a correlation between things going on in the world and women cutting their bangs. That's all I'm going to say about that. But otherwise, I'm great. I'm great. Rate the bangs, go online. Thumbs up, thumbs down.
Katie Drummond: Five out of five.
Lauren Goode: Thank you. Katie, really, you were my inspiration here.
Katie Drummond: Oh, no, that's too kind. But I do love a bang and hate a forehead.
Michael Calore: Well, have I got a haircut for you.
Lauren Goode: Well, Mike, how are you doing? Sorry about that, Mike.
Katie Drummond: But there's just so much smarts in there, Mike. That's the thing.
Michael Calore: I'm just as God made me.
Katie Drummond: How are you doing?
Michael Calore: I'm doing great. I don't have any hair stories. I haven't eaten any butter recently, so I'm feeling really left out right now. This is WIRED's Uncanny Valley , a show about the people, power and influence of Silicon Valley. Today we're talking about Meta's recent investment in Scale AI, and its move to build a superintelligence AI research lab. It's the latest effort from Meta to compete with the big names in the AI race like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google. But Meta is taking a different approach. Not only are its AI models open source, but in typical Meta fashion, it seems to be trying to outspend its competitors to acquire top talent, and its Scale AI investment, which is not an acquisition, is just part of that strategy. We'll dive into what Meta is hoping to get from this investment and what it's actually getting, and whether this move could give the company the competitive advantage it's seeking. Plus we will ask, what is superintelligence anyway? I'm Michael Calore, director of consumer tech and culture here at WIRED.
Lauren Goode: I'm Lauren Goode. I'm a senior correspondent at WIRED.
Katie Drummond: And I'm Katie Drummond, WIRED's global editorial director.
Michael Calore: So let's start off by diving into Scale AI. Unlike Meta, the company is not what you would call a household name anywhere outside of Silicon Valley, but it's certainly made a name for itself in the AI world. What's up with Scale?
Lauren Goode: Scale AI is a data labeling company. Sounds very sexy, doesn't it? They do the grunt work of analyzing and categorizing the data that is later distributed to larger AI models in order to train them. It's nothing fancy, but they kind of perform an essential function for machine learning programs to improve. And they have some pretty big customers. Companies like OpenAI and Google have been among their clients. Earlier this year, our colleague Will Knight reported on Scale AI's new platform that allows AI models to be automatically tested against key benchmarks and pinpoint any weaknesses in the models. So basically Scale AI has been making this concentrated effort to be a key partner as it's working with these larger AI companies.
Katie Drummond: I think it's also worth pointing out that really at the heart of the company's success is its founder, Alexandr Wang, without an E, right?
Michael Calore: Yeah.
Lauren Goode: Yeah.
Michael Calore: He's the Flickr of CEOs.
Katie Drummond: There you go. He's 28 years old, and at one point in time he was actually the youngest self-made billionaire in the world, which is pretty incredible. So he's a well-known personality in Silicon Valley, and he is arguably best known for how much he networks, which given that I do not live in San Francisco, Lauren and Mike can probably tell you a lot more about that. But he was once roommates with Sam Altman, who, supposedly, allegedly, told him to tone down the networking a notch. Unclear exactly what the motivations may have been there, but Wang clearly did not care for that advice and it has paid off for him. So this latest deal between Meta and Scale AI came actually after Wang and Zuckerberg reportedly spent a lot of one-on-one time together networking, presumably. And so it is really his relationships with so many key players in the AI industry that has positioned him now to be so powerful and to be in demand by a company like Meta that, as we'll talk about a little later, could really use a leg up in AI.
Bloomberg recently reported that Wang is known for calling "a dizzying amount of people," and not just senior, but junior staffers in AI firms, to know what they're working on and what they want to do. So he's not only a networker, but he's someone who keeps his ear to the ground. He's sort of in the know in Silicon Valley as far as AI goes.
Lauren Goode: It sounds exhausting.
Katie Drummond: It does. I felt tired just talking about that.
Lauren Goode: Yeah. Also, what does networking really look like in Silicon Valley? It's like, do you …
Katie Drummond: Well, you guys tell me. What do you do?
Lauren Goode: Yeah, I don't know. Meet some folks at Blue Bottle before you head on down to Marine Layer and then go to some all-night coding party in the carriage house of a Pacific Heights mansion? I don't know. What does that look like?
Michael Calore: It's a lot of walk and talks.
Katie Drummond: Is it really?
Lauren Goode: Well, in the Valley it is.
Michael Calore: Yeah.
Lauren Goode: Down around Palo Alto, people are in … Do people do that in San Francisco too?
Michael Calore: Oh, yeah.
Lauren Goode: Yeah? Yeah, that's a thing?
Michael Calore: Yeah, people do walk and talks.
Katie Drummond: Speaking of walking and talking, Mike, I want to hear more about the details of the deal.
Michael Calore: Yes. Let's talk about how much money is on the table on this deal, plus what Meta is hoping to get from the investment, and perhaps most importantly, what it is actually getting out of this deal.
Lauren Goode: So the deal was announced as a 14.3 billion dollar investment in Scale AI. To be clear here, this is not an acquisition. They're just taking a 49 percent stake in Scale AI and also bringing in Alexandr Wang and a bunch of talent, but it's not an acquisition, folks. Don't call it that. We've seen a wave of this over the past 12 to 18 months where Microsoft and Google have also either made strategic investments or licensing agreements with smaller AI players in order to sort of bring them into the fold, but not necessarily face the scrutiny of the U.S government and the Justice Department, because they want to move fast here. They want to build these AIs as quickly as possible, and so they want to just bring in all this talent. And so yes, we are lumping Meta in here, but that is essentially what they're doing with Scale AI.
Now for Alexandr, our master networker here, this deal also includes a leadership role in this superintelligence project that Meta is going to be building. We're going to get more into that later as we talk about superintelligence and what exactly it is. Zuckerberg, Meta now owns a strategic 49 percent stake in Scale AI. When it comes to what Meta is really getting from this deal, the main asset is the vast amount of AI training data that Scale AI possesses, and that leads to what Meta hopes to get to in the long run, a boost to the development of its Meta AI projects.
Katie Drummond: And I mean certainly Meta is doing a lot of clever things here, you could say, one of which is that they have put their competitors in a pretty tricky spot when it comes to whether or not they should continue working with Scale AI or whether they should move away to other companies. And Scale AI has other partnerships going on outside of the AI ecosystem as well. So the company has deals with foreign governments in Asia and Europe, it has a deal with the DOD actually for a first of its kind AI agent program, which sounds as dystopian as it probably is. It's called Thunder Forge. And the goal is essentially to enhance military operations with AI agents. I mean, it's exactly what you think it would be. And Meta could potentially benefit from all of those alliances that Scale AI has as well. So certainly you could say a mutually beneficial arrangement and one that puts a lot of players in the AI space on watch as it pertains to Meta.
Lauren Goode: I mean, I think the important thing to remember about Meta is that Meta buys its way into innovation. It doesn't spin it up entirely on its own. If you look at WhatsApp, if you look at Instagram, if you look at Oculus, all acquired by Meta. And then sometimes when Meta does try to spin up some vision for the future on its own, like the Metaverse, which is all we heard about two years ago, it falls flat on its face, or face computer, as we like to say. What Meta is doing here is it's locking up not only the data from Scale AI, but it's also locking up talent and technology that it believes is critical in sort of moving forward into this next phase of AI. An oversimplified way of looking at it would be, you need really two things to level up an AI right now, you need more compute power and you need a lot of data, and ideally high quality data.
This is clearly a data buy, and it's also a way of keeping other companies from potentially using it. Like Katie just said, Google is now backing out of its partnership with Scale AI.
Michael Calore: And Meta is doing this because it has a long way to go in order to reach the top of the heap, right? We've been talking about how Meta has been stumbling over the last few years in the AI race, so I want to dig into that a little bit, especially in how it has been lagging behind its competitors and what it's trying to do specifically to get ahead with this investment.
Lauren Goode: That's right, with this strategic investment, Mike. The short answer to that is Llama, which is its foundational model, its answer to OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google Gemini. Unfortunately so far, Llama hasn't really lived up to the hype around it. It's not as powerful as the rival systems of OpenAI and Google. Notably though Meta has tried to differentiate itself by open sourcing Llama, meaning that it freely shares the underlying code with outside software developers and businesses. So I guess it believes in the long run that that is actually going to be beneficial to it, even if right now it's not winning the speeds and feeds.
Michael Calore: Can I ask you, what's the prevailing wisdom on why Meta decided to release Llama as an open source model as opposed to keeping it closed like all of its competitors?
Lauren Goode: Yeah, it's a good question. I wish I could just call up Mark and ask him directly about this, but I can't, and we don't know exactly what's going on in his head. But I think in any robust technology environment, you're going to have lock-in and you're going to have open source providers, whether you're talking about IBM mainframes and then Linux, or you're talking about Apple software versus Google Android, and I think Google Android is the most used operating system in the world, and various products and business models and licensing models have extended from that. And so that may be part of what Mark Zuckerberg is thinking about long term. I think he also feels very burned by Apple. I mean, he has said that specifically when he wrote a blog post last year making a case for why Llama is open source. He said to do this well, we have to ensure that we always have access to the best technology and that we are not walking into a competitor's closed ecosystem where they can restrict what we build.
And he said that one of his most formative experiences, building Meta services, has been having those services constrained by what Apple will let Meta do on its platforms. So as he's thinking about the future of AI and what happens over the next several years or beyond that, I guess he doesn't want Meta to be locked in.
Michael Calore: Yeah, it feels like all of Meta's AI efforts have been very much on the surface, sort of lightweight consumer facing things, right? They have the Meta AI app that you can use to chat basically like a chatbot, they've incorporated their AI into the smart glasses and they've made these chatbots that live inside of Instagram and allow you to talk to somebody who talks like Snoop Dog basically. There's also the AI assisted search that has rolled out to all of the different Meta projects, but it really feels like this sort of social play in AI, specifically chatbot AI, has been the thing that they have just been concentrating on. They don't have advanced systems that corporations can license. They don't have a lot of the big ammunition that the other companies have.
Katie Drummond: Well, and the consumer facing AI, I mean if I may be so bold, is not particularly good or well-designed, or well-made, or a particularly good user experience. I mean, I don't have a Facebook account, and I haven't for a very long time. I do use Instagram. I mean, I have not once used that chatbot. So these consumer-facing bets have not been particularly successful in addition to not being very good, but they've also recently had some pretty significant blunders on the privacy front. Surprise, surprise, Meta having issues with privacy. Our colleague, Kylie Robison, reported that the app actually showed … This is insane. It is just insane. The app showed private conversations between the chatbot and users, including medical information, home addresses, even things directly related to pending court cases where people were talking to the chatbot, asking it questions, getting help with whatever weird sick question they were trying to answer or problem they were trying to solve.
And unbeknownst to them, those conversations were showing up in a social feed where everybody could see someone trying to break their tenant's lease or access some pornography or get a medical diagnosis for the weird lump on their foot. All of this stuff that, yeah, should you be careful in your conversations with any chatbot? Absolutely. But most people at least assume that those dialogues and those back and forths aren't just going to be published onto the internet. I mean, it's a pretty stunning failure. And it certainly doesn't feel accidental, it doesn't feel like they just were like, "Oh, how embarrassing that this has happened." I just don't think they really care. And this has been obviously the narrative around Meta for a very long time, which is, problems arise with their services, particularly as it pertains to privacy, and somebody out there in media reports on it, and then they patch it up, and that's exactly what has happened this time. I think they've put a disclaimer on top of the chatbot so that you know that you're opting in or opting out of some kind of public sharing of your conversations.
But it just sort of feels like they're not particularly interested in thinking very hard about the privacy piece, which, in my opinion, when it comes to chatbots and AI and sort of this brave new world we are all marching forward into or being marched forward into, in some cases, we should probably spend some time thinking about privacy considerations. Now, of course, with this deal with Scale AI, Meta is hoping to turn the page, to open a new chapter within all of their AI efforts, consumer facing or otherwise, specifically with this superintelligence AI lab.
Michael Calore: That's something that is really important that Meta would not be making all of these big statements about superintelligence. It would not be making this investment if it didn't feel like it had already failed in the race to develop strong AI programs. Because this is not just like a reorganization or realignment, this is a complete reset. It is a brand new team with new leadership and a new mission. For a very long time, the person who has been heading up Meta's AI efforts is Yann LeCun, who is a very well-respected Silicon Valley guru in AI. He has won the Turing Award, which is the nerd trophy for AI engineers. But LeCun famously does not think that artificial general intelligence is something that is on the immediate horizon. He's not a big chatbot proponent. He sees the value in large language models, but that's not where his interests are. And I think that if you're going to go full into, OK, what is the next thing? Then you need new blood. You need people who are true believers in this next phase, which, of course, is being defined by the term superintelligence.
Lauren Goode: Superintelligence.
Michael Calore: Let's take a break and then we'll come back and find out what that means.
Welcome back to Uncanny Valley . Before the break, we were mentioning that a key aspect of this deal between Meta and Scale AI, beyond all the big bucks involved, is the creation of a superintelligence AI lab. So question for the group, what the hell is superintelligence?
Katie Drummond: Lauren?
Lauren Goode: Oh, no. Well, it basically refers to developing an AI that goes beyond the human brain. It's a little bit unclear exactly what that means. For the past couple of years we've been hearing about AGI, which is artificial general intelligence, now we're talking about superintelligence. My understanding is, based on talking to researchers and technologists about this, is that it's not a flip the switch moment, it's not like there's going to be a specific model or some product release where all of a sudden we say, "Oh, we're living in AGI," And, "Oh, the next step is superintelligence." It's all sort of happening on a continuum. But the idea is that it is having something that is as smart as a human being or the human brain in your pocket on your phone, which is just crazy. It's not going to be sentient, it's not going to feel emotions, but it's going to do such a good job of replicating all of that that you're going to feel kind of blown away by it. And maybe that's bad news for us humans, I don't really know.
We do know that the term superintelligence was popularized by the Oxford philosopher, Nick Bostrom, who, in 2014, wrote a book on superintelligence. And he broke down a future where AI would advance to a point where it could turn against and delete humanity. And now, of course, it's being used by Mark Zuckerberg. So metaverse, superintelligence, I think we have a sense at this point of what's on Mark Zuckerberg's bookshelf.
Katie Drummond: And I mean, I think that whole question of sort of, what is AGI? What is superintelligence? I mean, so much of this is just branding. This is marketing that the AI industry is using to evoke a sense of, I think, sort of intimidation and fear and awe and respect and deference on the part of the general public, of policymakers, lawmakers. I mean, they want this thing to feel like this next era is right around the corner and we need to get ready now. And if we're not ready before China's ready, it's just going to be catastrophic because it's AGI. It's like, but what actually is that? And I think Meta is doing something super interesting and sort of cynical here, in my view, which is by positioning this new lab as superintelligence, they're essentially saying, "AGI? AGI is so last year. We're not even thinking about AGI. We're just jumping all the way to superintelligence."
I mean, this is marketing through and through. I'm not saying that this technology isn't evolving, that it won't drastically improve over time, that we won't see, and we already do see, AI that's capable of doing things that people can do. We see that all the time. There are plenty and plenty and plenty of examples of that. But I think that these terms are being used in a very squishy, opportunistic way for industry leaders and executives to sound and to make their technology sound as impressive and as valuable and as intimidating as possible. That's what I think.
Michael Calore: It is good marketing for recruiters too. If you're a person who's a professional in the AI industry, you're already pretty well paid, you feel like you're working on the next big thing because you're working on AGI somewhere, and then all of a sudden it's like, yeah, but wouldn't you rather be working on superintelligence?
Lauren Goode: Yeah. Yes.
Michael Calore: So who else is working on superintelligence? Are there other AGI companies that are like, "OK, no, wait, now we're doing that too." Are there people who have been working on superintelligence for a little while?
Lauren Goode: It depends on which AI visionary you're listening to. Sam Altman from OpenAI still seems pretty focused on AGI. He has said that he thinks it will be reached before the end of Trump's current presidential term. Dario Amadei from Anthropic has said that he thought AGI would happen in the next two years. So those are kind of still the AGI guys. On the other hand, you have Ilya Sutskever, who was the former chief scientist at OpenAI. He's cofounded a company called Safe Superintelligence, and they have a different approach. They are privately building superintelligence, and they say they will only release this technology to the world when it is deemed safe. So I think they're all kind of working towards the same thing, but superintelligence is the latest buzzword.
Katie Drummond: I love that they're going to be in hiding for many years.
Michael Calore: Yes.
Katie Drummond: I can't wait to see them crawl out of their bunker with their safe AI.
Michael Calore: Yeah, they're keeping it chained in the basement.
Katie Drummond: It is worth noting, Ilya aside, not all AI leaders are into the superintelligence hype. So these are people who have historically kept a lower profile, but more of them have actually started to speak up recently, which I think is notable. So Thomas Wolf is one example. He's Hugging Faces' cofounder and chief science officer. He called some parts of Amadei's Vision, "wishful thinking at best". That would be the vision of AGI. And Demis Hassabis, the CEO of Google DeepMind, has reportedly told his staff that in his opinion, the industry could be up to a decade away from developing AGI, noting that there is a lot that AI simply can't do today. So again, that's skepticism around AGI. We're not even talking about superintelligence. So God knows when that's going to be ready. I guess when Ilya lets us know.
Michael Calore: Let's talk about all of the people involved here. You really need all the top talent in order to really compete if you're going to build anything regardless of what you're calling it. And in this investment that Meta made with Scale AI, they get Alexandr Wang, comes to the company, he's bringing key people with him from Scale to work with him at Meta in the superintelligence lab. And this is happening at a time when AI talent is in super high demand with all the leading engineers being offered millions and tens of millions of dollars a year to work at the big companies. And apparently Meta has been offering up to nine figure compensation packages to get people to come work in the superintelligence lab.
Katie Drummond: Hold on. Can you just articulate nine figures? So that's not hundreds of thousands, it's not millions, it's not tens of millions, it's hundreds of millions?
Michael Calore: It is over $100 million.
Lauren Goode: What?
Michael Calore: Yes.
Katie Drummond: I mean, I'm speechless. I knew about the seven and eight figures, which is also just jaw dropping, but nine figures is unreal. That is unreal money.
Lauren Goode: I'm literally like, I got to read about this now. What? That is so crazy. I'm going to revise what I said earlier where I said, "Oh, the companies trying to level up in AI right now are looking at compute power and they're looking at data." They're also looking at talent. That is a huge, huge part of this. I'm still speechless that this is how much money these folks are getting offered, but I guess that's what Meta feels that it needs to do. I wonder how this is going to be reflected on its next earnings statement. We also saw that earlier this week, a longtime machine learning engineer and research scientist at OpenAI just got moved into a new position as the head of recruiting at OpenAI, which is fascinating. I mean, really, the initial reaction is kind of like, huh, that's an interesting career change. But then you think about, oh, this guy is going to talk the talk. He now has to go out and recruit top, top talent for OpenAI, continually recruit the top talent for OpenAI, and they now need to compete with Meta offering millions, bajillions of dollars to engineers.
So there is indeed, I think, a race for talent happening right now. Sequoia Capital investor, David Kahn, just wrote a blog post about this that I was reading where he did say that talent is the new bottleneck in AI, and he likened it to basically building a sports team. They're all backed by some mega rich tech company or individual, the star players can command these crazy pay packages in the tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars. Unlike sports teams though, where players often have long-term contracts, AI employment agreements can be short-term and liquid, which means that anyone can be poached at any time.
Katie Drummond: It's fascinating, it's grotesque. I want to know everything about how much these people are being paid. I want to know everything. And for Meta, it will be interesting to see how much money it takes for them to get top talent. I mean, money matters. If someone offered me a hundred million dollars to work for someone that I wasn't so excited about at a company that I thought had a so-so track record overall and a pretty poor one around AI, I mean, a hundred million dollars moves the needle. And it will be very interesting to see whether the Anthropics and OpenAIs and Googles of the world can compete. I mean, we know that Zuckerberg is doing a lot of this recruiting himself. He's personally reaching out to candidates. I wonder, and we will find out, whether that is to the company's benefit or not.
Lauren Goode: I mean, independent of how you might feel about Mark Zuckerberg too, Meta is just … It's been around for a while at this point. It's a twenty-year-old company. It's publicly traded. You'd probably get some really nice equity package on top of that too. But when you join a rocket ship like an OpenAI, you're joining because you think that if you get in early enough … At this point, it's not even that early, but that at some point you're going to become a multi, multi, multi-millionaire if that company either accelerates or it sells or something like that. And then that creates the flywheel effect that we always see in Silicon Valley, right? Early Google employees who left and went and started other things. We're going to see this wave eventually of OpenAI folks who leave and start other things. But if you're getting a comparable offer from OpenAI, or Meta at this point, which one are you going to go to when you're thinking about, really, the future?
Michael Calore: And I mean, there are a lot of people who won't take that money. I mean, if you think about the type of people who are commanding these super high salaries, they have been paid very, very well for a number of years, maybe their company was acquired and they had a big payout from that, so now they're sitting comfortably in a position at Anthropic or at OpenAI. And also the project that they're working on is something that matches their skills and maybe they want to see it through. So there's a bit of ego involved, there's a bit of life decision involved, and there's ethics involved, like, do you actually want to go work for Meta? Do you want to go build this thing that they're building? Especially after they made the announcement that they're going to start allowing their technologies to be used by the Department of Defense and they're going to start doing war stuff with the AI tools that they're building and the XR tools that they're building.
So yeah, I think there's a lot of people who are just sitting pretty right now and they have to decide whether or not that money is worth it to them as people.
Lauren Goode: Do you guys ever spend time on the app Blind?
Michael Calore: No. This is the one where people talk about what it's like to work at a company?
Lauren Goode: It is about working for a company because you have to affiliate yourself with a company when you sign up for the app, but it's all topics. And oftentimes it's people coming to the group with a compensation package and saying, I got offered this from Meta or Amazon and what should I do? And you just realize how distant this world is sometimes from the way the rest of the world or the rest of the country lives. People who are like, "Well, I don't know. Should I take this $700,000 package from Amazon? And that's without stock equity, benefits, or should I take this other comparable package from a similar company, but they're going to allow me to work from home? And I don't know though because I'm 40 and I only have 10 million in retirement." I'm like, oh my God, that is the world we're talking about.
Michael Calore: Yeah.
Katie Drummond: We need to do more reporting on this. I think that the compensation of people in Silicon Valley is fascinating.
Lauren Goode: Well, if anyone would like to weigh in, if you're a recruiter, if you're a person who's been made one of these offers from the Meta superintelligence lab, we want to hear from you.
Michael Calore: Big money.
Katie Drummond: We sure do.
Lauren Goode: Our signals are out there.
Michael Calore: Big money, no whammies.
Lauren Goode: Now we know what Katie would leave us for to go work for Mark Zuckerberg.
Katie Drummond: A hundred million dollars is a lot of money. It's a lot of money.
Lauren Goode: It's a lot of money.
Katie Drummond: That would be tough for me. I don't think I could do it.
Lauren Goode: Yep. If you invest it, well, it'd be a lot of money for your kids' kids' kids.
Katie Drummond: I know, but then I'd have to tell my kid what I do, and I don't know that I could do that. I'm being totally honest. I don't think I could do it. Let me be clear, there are a lot of fantastic people who work at Meta. I mean, this is not a repudiation of anyone's decisions or career choices or where they have chosen to work, given my background and what I do for a living, yeah, I don't know. I don't think I could do that.
Michael Calore: You get to be part of the superintelligence revolution.
Katie Drummond: I don't want to.
Michael Calore: Maybe just use the chatbot and then you can feel like you're a part of it.
Katie Drummond: Yeah, there you go. I have some pressing and highly personal questions for Meta's chatbot, and as soon as we get off this recording, I'm going to go ask all of them in private.
Michael Calore: I look forward to reading them on the [inaudible 00:30:11].
Lauren Goode: Katie's like, how do I extract myself from a work project that has me locked in a room for two hours every week?
Katie Drummond: Oh dear.
Michael Calore: OK, let's take another break and we'll come right back with recommendations.
All right, thank you both for a great conversation about superintelligence. So I think it's time to give our listeners something from our own superintelligent human brains, our recommendations for the week. Lauren, would you like to go first?
Lauren Goode: Sure. I recently learned that by using generative AI tools like ChatGPT, you can get your color analysis done. Have either of you ever done this?
Michael Calore: No.
Katie Drummond: No.
Lauren Goode: So this is a thing that is part of the beauty influencer world online where typically you would pay someone, sometimes a human, sometimes an app that has human input, to analyze the color of your hair, skin, eyes, skin tone, all that, and tell you what season you are and then tell you what clothing you should wear in a way that accentuates your whole situation.
Katie Drummond: Did you find this revelatory?
Lauren Goode: Yeah. So recently when I was hanging out with some friends, one of them had had her color analysis done and we were talking about it and she said, "Oh, you can just do it on ChatGPT." And I was like, "What? You don't have to pay someone a couple hundred dollars to do this?" So she uploaded our photos into ChatGPT and I got a color analysis done. And so I'm a deep autumn, in case anyone wants to know.
Michael Calore: It's a burning question.
Lauren Goode: That was the burning question. I thought maybe I was a winter, but I'm a deep autumn. And so I think to date, this is the most interesting use case of ChatGPT I've experienced so far.
Michael Calore: Ever, of all …
Lauren Goode: No, that's not true.
Michael Calore: Of all your experiences.
Lauren Goode: That's not true. The other day it told me how to cook salini mushrooms instead of cremini mushrooms. I'm quite certain salini mushrooms don't exist. So it was helpful in that regard too.
Katie Drummond: Yikes.
Lauren Goode: But no, I've used it for other things too. I've used it for research and reasoning and fun things like that.
Michael Calore: That's pretty good.
Lauren Goode: So maybe later, actually, I'm going to upload photos of you both to ChatGPT and ask it to do your color analysis.
Michael Calore: I do not consent.
Lauren Goode: And then I'll tell you … OK. What color you should be wearing. Both of you are wearing all black right now.
Katie Drummond: As usual.
Michael Calore: Yeah, I was going to say. I call those days weekdays.
Lauren Goode: Anarchists in the room. I love this. OK, that's it. That's my recommendation.
Katie Drummond: I was thinking about what to recommend and it was either going to be a book, a kid's movie or food, and I was like, no, girl, you've done all of those already. You have to think of something else. I have an AI-related recommendation actually, which is, I had someone come recently to help me out with my outdoor plants, like our little backyard area in Brooklyn, and I was telling him that all of my indoor plants are dying and struggling, and I was just so confused. I was like, which window should this one go in? And what … Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. How often do I water all of these things? I have many plants. And he recommended this app called Picture This. And you take photos of all your plants and you upload the photos into the app, it tells you what kind of plant it is, it tells you how often to water it. You can use your phone to show the app how much sun is coming in through the window, and it'll tell you if that's enough sun, too much sun, not enough sun.
Oh, and you can take a photo of the plant and it'll tell you if it's sick and what it is struggling with, which is very upsetting, but very helpful. I have many struggling plants. But it's very, very cool. It's definitely highly judgmental. I get push notifications now saying, "Don't you want to take care of your plants?" And I'm like, well, I do, but I also have a job. It's a very, very interesting product, and if you have plants, I highly recommend it.
Lauren Goode: Picture this.
Katie Drummond: Picture this. Healthy plants, healthy you. Superintelligence, picture this.
Lauren Goode: Mike, what's your recommendation?
Michael Calore: I think given the current geopolitical state of the world, it is time to re-watch Dr. Strangelove , the 1964 film by Stanley Kubrick. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb . It's about escalating political tensions based on a misunderstanding that leads to nuclear war. It's a farce. It's very funny. It's also very dry, but it's a great movie. I re-watch it about once a year, unfortunately. I'm usually compelled by current events to watch it. So I would say it is a good time to watch Dr. Strangelove . And I'm not saying the world is going to end, but whenever we start talking about nuclear power and we start talking about the people in the world who have their fingers on the button, it is important to remind ourselves that these are human decisions that people make about our future, and it's a great movie to help you process that information.
Katie Drummond: Wow.
Lauren Goode: So Katie's watering her plants and I'm cutting bangs and you are watching movies about the end of the world. I see who among us is really diving in and who's …
Michael Calore: So a lot of people ignore the void. A lot of people acknowledge it. I'm one of those people who puts my face right up against the glass and just scares at it.
Katie Drummond: That's just like my husband. Not to make it all about him, but … I feel like I cover the void. I do the void for my job. Every day, I'm in the void. So when I'm out of the work void, I want to go into la la land. And so last night I was telling people in Slack today, my husband was texting me links to used motorboats because he was like the safest place for us to be during a nuclear attack is in the middle of a body of water.
Lauren Goode: Good lord.
Katie Drummond: And I was like, and what exactly do you think we're going to be doing in this little motorboat in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of New York City? I think if it comes down to motorboat or death, we are probably going to die.
Lauren Goode: Yeah, yeah.
Katie Drummond: Just saying.
Lauren Goode: That was before bed, like before you were supposed to go to sleep?
Katie Drummond: Right as I was lying in bed trying to go to sleep and the thing is like ping, ping, links to used boats.
Lauren Goode: I mean, I think we're all sort of void adjacent these days, so you can't really ignore it.
Katie Drummond: You can't ignore it, but it's a choice to lean into it in your personal time, I will say.
Michael Calore: I would say that if you're going to do that exercise, there are fewer people who it's more delightful to do it with than Peter Sellers and George C. Scott and Sterling Hayden and Stanley Kubrick. It's a great movie, so stream it tonight.
Katie Drummond: We'll link to it in the show notes.
Michael Calore: Thanks for listening to Uncanny Valley . If you liked what you heard today, make sure to follow our show and rate it on your podcast app of choice. If you'd like to get in touch with us with any questions, comments, or show suggestions, write to us at uncannyvalley@wired.com. Today's show is produced by Kyana Moghadam and Adriana Tapia. Amar Lal at Macrosound mixed this episode. Jake Lummus was our New York studio engineer. Daniel Roman fact-checked this episode. Jordan Bell is our executive producer. Katie Drummond is WIRED's global editorial director, and Chris Bannon is the head of global audio.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


WIRED
6 hours ago
- WIRED
The Very Real Case for Brain-Computer Implants
A photo of a recipient of a Synchron brain implant, working on a computer at his home in Melbourne. Photo-Illustration: WIRED Staff; Photograph:All products featured on WIRED are independently selected by our editors. However, we may receive compensation from retailers and/or from purchases of products through these links. Brain-computer interfaces might have inspired works of science fiction, but the technology behind them is real and quickly developing. Companies like Synchron and Neuralink are racing to build a model that they can commercialize. Lauren and Mike speak with WIRED's Emily Mullin to discuss why Synchron's model is standing out, and the promises and limitations of these interfaces. Mentioned in this episode: There's Neuralink—and There's the Mind-Reading Company That Might Surpass It by Emily Mullin You can follow Michael Calore on Bluesky at @snackfight, Lauren Goode on Bluesky at @laurengoode, and Katie Drummond on Bluesky at @katie-drummond. Write to us at uncannyvalley@ How to Listen You can always listen to this week's podcast through the audio player on this page, but if you want to subscribe for free to get every episode, here's how: If you're on an iPhone or iPad, open the app called Podcasts, or just tap this link. You can also download an app like Overcast or Pocket Casts and search for 'uncanny valley.' We're on Spotify too. Transcript Note: This is an automated transcript, which may contain errors. Michael Calore: Hey, this is Mike. Before we start, I want to take the chance to remind you that we want to hear from you. Do you have a question around AI or politics or privacy that has been on your mind, or just a topic that you wish that we talked about on the show? If so, you can write to us at uncannyvalley@ And if you listen to and enjoy our episodes, please rate the show and leave a review on your podcast app of choice. It really helps other people find us. Lauren, how you doing? Lauren Goode: I'm hanging in there. Michael Calore: Yeah. Lauren Goode: It's been a hectic week, but hectic in a good way, I think. Michael Calore: Yeah, you've been very busy writing a lot of big scoops for Lauren Goode: Not a lot, but enough. The Business Desk at WIRED has been really busy this week. Michael Calore: Of which you're a part? Lauren Goode: That's right. Michael Calore: Yes. Lauren Goode: How are you doing? Michael Calore: I'm doing great, thanks. Lauren Goode: Wow, you rarely hear that these days. Michael Calore: I know. Lauren Goode: We can probably just wrap the podcast now. How are you feeling about the fact that Katie is not with us this week? Michael Calore: I think that she is going to stun and surprise us all with our third weekly episode that she's planning. Right now we have two episodes a week of the show. She's working on this project that's going to bring a third episode to the show, and I think we're all going to be very impressed by it. So, it's bittersweet she's not here, but the sweet part is that we get a third drop in the feed every week. Lauren Goode: Yeah, I think it's going to be really good. Michael Calore: Yeah. Lauren Goode: And also that means Katie still has time to run WIRED, which is another thing that she does on the side. Michael Calore: I thought you were going to say run nine miles a day. Lauren Goode: That too. She also runs, runs, runs. But yeah, no, here we are, just you and I in the San Francisco office dealing with the fog. It's very foggy this time of year. People don't think that when they think of California, but it is. And is it just me and you? Michael Calore: No, we have a guest. We have Emily Mullen on the show. Lauren Goode: You're kidding. Michael Calore: No, we're going to bring her on in just a minute. Lauren Goode: Let's do it. Michael Calore: This is WIRED's Uncanny Valley , a show about the people, power, and influence of Silicon Valley. Today we are talking about brain computer interfaces. They're also known as brain-machine interfaces or just BCIs for short. But whatever you call them, these are pretty incredible systems that allow direct communication between the brain and a digital device like a computer or a phone. People who have had a BCI surgically implanted can use their thoughts as commands to make machines perform different tasks. There's currently a race underway in Silicon Valley to build a model that will stand out from the rest. And among the front-runners are Elon Musk's Neuralink, and a New York-based startup called Synchron. We'll dive into why the competition is heating up between these two companies, and what the promises and limitations are behind this futuristic technology. I'm Michael Calore, director of Consumer Tech and Culture here at WIRED. Lauren Goode: I'm Lauren Goode. I'm a senior Correspondent at WIRED. Michael Calore: We are positively spoiled today to have a guest on the show who has reported on brain-computer interfaces extensively. WIRED's Emily Mullin. Emily Mullin: Hello. Lauren Goode: Emily, do you have a brain implant yet? Emily Mullin: No, I do not. Lauren Goode: Well, really, how committed are you to the bit then? Emily Mullin: I do not want a brain implant. No, thank you. Michael Calore: Before we dive into BCIs, I would love to know what is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of brain-machine interactions, Lauren? I mean, for example, I think of RoboCop, the 1987 original by Paul Verhoeven, where it's just the RoboCop, it's just his head and his torso, and then his limbs and all of his running and walking are controlled by a computer that is implanted in his brain. Lauren Goode: I have never seen RoboCop. Michael Calore: Oh, it's such a good movie. Lauren Goode: So, cannot comment on that. What I think of, what I think of? Well, this is a much headier response, but I think of all these promises that are being made around AI and healthcare and wondering if AI ends up being the sort of connective tissue between all of this that actually makes it viable. I wouldn't ever want one of these, because it feels to me like a needs-based technology, not something you should just drill a hole into your brain and for fun. But if you get to the point where you need it, hopefully the technology is in place to actually help you live aspects of your life that you wouldn't otherwise be able to live. Michael Calore: Sure. Lauren Goode: Yeah. Michael Calore: I think we all have sort of a vague concept of what a brain-computer interface is and what it's for. Lauren Goode: The sci-fi concept of it. Michael Calore: But I want to ask you, Emily, is there anything remotely accurate in the depictions we've seen in media? I mean, in the real world, how do these BCIs generally look and how do they work? Emily Mullin: Yeah, so I think the first thing to clarify is that these are often called mind-reading devices. And I'm going to hopefully read your mind by clarifying this, and that a brain-computer interface is not doing the kind of mind reading you might be thinking of. It's not extracting random thoughts from a person's brain. What it's actually doing is picking up on movement intention in the brain. When a person gets a BCI, they're asked to think about doing a specific action such as opening and closing their fist. A person who is paralyzed, who gets a BCI may not be able to physically make that action, but there's still a signal that's firing up in the brain that's this distinct signal that the BCI is capturing. So, the BCI learns to associate that pattern of brain activity with that specific action, and then the BCI is using AI to decode and interpret those neural signals, and then those brain signals get translated into a command. For instance, that opening and closing of a fist, that gesture might correlate to a mouse click. Lauren Goode: Okay. So, on the other end of that equation, there has to be some kind of physical or mechanical tool that then translates the movement. If you're a person, for example, who can no longer move your limbs and your brain isn't making that connection with the rest of your body, would you have to say, for example, have leg braces on that the computer would speak to in order for you to move? Emily Mullin: Right, yeah. Neuralink and actually other research teams before Neuralink have tried connecting robotic arms to BCIs to do exactly that. They've actually helped people feed themselves who were no longer able to do so because they were paralyzed. But this has happened at least in the past in these very controlled laboratory settings with these big clunky robotic arms, and that's not exactly practical for somebody to have at home. Lauren Goode: Okay, got it. So, you can have a BCI system that isn't relying on physical hardware or robotics. What you're describing is the person is just sending signals directly to a computer and a computer is doing the task? Emily Mullin: Yeah, exactly. This technology is really meant to provide a direct link from the brain to an external device just to make that faster, that process faster and more lifelike and seamless for a person with a severe disability. Michael Calore: When we talk about BCIs or we hear about BCIs, the company that most people think of is Neuralink, and that's because they're very high-profile company. They're run by Elon Musk, we all know who he is. But in your most recent reporting you have focused heavily on Synchron. This is a startup that's been making waves lately, because it has the support of several high profile investors in Silicon Valley. And the fact that unlike other competitors, its technology requires relatively non-invasive surgery. The implant process is much simpler than the Neuralink. Can you talk about the other ways that Synchron is different and why this company is such a big deal? Emily Mullin: Of course, listeners have probably heard of Neuralink, but I guess to start off this conversation we should go back to the OG BCI implant, which is the Utah Array. And the Utah Array has been the mainstay of BCI research for the past 20 years or so. It looks like a little mini hairbrush, like the head of a hairbrush. It's got about 100 metal spikes protruding from it. And on the tips of those spikes are the electrodes which record the brain activity, and it is pushed into the brain tissue and records signals in that way. And that device has been implanted in a few dozen people over the years, but it's not wireless. It requires this really clunky setup that involves a pedestal atop a person's head. And beyond that you need to get a craniotomy to get this chip implanted, and the chip can cause scar tissue to form over time, and that can interfere with the functioning of the device. Michael Calore: To be clear, a craniotomy is when you remove a piece of your skull with a bone saw temporarily to access the brain? Emily Mullin: Yes, that is correct. Michael Calore: No fun. Lauren Goode: Oh, sounds slightly less pleasant than a colonoscopy. Emily Mullin: All these reasons, this BCI technology has been promising for a long time, but there are clear limitations, as you can see, and this is why Synchron and Neuralink and others have been working to improve on the design. I guess back to your original question, Mike, which what's the major difference with Synchron's approach? And the major difference is that it doesn't require brain surgery. That doesn't mean it doesn't require any surgery at all. It's less invasive, it's not completely non-invasive, but instead of going directly into the brain Synchron's device is inserted into a blood vessel. It's a pretty unique approach. It actually is inserted into the jugular vein at the base of the neck, and then it's threaded up through the vein until it reaches the motor cortex, and that's the part of the brain that is responsible for movement. And this is a little device that looks like a heart stent used in cardiology, and the company, actually, one of its founders is a cardiologist. And that is what inspired this interesting design. It's dotted with electrodes, 16 of them, that record the brain activity. During the same procedure a second device is inserted into the chest pocket right below the collarbone, and that's what processes the brain signals and then beams them out of the body via infrared. Lauren Goode: Wow. So wait, the chest pocket interprets the brain signals and then beams them out of the body, beams them using what, like Bluetooth? Emily Mullin: Infrared. Lauren Goode: Wow. It's like a remote control, like a TV control? Emily Mullin: Yes. Michael Calore: And there's a receiver, there's like a second device that you just hold up to your body to read the signals that are coming out of your brain. Emily Mullin: Yes, there's this paddle-like device that sits on the person's chest, and then that device, it's kind of a complex system. That device is connected via a wire to another device that is doing all of the processing and interpreting of those signals and translating them into commands. But right now, yes, it is a WIRED system, but in Synchron's 2.0 version they are planning to remove that wire and have that communication happen via Bluetooth so that a person doesn't have to be physically tethered to the system. Lauren Goode: And Emily, you wrote about in your story on how Synchron is also being built to work alongside other consumer technologies too. Can you talk about this? Emily Mullin: Yeah. It seems like Synchron is really thinking about the ways in which its eventual users will want to use technology in their everyday lives. For instance, they have connected their BCI to Amazon Alexa, so their users now can use Alexa with just their thoughts instead of voice control. And you might be thinking like, "Well, why would you do that when you can just use your voice?" But some ALS patients, some people who are paralyzed do not have the use of their voice. That's where this would come in handy. Last year Synchron also rolled out a feature to allow users to use an AI chatbot operated by OpenAI, and that's to, again, facilitate communication. And Synchron also has connected its device to the Apple Vision Pro, which obviously if you are paralyzed or severely disabled, you might need somebody to put that device on for you. But the patient that I spoke with for my story on he uses the Apple Vision Pro to kind of transport him to places around the world that he will never get a chance to travel to, and he actually really loves using that device. Lauren Goode: Wow. Apple Vision Pro. I take back everything I ever said about Apple Vision Pro. Michael Calore: Let's talk a little bit more about a person who you profiled as part of your story. His name is Mark Jackson. He's a 65-year-old man from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who is living with ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. It's a disease that causes the person suffering from it to gradually lose all of their muscle functions. He's one of 10 people that Synchron chose to outfit with its device in a clinical trial that started back in 2023. So, he's using the device to talk to Amazon Alexa. He's using the device to control an Apple Vision Pro. How else is he using it? Emily Mullin: He's also able to do things like play computer games, and when I visited him recently he was playing this computer game that was sort of reminiscent of Pac-Man. He was in control of this little white circle, and he had to drive it into a target and miss these blue obstacles. And he can also use the BCI to do things like write emails or shop online, text message. He can do his online banking, and as we mentioned, he can use the Apple Vision Pro. And Synchron is also in talks right now with other tech companies to integrate more types of consumer technology. Michael Calore: As we said at the top of the show, it's not reading his thoughts. When he's playing the video game he's thinking of making a fist and releasing his fist and then making a fist again, and that's sending certain signals through the motor cortex, which is what the device is picking up. I'm assuming that there's probably some sort of motor cortex actions he's doing to write an email or send a text message. He's not just thinking of words and then it's writing them down? Emily Mullin: He is thinking about very specific commands that the BCI is picking up on. Yes, no, or selecting from certain letters, that kind of thing. Lauren Goode: It sounds like based on your reporting that Synchron is really focused on people who are living with severe disabilities. Elon Musk on the other hand with Neuralink, has talked about this vision of a transhumanist future where the mind and machine meld, not that that sounds dystopian in any way. So, they do have slightly different focuses, is my understanding. Can you talk about that a little bit? Emily Mullin: Yeah. So, we know Musk obviously has a tendency to present these very grandiose visions of his technology. Lauren Goode: Does he. Does he do that? Michael Calore: Sometimes. Emily Mullin: But like any medical device company Neuralink will need to prove a medical case to the FDA to get its product to market. So yeah, there's what Elon Musk says, and then there's sort of the reality of getting a product to market. And I do think he sees his technology as something that will be adopted by everyone someday. I don't think Synchron sees its technology in that way, but I think like Synchron, Neuralink is first focusing on restoring digital autonomy to people with severe physical disabilities. And while Neuralink is obviously much more explicit about a future in which BCIs are more widely adopted, I don't think that's necessarily Synchron's goal. Michael Calore: So, Synchron has a major trial coming up in 2026, and it plans to enroll between 30 and 50 patients for the next round of testing. What happens next after they do this trial? How fast do you think that BCIs could become widely available to the public for anybody who needs one to get one? Emily Mullin: Yeah, so this kind of pivotal trial is really what Synchron needs to show the FDA that their device is safe, it's effective, and it can restore certain functions to people. In the early feasibility trial they did they enrolled 10 total patients. There were four initial patients in Australia and six in the U.S. that got the Synchron BCI, and they followed those patients for a year after implantation. And they showed that there were no major safety events, which when you're talking about putting anything in the body, of course there can be risks like infection. As we talked about before, with putting something in the brain there's a risk of brain tissue damage. With the Synchron device it's more about the possibility of blood clots or blocking a blood vessel. So, that's what they want to look for in a bigger trial. And then the question in a bigger trial is sort of, "Well, how do you measure the effectiveness of a BCI?" And the problem is there's never been a big pivotal trial of a device like this before, a device designed to restore certain functions. So, one of the challenges right now is that these companies are working with the FDA. There was an FDA workshop back in the fall to get together researchers and BCI companies to talk about what are the clinical outcome measures that we are talking about here. We can measure how fast a BCI is, typing speed or how accurately it could decode speech, for instance. But how does that correlate with a person's quality of life or their autonomy, their freedom? How did they feel when they're using it? So, these are all questions that these devices are going to face as they head into bigger trials. And Neuralink is hopefully going to get there too. I think it's still going to be several years before one of these devices is on the market, because there are still some open questions. And also, of course, these devices are going to be expensive. So what is the threshold of benefit where an insurer would cover this device? Lauren Goode: Emily, this is super fascinating. Your story is great. Everyone should go read Emily's story. Thank you for joining us in the Uncanny Valley . Come back with more goodness and weirdness soon. Emily Mullin: Thank you for having me. Michael Calore: Thanks, Emily. We're going to take a break and we'll be right back. Welcome back to Uncanny Valley. Today we are talking about brain-computer interfaces, also known as BCIs, and why Synchron and Neuralink are representative of two different approaches to the future of this technology. So Lauren, we just had Emily on. She told us all about Synchron and the challenges and where the technology is and how Neuralink shapes up. Completely wild, what do you think? Lauren Goode: Mind blown. You know what I think? My first reaction upon hearing about this is, this is the real biohacking. Michael Calore: Yeah. Lauren Goode: One of our earlier episodes of Uncanny Valley , which everyone should go back and listen to, was about the quest to live forever in Silicon Valley and all of the weird biohacking stuff that folks like Brian Johnson or even the Jeff Bezos's of the world are doing. And of course, there's been all this lure around like blood boys, Silicon Valley venture capitalists taking the blood of young interns to make themselves more youthful and vital. Of course, there's a lot of really important and significant investment happening in cancer research and maternal health and things like that. But this is actually hacking the body to achieve outcomes that otherwise just would not be achieved. And it's high risk, it's invasive, it's expensive, it's all very experimental still. But it just seems like the upside, if you can get it right, is really significant for someone like the subject in Emily's story who is living with ALS and is paralyzed and is now able to experience the world through Apple Vision Pro. What? Michael Calore: And iPhones and iPads and computers- Lauren Goode: Of course, and Alexa and AI. Michael Calore: Yeah. And I think the idea of giving somebody back autonomy that they have lost, even if it's digital autonomy is really important. You can communicate again, you can type using motor cortex commands, but you can type again. And giving somebody that ability to exist in the world is something that feels like a pretty significant step. Obviously, there are limitations. There is one anecdote in the story that Emily wrote about the subject Mark trying to do a Venmo payment using voice assistance technology. Like dictating to Siri, basically, send a Venmo payment. But there is no way for the voice assistant to actually put in a reason for the payment, so there are places where voice technology falls short and maybe BCIs are a way to bridge that gap. But I do think it's novel that they're using iPhones and Apple Vision Pro as the things that you can control, but really that speaks to how the company is thinking about how people are going to be using this in the future. And I think that's really smart on Synchron's part. Lauren Goode: And it seems like their approach too, even though it's still invasive, is less invasive. The idea of threading something up through your jugular incredible. It really is. When the alternative is drilling a hole into your brain. Michael Calore: And Neuralink's interface is basically a mesh of little electrodes and they're robotically inserted into the brain tissue, and then they close you back up and they put a little sort of coin-sized plug in your skull where the interface goes in, and that does not feel great. That feels like a stopgap. And going in through the vein and going up close to the brain gets you pretty close. It does not get you as close as Neuralink's BCI. So, it seems as though there's less that you can do with Synchron than you can do with a Neuralink implant, but it's still probably the option that most people would choose. Lauren Goode: It's fascinating. Now, I was reading that there's a pretty big difference in how much funding these two startups have raised. Synchron to date has raised just $145 million. Neuralink has raised $1.3 billion. And I have to wonder how much of that is just because of the halo of Elon Musk being associated with Neuralink, or if there's something about their business that actually appears that much more viable to investors. I'm guessing it's the former. Michael Calore: Yeah, it really feels like the halo around Elon Musk is undeniable. He can just drive, pun intended, all kinds of attention to the companies that he fronts. And I think part of that is just that he has been able to do so much in the industry through sheer will that people sort of believe that, "Hey, here's this crazy idea. If anybody can do it, then he can do it." Lauren Goode: Well. And he gets the engineers to do all of the work for him. He motivates people. Michael Calore: So, how do you think AI chatbots are going to be used in brain-computer interfaces? Lauren Goode: This is the part that when you first hear about it sounds like a little hokey, like, "Oh, of course ChatGPT is a part of this." But actually, it makes a lot of sense. When you think about the way that these language models are built to be predictive and actually anticipate what it is you are trying to say next. Which we as humans who are able to vocalize and communicate the things that we want, you and I, like we even struggle with sometimes. When you think about that predictive technology being applied in a medical setting where someone actually cannot articulate what they need or what they want, it seems pretty smart. Michael Calore: And I think there are specific things that we can point to, besides just the chatbot use of AI. For example, there is this effect that BCI researchers refer to as the stadium effect. If you think about how thoughts are presented in the brain, if you're inside a stadium, you can hear the conversations going on around you. Lauren Goode: Oh, right, yes, this was an Emily's story, this was really good. Michael Calore: Yeah, you can hear the thoughts going on around you, and you have pretty good knowledge of what's going on inside the stadium. If you're outside the stadium, all you really hear is the roar of the crowd. And you can probably discern when something big happens, like a goal is scored or something like that. So, the Synchron device is a good example of something that is existing outside the stadium. It knows when the person who has it implanted is thinking about trying to make a fist and when they are thinking about releasing that. And it picks up these very broad signals. So, it's difficult to ascribe any kind of specific intent beyond that, that's a place where AI can probably fill in the blanks. It can probably understand what the patterns are, what the person is trying to do. And if they keep repeating the same thing over and over again and not getting the outcome that they want, it possibly could be able to try different outcomes or somehow bridge that gap between what the person is really trying to do and what the signal should be. Lauren Goode: I am a little bit curious too about the long-term support of these kinds of things. Once a BCI is part your body, part of your system, how long does it last for? Does it need to be replaced? Who does the maintenance? I mean, even now with medical devices that are external to the body, a lot of times the manufacturers keep a tight grip on how to repair them, how to maintain them, because those service contracts is very lucrative service contracts for medical device makers. What do you think are the ethical considerations around all of this? Michael Calore: Well, people are signing up to get this done. People are volunteering to get this done. It is something that's potentially life-changing, and I think that's wonderful. I think the ethics come into play when you talk about how the data is being processed, what types of things we're recording that are coming out of people's brains. As these devices get more sophisticated, those ethical considerations are going to come into sharper focus. But right now, since it's in the testing phase, I mean we're talking about, "Hey, I would like to put my hand up to get a device implanted in my body that will significantly improve my quality of life, please." Lauren Goode: And if OpenAI's model is being trained on your brain signals, you're probably. "Take my data. That's okay, because I want to see what I can get out of this." After hearing all of this from Emily, are you still thinking about RoboCop when you hear BCI? Michael Calore: I'm thinking more about The Matrix. Lauren Goode: Because you're jacking in? Michael Calore: Yeah, because The Matrix, it's a spike that drives into the back of the human skull, right? That's their brain-computer interface. I think that's a little bit closer to what we're talking about, but also maybe a little bit more grim. Lauren Goode: Keanu forever. Michael Calore: Keanu forever. All right, let's take another break, and we'll come right back with recommendations. We're back, and Lauren and I have some recommendations for you all. Lauren, why don't you go first? Lauren Goode: I'm going to toss it back to you, because I need a moment to think of something, honestly. Michael Calore: How dare you? Lauren Goode: Yes. Okay. What's your recommendation, Mike? Michael Calore: Mine's sad, but also we'll fill you with joy. Lauren Goode: Okay. Michael Calore: The day that we're recording this is the same day that Ozzy Osbourne passed. He has been ill for a very long time, so it was not surprising to learn that he died. And just looking at the reactions online, I realized that so many people know Ozzy Osbourne as this guy who was on a reality TV show 20 years ago. He was the guy in the Osbournes that everybody made fun of, because he was sort of like this bumbling guy who just sort of wandered around the house screaming his wife's name. And that's not who Ozzy Osbourne is in my mind. He is the guy who is the lead singer in one of the most important bands in rock and roll, which is Black Sabbath, which was formed in the late-nineteen-sixties and just dominated for six years and stuck around for a long time after that. But their most important work was done in those first formative years in the early 1970s, late 1960s. And that made me a little sad. I was sad that Ozzy died, but I was equally sad that the thing that he's remembered for is not the thing that most of us would consider his best work or his most important work. I would like to recommend that you go into the OzzyVerse, that you go back to Birmingham, England 1969 and listen to the first maybe four Black Sabbath albums. Lauren Goode: Just four albums. Michael Calore: Just the first. Lauren Goode: That's just a small recommendation. Michael Calore: You probably have this idea in your head about what they sound like, and it is almost certainly not what they actually sound like. So, familiarize yourself with them, your life will be richer for it. It's heavy, it's dark, it's fun, it's catchy, it's bluesy. It will make you do air drums, and it will make you love Ozzy Osbourne. Lauren Goode: You are so animated right now. You're really excited by this recommendation. Michael Calore: I mean, it's just some of the best music that you can make with a band. It's so good. How did they do it? It's one of those things. Lauren Goode: You know what, Mike, just for you, I'm going to listen to it in the car today. Michael Calore: Great. Lauren Goode: Yeah. Michael Calore: What's your recommendation? Lauren Goode: My recommendation this week is another literary recommendation. Do you remember I stole that book from a hotel room a while back? Talked about it on the show. Michael Calore: The Bible? Lauren Goode: No, it's a magazine called The Sun. Not to be confused with the British tabloid. This Sun is published out of North Carolina, is an advertising-free, wholly subscriber-supported magazine that has a lot of really great nonfiction, fiction, poetry, dispatches from readers, Q&As, it's honestly, one of my favorite magazines. If you're just looking for something that gives you a little bit of break from the news and you're looking for some good fiction. Michael Calore: So, whenever anybody recommends that I pick up a literary journal, I, in good faith, go to the bookstore and I pick it up and I'm like, "Oh my God, it's $35." Lauren Goode: They're so expensive. The Sun is $5 per month. Michael Calore: That's great. Lauren Goode: It is 100% worth it. Michael Calore: Nice. Thank you for telling me about it. Lauren Goode: You're very welcome. Michael Calore: Thanks for listening to Uncanny Valley . If you like what you heard today, make sure to follow our show and rate it on your podcast app of choice. If you'd like to get in touch with us with any questions, comments, or show suggestions you can write to us at uncannyvalley@ Today's show is produced by Adriana Tapia. Amar Lal mixed this episode, Megan Herbst fact-checked this episode. Mark Lyda was our San Francisco studio engineer. Kate Ozzie Osborn is our executive producer. Katie Drummond is WIRED's Global editorial director, and Chris Bannon is the head of Global Audio.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Europe's CISPE challenges Broadcom's $69 billion VMware deal in EU court
(Reuters) -European Union judges could review chipmaker Broadcom's $69 billion acquisition of cloud computing firm VMWare, after an antitrust complaint opposed the bloc's approval of one of the biggest takeovers in the technology industry. The Cloud Infrastructure Services Providers in Europe, or CISPE, has filed a formal appeal before the European General Court seeking an annulment of the European Commission's approval of the deal, the organisation said on Thursday. Broadcom had wrapped up the purchase of VMWare in November 2023, after intense scrutiny from regulators globally forced the company to delay the closing date thrice. The European Commission's official summary of its approval decision was published in May, acknowledging that the acquisition posed significant risks to competition. "However, it failed to impose any conditions on Broadcom to prevent a concentration of dominance or to mitigate the potential abuse of such a position," CISPE said. CISPE said it has "consistently raised alarms" with the Commission over Broadcom's unfair software licensing practices, but no substantive action has been taken to support either European cloud service providers or their customers. VMware's dominance of software in the virtualisation market "means that unfair new licensing terms enforced by Broadcom affect almost every European organisation using cloud technology", said Francisco Mingorance, Secretary General of CISPE. A spokesperson for the European Commission said it is ready to defend its decisions in court. "Broadcom strongly disagrees with these allegations," a company spokesperson said, adding that the deal was approved after a "thorough merger review process, and we will uphold the commitments made to the Commission at that time." The deal, one of the biggest globally when announced in May 2022, was part of Broadcom CEO Hock Tan's efforts to boost the chipmaker's software business. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Infobip Named a Leader in 2025 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for Communications Platform-as-a-Service for the Third Consecutive Year
Infobip positioned furthest in Completeness of Vision VODNJAN, Croatia, July 24, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Global communications platform Infobip has once again been named a Leader in the 2025 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Communications Platform-as-a-Service (CPaaS)1. This year the company is placed furthest in Completeness of Vision. Infobip views this third consecutive recognition as acknowledging its status as a global CPaaS powerhouse. Magic Quadrant2 reports are a culmination of rigorous, fact-based research in specific markets, providing a wide-angle view of the relative positions of the providers in markets where growth is high and provider differentiation is distinct. Providers are positioned into four quadrants: Leaders, Challengers, Visionaries and Niche Players. The research enables customers to get the most from market analysis in alignment with their unique business and technology needs. As a Leader, Infobip is recognized for both its Ability to Execute and its Completeness of Vision. Infobip powers conversations for some of the world's most innovative businesses including Microsoft, Uber, Meta, NEXT, Digitaleo, AXA Partners, and the MoneyGram Haas F1 Team. Its full-stack omnichannel platform spans voice, SMS, email, and Rich Communication Services (RCS), delivering advanced conversational capabilities and AI-enhanced experiences. Complementing this, Infobip's strategic partnerships with Deutsche Telekom AG, NVIDIA, Telefónica, and others highlight its commitment to driving innovation and building next-generation communication and AI infrastructures. Infobip is accelerating the future of CPaaS through bold innovation in AI and automation. Its AI Hub seamlessly integrates agentic AI, generative AI and advanced analytics to drive scalable customer engagement. At the same time, Infobip is driving global adoption of RCS Business Messaging and pioneering the expansion of the Network API ecosystem, reinforcing its leadership in emerging communication technologies. Silvio Kutić, CEO at Infobip, said: "We're not just participating in the evolution of communications; we are defining it in co-creation with our customers and partners. We will continue setting the pace in transforming how global enterprises connect, engage, and grow. We believe that being recognized by Gartner as a Leader is a strong validation of our continuous innovation and strategic foresight." Read a complimentary copy of the Gartner CPaaS Magic Quadrant 2025 report here: 1 Gartner, Magic Quadrant for Communications Platform as a Service by Lisa Unden-Farboud, Manoj Bhatia, Pankil Sheth, Ajit Patankar, 21 July 2025. 2 Gartner Magic Quadrant: Gartner disclaimer Gartner does not endorse any vendor, product or service depicted in its research publications, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors with the highest ratings or other designation. Gartner research publications consist of the opinions of Gartner's research organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. Gartner disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. GARTNER is a registered trademark and service mark of Gartner and Magic Quadrant is a registered trademark of Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the U.S. and internationally and are used herein with permission. All rights reserved. About Infobip Infobip is a global cloud communications platform that enables businesses to build connected experiences across all stages of the customer journey. View source version on Contacts For more information, contact: Marcelo Bojana Mandić Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data