Latest news with #M3gan
UPI
14-07-2025
- Entertainment
- UPI
'How to Train Your Dragon,' 'M3gan 2.0' on VOD Tuesday
1 of 5 | Gerard Butler, seen at the 2019 premiere of "Angel Has Fallen" in Los Angeles, stars in "How to Train Your Dragon." File Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo July 14 (UPI) -- Universal Pictures Home Entertainment announced the video-on-demand premiere dates for How to Train Your Dragon and M3gan 2.0 on Monday. Both are available to own or rent digitally Tuesday. Dragon will also be available on 4K UHD and Blu-ray Aug. 12, while M3gan reaches those formats Sept. 23. Dragon is the live-action adaptation of the 2010 DreamWorks animated film. It premiered June 13 and was No. 1 for two weeks in a row. Its home release will include deleted scenes and bonus features about adapting the film in live-action, set building and technology. M3gan opened June 27 and turned the robot doll into a heroine battling military artificial intelligence. The home release promises an unrated cut as the theatrical was rated PG-13, and additional interviews with cast and crew.
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
She voiced M3gan. Now her breakup anthem is blowing up TikTok.
'In Texas, we have this saying called 'Go big or go home,'' says Jenna Davis. She's going big. Let's take a look at a day in her life — June 27, 2025 — for proof: she returned as the voice of the AI robot killer M3gan in M3GAN 2.0, which opened in theaters nationwide, and debuted her debut country album, Where Did That Girl Go? Phew! If Davis' big day hasn't landed on your radar yet, there's still a chance you've heard the 21-year-old's voice before, in the horror-comedy franchise or on the radio. But content creation is where she's found the most success so far. With a combined 10.4 million followers across YouTube, Instagram or TikTok, she's been growing and tending to her social media following, all the while pursuing the creative projects that she's most passionate about. Davis's first brush with social media stardom came in her childhood, when her voice teacher mom recorded videos of her singing covers in her apartment's parking garage, then uploaded them to Instagram. In one viral video from 2018, the then 14-year-old, wearing a denim jacket and rocking a severe side part, makes intense eye contact with the camera as she soulfully sings 'Jealous' by Labrinth. Davis says she learned her lesson about the eye contact — commenters used to say she was 'staring into their souls' — but is well aware that her adolescent awkwardness added to her charm back in the day. 'People just started to catch on and watch my content because I was a dorky little girl who didn't care what I looked like — rocking pigtails or weird miscolored outfits and just being me,' she tells Yahoo. 'I would look right into the camera and sing my little heart out.' Davis booked a few gigs over the years as an actress in shows like Raven's Home and Treehouse Detectives. As her follower count grew, she wanted to share more than just singing videos online. That's when she started acting more like a traditional influencer, attempting viral challenges and uploading prank videos. Some of her most popular videos include 'I SPENT THE NIGHT IN MY FRIENDS HOUSE & THEY HAD NO IDEA…' and 'EATING ONLY ONE COLORED FOOD FOR 24 HOURS!' The videos are high energy, colorful and frantically edited, appealing to youngsters with short attention spans. That makes her posts feel strangely authentic, like a teenager really could have produced them. 'I started just basically posting content that I felt reflected me, because I wanted my audience to know Jenna for Jenna,' she says. 'There's always an actor side that feels untouchable, or like you can't know that person, and I wanted to make sure that people could watch me and feel like they know me.' It could be why her single 'Miss Wannabe,' which she calls her 'most savage song yet,' has drawn comparisons to 'Before He Cheats' by Carrie Underwood, the quintessential female rage country song. It has blown up on TikTok, where authenticity is a social currency that can't be bought, as other creators shared the song with their own breakup stories. 'Well, she's a bottle of beer and I'm a glass of champagne / She's a fake veneer and I'm the real dang thing,' she sings cheekily, dismissing her ex's new partner as a cheap imitation. Later, she continues: 'He's kissing her, but he's missing me / I pity pretty little miss wannabe.' It is pretty savage. It's no coincidence that Davis is experiencing concurrent career highs. But, she insists, she's not capitalizing on recent viral success to propel her musical success; she's always been a singer (look no further than the awkward pre-teen videos that live on the internet forever). 'I don't know if I would go as far as to say it's insulting, but I think it's just not true,' she says of the implication. '[Having] a social media presence, everyone's going to have opinions, and that's OK.' She clearly has her own opinions too, and as she matures, her lyrics have as well. 'When I was younger… well, I was a child, so I didn't really have much to say,' Davis says. 'I don't think that as a little homeschooled girl, I had a lot of life experience … Now, I've gotten older and lived a bit longer and know what I want to say as an artist.' Her mom got her obsessed with country legends at a young age. Even after they moved from Texas to Los Angeles, Dolly Parton, Shania Twain and Patsy Cline were on repeat. She's also related to Gene Autry, a country music icon known for 'Home on the Range' and 'Back in the Saddle Again,' whose career began in the 1930s. 'I love the storytelling of country music, and I think a lot of people have a phase when they're growing up and around country music so much that they turn from it,' she says. 'I was always just like, 'Give me more!'' Her upbringing may have helped mold her voice as a country singer, but the voice of a homicidal android that gave her her breakout acting role in M3GAN came to her while she was on the floor of her bedroom closet. That's where she auditioned for the gig, and given the odd circumstances, she was shocked to book the role — and thrilled when the movie became a surprise box office hit in 2023. Davis voices a doll powered by AI that goes on a murderous rampage. (Amie Donald plays the other half of the role, portraying her physically onscreen.) In the sequel, she's back with a different mission: Stopping another doll like her who has gone rogue and become a military-grade weapon. She's still pretty evil, but she's hellbent on protecting her young owner, Cady, at all costs. Davis has a lot of love for M3gan. As she told the news outlet PRIDE, she hopes that the character might become a horror legend like Chucky. 'I think it was the most unexpected surprise, but also a thrill, but also nerve-racking at the same time, introducing a new villain into such an empire,' Davis says of initially booking the role, gushing about the impact that production company Blumhouse has had on horror. It had a hand in bringing iconic films like Paranormal Activity, The Purge, Get Out and now M3GAN to life. As the heroine of so much of her songwriting, playing a villain was new for Davis. She says it's 'challenging and uncanny, but at the same time, M3gan is a lot more than a villain.' 'She is very sassy and witty and fun, and just has so much spunk and spite and sass. It's very fun to play her because she has so many levels,' Davis tells Yahoo. As someone with a lot of levels herself — after all, she's a singer, an actress and a social media savant — Davis gets it. She doesn't have M3gan's penchant for violence, of course, but she's known to be lyrically savage.
New York Times
02-07-2025
- Entertainment
- New York Times
Allison Williams on ‘M3gan 2.0' and Parenting With A.I.
'M3gan 2.0,' the sequel to the 2023 thriller-comedy about a robot doll who glitches out on a killing spree, is now in theaters. Despite its humor, 'M3gan 2.0,' written and directed by Gerard Johnstone, wades into some serious contemporary debates over how to safely develop and deploy A.I. Given how much time we spend talking about A.I. on our podcast 'Hard Fork,' we were excited to have one of the film's stars, Allison Williams, recently join the show to talk about the film's stance on the technology, as well as her own evolving relationship with chatbots. Williams, who plays Gemma, a robotics engineer who invented the M3gan doll, discussed why the new movie shifted away from the horror genre, what it's like to watch her 3-year-old son use ChatGPT, and how she plans to protect her digital likeness as Hollywood turns to A.I. for more and more of the filmmaking process. You can listen to her conversation with Kevin Roose and Casey Newton, the hosts of 'Hard Fork,' by clicking the 'Play' button below (it starts around 44:40) or finding it on Apple, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. If you prefer to read, you'll find an edited transcript of their conversation below. transcript Allison Williams Talks 'M3gan 2.0' This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email transcripts@ with any questions. Hello, Kevin. Hello. I'm here in a beautiful studio in London. Casey, we have been trying to get a studio like this for years. And I think we just figured out that we have to just move the show to London and tape it here every week. You're in this sort of lush, red booth with the 'Hard Fork' logo behind you on a TV. It sort of looks like if 'Hard Fork' was a Denny's diner — it would look a little bit like the studio that you're at. I keep waiting for them to bring you a plate of pancakes. I want the Grand Slam breakfast. Now, Casey, do you miss me in person? Is it different recording without me? No, it's great. I have stretched my legs all the way across the studio for the first time. My circulation has never been better. It's markedly cooler in here, both in the temperature and vibe sense of the word. So no, if you want to stay over there for a while, fine by us. [UPBEAT MUSIC] I'm Kevin Roose, a tech columnist at 'The New York Times.' I'm Casey Newton from Platformer. And this is 'Hard Fork.' This week, the Trump family is releasing a phone. We'll tell you how the president is using influencer tactics to profit while he's in office. Then these AI co-founders say they're going to automate away every job. We'll meet the team behind Mechanize. And finally, we're going to the movies. 'M3GAN 2.0' is almost in theaters. And star Allison Williams is here to talk about it. [UPBEAT MUSIC] Well, Casey, what are we talking about this week? Well, Kevin, if you hear an ominous ringing in the distance, you may be hearing the Trump phone. Oh, no. What's the Trump phone? Well, Kevin, this week the Trump family announced two initiatives — one, a new cell phone provider called Trump Mobile, the other a new forthcoming smartphone. It's gold colored, it has Trump branding, and they're calling it the T1, which is the same thing they called the first 'Terminator' movie. [LAUGHS]: I'm sold. So, Casey, let's talk about this. What is actually going on here? What are they selling, and what is this mobile service they are operating? Yeah. Well, look, obviously, the Trump family has a lot of initiatives. They love to do a lot of branded merchandise. And for the most part, it all just washes over me, and I don't pay that much attention to it. But once the president of the United States's family says we're doing a smartphone and we're going to have a cellular network, I think, well, Kevin, we should probably learn a little bit about that. OK? Yeah. So teach me. So there are two aspects of this to talk about. There is the cell network, what's called a Mobile Virtual Network Operator, or MVNO. That's Trump Mobile. And then there's the phone. Why don't we start with the MVNO? Casey, what is an MVNO? Well, there are these real cell networks, like the ones owned by AT&T and Verizon. And they spend billions of dollars to build networks all over the country, but they wind up with this unused capacity. And that creates the space for the MVNO to come in and say, hey, why don't you let us buy that capacity at a wholesale price, and then we'll resell it to other people and perhaps make a tidy profit? And believe it or not, Kevin, this has turned out to be a pretty good business for some people. For example, have you heard of Mint Mobile? I have, actually. This is the one that is run or part owned or was part owned by the actor Ryan Reynolds? Yeah, that's right. So it was founded in 2016 and sold to T-Mobile eight years later for more than a billion dollars, which is not a bad price, given that they didn't even have to build any cell phone towers. So — Yeah, I remember reading about this and reading that Ryan Reynolds had somehow made something like $300 million by selling this MVNO thing to T-Mobile. And I thought, that sounds like a great business. Maybe I should learn about it. And then I never did. Well, I was just learning about it the other day, Kevin. Because one of our fiercest competitors in the podcasting space, 'SmartLess,' the podcast hosted by Jason Bateman and Will Arnett and Sean Hayes, they have launched their own MVNO. It's SmartLess Mobile. Really? Huh. So what you described to me just now is a basically surplus shop for cell phone service. Like, if you're Verizon and, say, only 60 percent of your tower capacity is used, you could sell that extra space to an MVNO, who could then sell it to customers? Or how does it work? Yeah. Well, here's the twist — here's how I would pitch an MVNO. It's cheaper for worse service. So if you have a Verizon or an AT&T plan, my guess is you're going to be spending, I don't know $80-plus a month on your service, but you're going to get to use your cell network during all the busy times. You're going to get priority. If you're on an MVNO, though, your service might be really slow during busy times. But in exchange for that, you might only pay $30 or $40 a month. Trump Mobile says they're going to sell for $47.45 per month, which appears to be a reference to the 45th and 47th Presidents Donald Trump. So, OK, they're going to sell this service. Is it running on Verizon or AT&T or one of the big mobile carriers? Or how does it actually — who are they subcontracting for? So my understanding is that they're renting capacity from a group of those. It's not just one of those. They're going to go bundle up unused capacity from a bunch and create the network that way. I see. OK. So that is the cell phone service that the Trump family is going to start offering. Now we have to talk about this phone. I know the following things about this phone. One, it's gold. Yes. Probably not actual gold — gold colored. Two, it's an Android phone. Yeah. Three, it is billing itself as being made in the USA. That's right. So all of those three things are correct. But I'm sure you know more about this phone. Tell me what there is to know. Well, so they're calling it the T1 phone 8002 gold version, which sounds kind of like a Taylor Swift album. It will purportedly be sold for $499. The family has suggested you preorder it now for $100. But there are many, many remaining questions, Kevin, about what this thing is. We've seen exactly one rendered image of this phone on the Trump Mobile website. There have been questions about whether this is actually a photo of a phone or maybe just a Photoshop render. Some people are even just calling it a concept of a phone, Kevin, if you can believe that. [LAUGHS]: Yes. I can, in part because I was reading — David Pierce had a great story about this at 'The Verge' that had an actual rendering of this T1 phone and basically made it sound like this thing is just either not real or that they have managed to come up with some miracle of supply-chain logistics and device manufacturing that no one else who's been thinking about this stuff for decades has managed to come up with. Yeah. And I would say that typically, in a situation where you're a celebrity and you license your image and likeness and name a lot to just whoever the highest bidder is, that bidder does not tend to be an incredibly innovative operator who is able to work supply-chain miracles and create an incredibly premium good at the lowest price you can imagine. That's a pretty rare thing that happens in these cases. Yeah, but those celebrities did not write 'The Art of the Deal.' So I think we have to give him some credit here for it. I think that is very fair. But to get to the heart of it, Kevin, basically, no one thinks that you can build a modern smartphone in the United States that runs Android 15 for less than $500. Yeah. I was skeptical of the price tag on this thing. Because I've seen some stories about the people doing the math on what it would cost to, say, make an iPhone in the US. And it's many multiples of the cost of manufacturing that overseas. And it's not just all of the components. It's all of the fabrication. It takes a lot of specialized equipment to make all this stuff very precise. So I just cannot think of a scenario in which they could make something like this phone in the US and sell it for $500 and still make a profit on it. But am I missing something? I think you are exactly right. And so that raises two questions. One is, if they are able to deliver it at that price, basically, what shortcut did they take, or how did they get there? Will they be public about that? And if they're just simply not telling the truth about the price and it's actually going to be more expensive, that doesn't sound great either. Yeah. And actually, we should say, there is one US-made smartphone, it appears, that is still shipping. It's called the Liberty Phone. And it is fabricated and assembled in California. And the starting price of that phone — Casey, would you like to guess? I'm going to guess $2,000. $1,999. You lose by 'Price is Right' rules, but you win spiritually. $2,000 is apparently what it costs to have a phone that is assembled in the US. So if the Trump family has figured out a way to do that for 25 percent of that cost, I would be very impressed. But I would also not be surprised if they're just pulling that claim out of thin air. All right. So why are we talking about this today? Well, one, it is just kind of a funny story during a dark time. It struck both of us, and we thought it would be worth just walking through some of those details. But there is also a really dark undercurrent here, Kevin. And it speaks to the utter strangeness of having a president who seems to be openly using public office for private gain. And while I'm not going to make the case that the Trump phone is the absolute most important story in the week, given all of the tensions abroad, the protests at home, I do think it is worth pointing out to our audience just how many conflicts are baked into an idea as simple as, let's have a phone and let's have an MVNO. Totally. What I keep thinking about when I hear these stories about the various spin-off businesses that the Trump family is starting — I just feel so bad for Jimmy Carter. They made Jimmy Carter put his peanut farm in a blind trust when he took office because owning a peanut farm was seen as a potentially bad conflict of interest. And I'm just glad Jimmy Carter — well, I wish Jimmy Carter were still around. Rest in peace. But I'm sort of glad he's not around to see the absolute depths of side hustles that the Trump family has gotten itself into. Yeah. Well, so let's talk about a few of the areas, Kevin, where this might raise a conflict. One is just the fact that telecommunications is a heavily regulated industry. Trump appoints the head of the Federal Communications Commission, which oversees the telecom industry. So now, if you're Brendan Carr, the head of the FCC, every time you go to make a policy, you're probably going to be asking yourself, well, what does this mean for Trump Mobile and the Trump phone? I have to imagine that this Trump mobile MVNO thing is going to start off being a very small operation. But if it were ever to grow into something that was actually competing with the big mobile giants, I think it absolutely would be a very ripe conflict of interest there. Well, and now let me throw another conflict at you, Kevin. It's extremely common when a new smartphone comes out for a manufacturer like Samsung to go to some of the tech companies out there and say, hey, we have a new phone coming out. Would you like to make a deal with us? Pay us a certain amount of money, and we will put your app on our phone. Well, now imagine that you're Amazon or you're Meta, and you want to curry favor with the Trump administration because you have a huge amount of business before the government, and you're still working to make inroads with Trump and his family. Wouldn't this be a great time for you to come along and say, hey, Donald Trump, you name your price. We would love to get Amazon on the Trump phone. We would love to get Instagram on the Trump phone. And all of a sudden, you have opened up a new avenue, essentially, for bribery for these companies to curry favor with the Trump administration. Yeah, it's fascinating. And it's so troubling for all the reasons you just outlined. But I also think there's a sense in which the Trump family's various business endeavors during this term are really giving us a roadmap to the ways that people have found to monetize influence in the last couple of years. Like, just look at the meme coin business that it has entered and that is actually making quite a bit of money for the Trump family. That is something that did not really exist in any scaled way a couple of years ago. But now not just politicians, but lots of celebrities and influencers, people who have their 15 minutes of fame, that is one of the ways that they sometimes try to cash in. It seems like this MVNO thing is also becoming a way that people — like the 'SmartLess' podcast guys, like Ryan Reynolds, like all of the other celebrities who have gotten in on this kind of deal — that is a way to turn attention and reputation and influence and fame into money. And so I think it's worth saying, I think this is something that a lot of politicians are probably going to pay attention to and potentially try to replicate. Because if Donald Trump is able to monetize his influence, I think there will be lots of other people who say, well, if he can do it, why not me? You know, Kevin, I'm glad you brought up the meme coins. Because I think the meme coins offers a really tangible example of these avenues for influence that we have been talking about. So the 'Wall Street Journal' reported over the last week on a new financial disclosure from President Trump, and it showed that he had personally made $57 million from his family's crypto firm last year. And it put his current crypto holdings around $1.7 billion at the low end. That's a conservative estimate. So why does that matter? Well, just as he oversees the FCC, he oversees the crypto industry as well. He appoints the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has a lot of leeway to regulate how crypto is sold or not sold. And so here, we can see exactly how much it benefited President Trump to come into office, sweep out all of the anti-crypto regulators, bring in a bunch of crypto regulators — and by the way, he was heavily lobbied by the crypto industry to do that. They put a lot of money into his campaign. Well, now he has $57 million. So again, just to say, we tried to set up a system in the United States where this could not happen. The Constitution has an Emoluments Clause that says you cannot accept direct payments or gifts from foreign governments, for example. And we tried to just create strong norms that said if you are in public office, you cannot use it to just make a bunch of profits for yourself. But that norm, like so many others over the past six months, has been shattered. And it just seems like a really troubling precedent, at least to me. Yeah. Part of what I find so curious about this moment with the Trump family and their business expansion is, typically, in politics, you try to reward your supporters. The people who vote for you, typically, you have some affection toward them, and you try to give them things that will make their lives better. In this case, it is a weird inversion of that, where the people who are the most loyal, die-hard Trump supporters, they're going to be the ones lining up to buy the meme coins, lining up to buy the NFTs, probably lining up to buy the Trump phone and the Trump MVNO service. And they are going to be paying more money for things that are less valuable to them than what some other less Trump-affiliated carrier or seller would provide them. And so I think it is just a fascinating experiment in how you can pretend like you are rewarding your most loyal followers by really selling them something that's not very valuable. And I wonder how long that will last or whether there will be people who buy this stuff and say, hey, wait a minute, my old Verizon service was way better. Or my iPhone was way better. Or I wish I didn't lose all this money on crypto coins. Yeah. It seems like the president has figured out ways to monetize tribalism in ways that have been very beneficial to him and, I suspect, pretty enjoyable to the people who are buying at least some of these products. But it just goes against so many precedents in our country's history. I want to say one more thing about this. The great Russian and American journalist, M. Gessen, wrote a piece in 'The Times' recently that really resonated with me. They wrote about the shock of authoritarianism. They had, of course, spent a lot of time in Putin's Russia. And there was just one shock after another of this norm being shattered and that norm being shattered. And the human mind, they write, is always seeking a sense of stability. Is always seeking a sense of, OK, well, that shock might have happened, but my life is still basically the same. And they wrote about the danger of that because, as shock after shock after shock accumulates, you wake up one day, and you realize you have much less freedom that you used to and a lot of other bad things have happened. So in and of itself, a Trump phone, a Trump MVNO might not seem like that big a deal, even though they really are, in their own ways, quite shocking in the context of every other presidency we've ever seen. But my fear, Kevin, is that as more and more of these shocks happen, we do get desensitized to it. We do stop paying attention to it. We don't bother doing a segment about it on a podcast because we just think, oh, well, that's Trump. What are you going to do? So at least this week, we wanted to say, hey, this thing that seems crazy — it actually is super crazy. [FUTURISTIC MUSIC] When we come back, they're coming for your job — why the team behind Mechanize thinks they can automate all labor. [FUTURISTIC MUSIC] Well, Kevin, you recently had a very interesting story about a new company called Mechanize. Yes, this was a fun one to write. This was a startup in San Francisco that got started earlier this year. They raised a bunch of money from people you probably know. Patrick Collison was one of their investors. Jeff Dean, a big AI honcho at Google, was another one. They are a very buzzy startup. And what attracted me to writing about them was that they have said that their goal is to automate all labor. They want to take away everyone's jobs — yours, mine, everyone we know — and replace them with AI. And they think they can do this in the coming decades with a new type of reinforcement learning system. Well, that is a promise we have heard from a number of Silicon Valley companies, but maybe none as directly as the mechanized founders are pitching it. What exactly is their secret sauce? Well, they are building what they call reinforcement learning training environments, basically, simulated environments that these new AI agents can use to learn how to do various white-collar jobs. And they believe that this approach can scale not just to software engineering, which is the first job that they're trying to automate, but to all other kinds of jobs eventually as well. And I thought this was an important conversation to have on the show, because we've been talking about AI and jobs for the last couple of episodes now. I think this is a conversation that is beginning to grow more and more important and more and more urgent. And there's starting to be evidence of some job displacement from AI. And then along come these guys at Mechanize who say, well, this is actually only the tip of the iceberg. You have not seen anything yet. Our plan is to help these giant AI companies automate a bunch more jobs very quickly. Well, that seems to raise a lot of important questions about how society would deal with the fallout of such a thing. So why don't we bring in these founders and see what they have to say about it? Yep, let's bring in Matthew Barnett and Ege Erdil from Mechanize. [FUTURISTIC MUSIC] Matthew and Ege, welcome to 'Hard Fork.' Hi. Hi. So I had a lot of fun writing this story about Mechanize, the company that you all founded, along with your third co-founder, Tamay Besiroglu, earlier this year. And one of the things that made me interested in what you were doing is that, unlike a lot of AI companies I cover who sort of pretend not to be automating jobs — or they say, we're just making helpful copilots and assistants for workers. We're not going to replace their jobs — you all were actually coming out and saying, yes, we absolutely want to automate jobs. And not just a couple of them — we want to automate all jobs. So tell me what inspired you three to leave Epoch AI, the research firm where you were before this, and start this company and to be so open about the agenda of automating labor. Yeah. When we were at Epoch AI, which is a nonprofit research organization which had the mission of informing society about trends in artificial intelligence, we did a bunch of research into the economics of AI. And as part of that research, we looked into what would be the impact of AI that could substitute for human workers across the economy on the economic growth rate. And a very robust conclusion of that research was that it would speed up economic growth by enormous amounts, like unprecedented amounts, maybe by 10 times, maybe more, compared to current rates. And that would unlock such a vast abundance of not just material goods, but also services that today can only be provided by humans, technological progress, like medical progress, that currently, no matter how much money you have, you can't really purchase. We think if AI automates everyone's job, because we can scale the AI workforce so much more than we can scale the human workforce, that leads to this vast abundance, enormous increase in the variety of goods, new medicine, new technologies, et cetera, and makes people's lives much better. So this is a story we've heard from other AI founders. They want to unlock a world of radical abundance. And I think a lot of our listeners hear that and they think, OK, here comes the Silicon Valley hype guys. And they're out there raising funds. And so they're going to tell me this beautiful story so that they can raise billions of dollars, and they'll get rich. How do you respond to the idea that this is just a bunch of hype that you're selling to benefit your own project? I guess I would say that the difference between just hype that someone's speculating about and something that's real is, you can test it empirically. You can look whether it's an implication of robust economic models. You can try to look at the history of automation. I would just say that if you look at the empirical evidence, it's quite clear that automation has been good for most people. People have benefited from mechanization of agriculture, from refrigeration to all these sorts of technologies. So I would just say that anyone who thinks that it's just benefiting a small group of people should really study the history of automation. And I think that almost all the evidence would show that they're wrong. Well, I have studied the history of automation. I wrote a whole book that touched on the history of automation. And one of the things that I want to just really impress upon you all is that I do agree with the statement that automation and technology broadly generally improve people's lives in the long run. I don't think, for example, a lot of us would willingly switch places with our great-great-grandparents. They had hard, backbreaking lives of manual labor. But people don't live in the long run. People live in the short run. And in every technological revolution that we've ever had, there have been people who struggle, who fall through the cracks, who aren't able to seamlessly make the jump from one era to another. So what do you say to those people who look at you and say, well, I get that this future of radical abundance may be possible somewhere down the line. But for me, in the year 2025, what this looks like is my job getting automated away and me not having any way to pay my bills. Well, I guess a few things — first of all, I think, because we expect AI to speed up economic growth — assuming it can substitute for everyone's job and not just the job of a few percent of workers or something like that — the impact of that is so big that I don't actually think the long run is that long. It might be like a few decades or something like that. So it might easily be within the lifespan of most people who are currently alive, for example. That's one thing. But the other thing is, I think the standard of, we should only automate jobs or we should only embrace new technologies if there are no losers, if nobody is made worse off by the adoption of a new technology, is extremely strict. I don't think that's a reasonable standard. If AI can actually substitute for human workers across the entire economy, it's just a substitute for a human worker, in that case, humans would no longer be getting income from wages. But there are a lot of other sources of income. There are countries in the world today where, actually, citizens get their income from, say, natural resource endowments. Like, there's just a certain amount of natural resources that country owns. And the government has maybe a sovereign wealth fund. Maybe they have other ways in which they can distribute the income from that natural resource to the population. And that is something we see in our world today. So it's not actually that far-fetched. And that's the kind of thing I would expect to happen in a world where AIs are vastly more capable and human workers cannot compete. So you guys published a blog post recently where you wrote about, in part, the history of automation in software engineering. And you note that automation has been coming to software engineers over a period of decades. And as that has happened, their jobs largely have not been eliminated. So what are you seeing right now that is making you say, OK, it really is different this time, and we're going to be able to go that last mile and actually fully automate everything and take away these software engineers' jobs. I'm not sure we're actually saying that something is definitely different this time. In fact, two of my co-founders think that maybe full automation will take many decades. And so I don't think we're actually taking the strong view that there's something different in the next 5 or 10 years such that everyone will lose their jobs. I actually think that, especially in the next five years, we'll probably see a continuation of past trends, which is that AI automates some tasks within professions. It doesn't completely automate the entire profession, in the sense of completely replacing most workers in those professions. So to take the example of software engineering, we think that these coding assistants will be used to help software engineers. We don't necessarily think that the coding assistants will be able to do all the jobs that a software engineer can do. So, for example, a software engineer often needs to coordinate across teams. They often need to plan projects, test the software to make sure that it's up to the design specifications. They need to do a lot of these different types of things which are very hard to automate, which aren't just under the label of coding. And so we think that if AIs can just do coding but it can't do these other things, that in fact, it will lead to a productivity increase in these professions and probably raise wages for software engineers, even though it's not taking over their entire job. Of course, in the long run, we just expect that it will be able to take over people's jobs. But this isn't because of some specific thing that we think is different now. We just have a projection of, here's how long we think it will take for AI to replace everything. And we have disagreements about that. But it's not that we think that it's a qualitatively different type of automation. We just have a guess at how long that type of thing will take. Got it. OK. So let's talk a little bit about what you guys actually do. You've just raised a bunch of money. You're presumably hard at work building something. I've read a little bit about it in Kevin's article. But tell people what it is that you're actually building. Yeah. So what we're building is a reinforcement learning process where we will design, essentially, virtual work environments, you could say, for models to acquire the skills that human professionals have that enable them to do their jobs. Like using a spreadsheet, maybe. Yeah, like using a spreadsheet, using common software tools that people use in their work, like, I don't know, Slack for messaging, checking their email, if they're doing software engineering, then using tools like GitHub. So what we're doing is creating these work environments with scoring. So basically, we have a bunch of tasks in these environments. And we can score a model to see, did the model do this task well? How well did the model do this task? And then we give this to an AI company, and they are able to train their model in this environment. So they handle the parts where they train it, but we are the ones who supply them the environment in which they will be doing this training. The way your co-founder, Tammy explained it to me, that I thought was a useful model, from my understanding, was that you are basically creating what amounts to like, very boring video games, like a video game in which the goal of the video game is to be a software engineer or be a lawyer or be an accountant. And you set up this environment, and then the AI agent goes and plays it a bunch of times and gets the signal for whether they failed or succeeded and ideally gets better over time until it's good enough to actually do the full job. Is that more or less correct? I think that's a good description, yeah. What do you think the next target is after software engineering? What is the next easiest job to automate using this technique? There are some things that are adjacent to software engineering, like data science, for example — might be a good target. And we have — Podcasting? [LAUGHS]: I think that would take a different kind of reward signal, maybe. OK, so you're at work on these systems. I'm struck by the fact that there's this interesting tension where, on one hand, you're saying that you're going to automate all labor. On the other hand, you're saying, well, it might take 20 or 30 years. You've also raised venture capital, and they all want a return within, like, seven years. So what are those conversations like? What are you promising to give them before the end of the decade? Even if you just automate a substantial fraction of labor, but not all labor, then that would still be extraordinary, in terms of the amount of progress we would have made over a brief period of time. So I think if we could get as far — I mean — very ambitious of automating, like, 20 percent of current jobs within the next five years, that would be insanely valuable from just a conventional perspective. So I don't think we need to achieve the ambitious, longterm goal of automating all jobs for this to be a successful venture within just a brief period of time. Got it. I have a question for you guys. So when I was at your launch event and I stood up during the Q&A and I said, is any of this ethical? Matthew, you had a response to me that I thought was interesting. So I want to ask you for an abridged version of that case. Make the case that what you are doing — trying to automate jobs — is ethical. Well, I think what I said was that it was a question of cost and benefits. I would say that there are costs to automating everything. It's true that people will lose their jobs. However, we need to compare this to the enormous upside potential from automating all jobs, which is this vast prosperity that would be created from automating labor. It'd be the fact that goods and services would be much easier to produce,s which would mean that we'd just have a much higher standard of living across virtually all areas of life. I think one thing in particular that people miss is that the secret to mass consumption is mass production. Like, in order to get people to consume a lot of goods and services, in order to get people to have a high quality of life, this needs to be backed up by a lot of production, a lot of goods and services actually being produced. So if you have some mechanism that's able to expand the base of goods and services that are being produced, then as long as there's some way for this to be shared among the broad population — not necessarily equally, but just as long as there's some way in which these goods and services can be distributed even slightly — then I think that just leads to almost everyone becoming better off — and not just in terms of them having a higher material standard of living. But I think also, their lives would still have meaning. They would find new ways for their life to have meaning other than work. I think, for example, one thing people didn't anticipate, perhaps — in 1800, if you were to ask people, Would all this automation be able to work out if people aren't going to be constantly working on a farm? they might not have been able to anticipate, for example, that in the next 200 years, we would have governments-funded education in universities. And so people might not have realized that there's this alternative way of enjoying your time, which is going to school, which is going to college. This is a new way for people to spend their time, which I would argue is even more meaningful than these long hours toiling on a farm. And I would just think that that's the default that I would predict as a result of this empirical trend that we've already observed. I know you guys are focused on the capitalism part of this equation, but I'm curious what thoughts you do have on the role of government here. We're always struck on this show by the disconnect between — on one hand, we have entrepreneurs like yourselves saying, hey, in the next 18 to 24 months, the world is going to look very different. And on the other hand, the politicians mostly are just kind of like, OK, cool. Go for it. Yeah. Are there things that you would like to see them do or you think they could do to get us ready for a world that was very different within a few years? I think it's a hard question. It is very hard for me to say what we could do today to make a world in which all jobs have been automated or most jobs have been automated much better. Right now, I only have a very vague sense of what that world's going to look like. When that world's actually here, we will have a much more detailed understanding of how things are going to work. And I'm going to cut you off there. I understand that what you're saying is, it's hard to know the future, and it's hard to make policy based on something that is moving and changing so quickly. But do you think there are things that governments could or should be doing to cushion the fall for workers who may lose their jobs in the next, say, 5 to 10 years? Should they be rolling out something like basic income or strengthening the social safety net? Do you have any ideas for how we could cope with mass job loss if what you are predicting comes true? I don't really think we're predicting mass job loss in the next 5 or 10 years. At least, I would assume that initially, the impact of AI automation is actually going to dry wages up. And it will lead to some occupations changing in character. So, for example, software engineers might still be employed, but their job might start looking different because some of the tasks have been automated. So I think the world in which there is mass job loss and mass unemployment — I think that world is further away, I would say, like, definitely more than 10 years away. Maybe Matthew disagrees with me about this a little bit but — Well, I definitely don't expect mass job loss within the next few years or next five years. So I do think that it's kind of premature to start talking about government programs to cushion against that. The thing that I would like to emphasize the most here is just that I think when people come up with plans for the future, especially if it's not an immediate plan of what to do in the next year, for example, I think that's just kind of overrated. If you asked people 10 years ago, What should we do to prepare for people losing their jobs from LLMs? then how many people would have been able to come up with a good recommendation of what to do by 2025? I just think that it would have been overrated. So what's underrated, I think, is just being honest about our intentions, saying, this is what we intend to do. This is our roadmap, perhaps. We don't actually know whether a roadmap will succeed, but this is at least what we're planning on doing at the moment. And we just think that at the time that these things are becoming more apparent, that they're becoming more salient, then people will be able to leverage the knowledge that they have, which they'll have detailed knowledge at the time that it's actually happening, far more detailed than they would have had 5 or 10 years in advance of the event actually occurring. And then they'll be able to use the tools and knowledge of the time to be able to craft appropriate policy. Committing ourselves to some sort of plan or policy ahead of time without knowing these details, it just seems foolish to me. Well, I think my counterpoint would be, if you know that a pandemic is going to come at some point, you can manufacture and stockpile vaccines, even if you don't know exactly when it's going to arrive. And so my hope would be — similarly here, if you know that there is going to be massive job loss to come, you could start saying, well, in such a world, what kind of solutions might exist. You could have a theory of the case. I certainly agree that we can look at the character of the solutions that might exist. So I would say that the character of the solutions that would look reasonable are similar to the character of the solutions that we've already seen in the past. Governments, for example, have already become more generous, in terms of redistributing income in the last 100 years or 200 years as automation has progressed. We have Social Security, for example, which didn't used to exist at all. We have Medicare, Medicaid. We have all these different programs for caring for people, for the poor. We have unemployment insurance. And I would say that a continuation of that character, those types of things for taking care of people, seems to make a lot of sense if you care about redistributing income. So I would predict — and not just predict, but I would say that that's a reasonable thing to do in the future. But I don't necessarily have a particular plan of what that would look like. I'm not saying like, oh, a UBI would be best. But I just think that that type of thing makes a lot of sense. Well, as I said in the article, I am glad that you all are being honest about your intentions. I think it is useful to have an honest and open conversation about the possibility of job loss through automation with AI. I do hope that you will find some sort of empathy for people who are really scared about what's coming. We hear from listeners every single week on this show who say that their jobs are changing in ways that they don't necessarily like because of AI, who are anxious that their bosses are trying to automate them out of a job. So I would just say, my free advice to you as you go out making your pitch about automating all jobs is just like, there are people on the other side of that. And I think those people are concerned and worried, especially when they hear guys from San Francisco talk about how they're excited to automate their jobs. Yeah. I guess I would say it's difficult whenever you're doing something that you think has enormous benefits but has some costs. And in those cases, you can look at the people who are bearing costs or who fear that they might suffer the costs. And it's a very difficult thing to do. Of course I have empathy for those people. But I acknowledge that it feels kind of cold for me to say that I feel empathy for you, but I just think that these benefits that I'm listing are just much greater than the costs. But that's always, I think, what it sounds like when someone's performing some sort of utilitarian calculus. But compared to the vast majority of policies that people actually talk about in the public sphere, this is something that is much more positive sum than negative sum that you might have otherwise imagined. All right. Well, I think we're going to have to leave it there. But hopefully, someday, you can come back for another round of spirited debate after you've pushed the first — Yeah, come back when you've automated podcasting and give us the news. Thanks, guys. All right. OK. [FUTURISTIC MUSIC] When we come back, slay tuned for our segment with Allison Williams, star of 'M3GAN 2.0.' [FUTURISTIC MUSIC] Well, Kevin, when this show started, you and I made a pact, which is, we will see every 'M3GAN' movie released in theaters. And this week, we honored that pact. [LAUGHS]: I don't remember making that pact. But we did see a new 'M3GAN' movie on Monday night together. We had a little double date with our partners. Yeah, and this is a movie that has a lot of ideas. And it may surprise you for a movie that I think is mostly designed to be a lot of fun, but we were laughing as the movie went along with just how many concepts in the film are things we have talked about on the show. And so we were really excited when we heard from the movie studio that we would actually be able to talk to the star of 'M3GAN' herself, Allison Williams, about this movie. Yes. And I will say, my guess is that this is the only movie of 2025 that will contain a reference to the paperclip maximizer in it. That is how deep down the rabbit hole the screenwriter and director, Gerard Johnstone, went here. So 'M3GAN 2.0'— a movie about AI that managed to get a lot of the inside terminology of the AI world into its script. It comes out June 27. But in the meantime, here's Allison Williams. [FUTURISTIC MUSIC] Alison Williams, welcome to 'Hard Fork.' Oh my gosh, what an honor. Thank you so much for having me. It's such a pleasure. Casey and I had a double date on Monday night. We both went out to see 'M3GAN 2.0,' had a great time. And what struck me about the movie is, it was actually quite impressively literate about some of the nerdier, more arcane parts of the AI and tech universe. So I'm just curious, how much research did you do going into this of concepts like instrumental convergence, which only a couple hundred real AI nerds in San Francisco talk about? And some actors and actresses now. We are evolving. A lot of research — on the first movie, I did a lot more research into robotics and engineering and AI and women in tech and all of those things, because I couldn't be farther from a woman in STEM. I'm a woman in English and film and television. And this one, I did much more of a physical preparation. But yes, to be able to speak cogently about these things and also make it sound like what you're talking about, it's always smart to just keep up with the reading and what there is to know about what's going on. But yeah, I give a lot of that credit to Gerard. He doesn't just do the superficial pass, where it's like gobbledygook that means nothing. We really do want exactly what just happened. We want praise from the 100 people who know what we're talking about. And honestly, we can go home now. This was really all we needed. Thank you guys so much for having me. Watching it, I did have that feeling of, oh, they put real ideas in this movie. It really does feel like it has been keeping track of a lot of the big discussions that are happening about the role of tech in society. Your character, Gemma, becomes a bit of a screentime crusader as this movie begins. She's lobbying against smartphones in schools. I'm curious, how much of that resonates with you personally? So much. I think Gemma and Jonathan Haidt would have gone on a tour together, just talking about these issues. I really think that the first movie was sort of like posing a hypothetical that then, by the time it came out, was starting to feel very prescient and urgent. This movie is sort of saying, OK, hypothetical over. We are here. Now let's have an ethical conversation and a moral conversation about, Now what? sort of about parenthood and stewardship. And the parallels in the first movie between Gemma's motherhood, so to speak, of Katie, her niece, and of M3GAN is just still at work in this movie — except it's an even more loaded word, I will say, without spoiling anything. And it's definitely trying to fully entertain you in the theater, and you're on a ride. And then when you get home and you get into bed, you're like, so I guess we should be expressing a little more gratitude to the Roomba, I think. And like I did the other day when I rode in one for the first time — like, say thank you to my Waymo, I think. It's just — You got to say thank you to the Waymos. They're keeping track. You got to. Listen, I feel grateful for anyone who gets me anywhere safely, including an inanimate line of code or many, many lines of code and cameras. So I feel like it is definitely asking us to think critically about our ethical responsibility. It feels like it's asking us to enter into or realize that we have already entered into a relational positioning rather than a parasitic one, where we can just use and use and take and expect and expect versus being in relationship with — and it sounds crazy, but it is sort of the main question of the movie, is to be in relationship with these types of ways of existing that we have brought to life, so to speak. Yeah. And I will say, this does not feel like a far future scenario to me. In fact, just recently, OpenAI announced that they're doing a partnership with Mattel, the toy company. And there have been lots of companies — Yes, I got that article, like, 150 times. I'm sure. I'm sure. For an official merch tie-in, are they going to do a M3GAN doll? I don't know. It hasn't come up yet. But it felt like, when I read that headline, I was like, well, sometimes it takes a little longer than this for sci-fi to become reality. But this feels like it's part of our marketing cycle. Now, I think we have kids around the same age. Mine's three. Yes. Would you give your kid an OpenAI — or just an AI in general — toy? OK, well, here's the deal. So, as you know, with a kid at this age, our son is incredibly curious. And I love this side of him. And I love how inquisitive he is and also how dissatisfied he is with any surface level. He can feel when you're phoning something in or when you just don't have expertise. And in his least condescending way possible, he'll always ask for supporting documents and evidence. And he'll be let's go — Yeah, they really do the citation-needed thing a lot. Exactly. Let's flip to the back. Let's go through a bibliography. Let's see where we can go a little deeper here. Let's go past the Wikipedia of it all and get some primary sources. So often, when I'm trying to explain something to him, like jet propulsion, which he asked me about last week, I turned to, as we all do, ChatGPT. And I will speak into the speaking thing for a hands-free thing if I'm multitasking. And I'll say, in a way that a 3 and 1/2 year old can understand, can you explain how a rocket launches and how jet propulsion works? And then Arlo watches this little orb on the phone and just like, going in and out. It's like, the least stimulating graphic experience on the planet. And yet, his eyes are lit. I'm watching something so intense happen. Like, his brain is not able to comprehend what this interaction is that's taking place. And he's hearing all this information, and it's distilled perfectly, and it's timed perfectly. And it's exactly what he wants to know. And then he'll ask a follow-up question. And then the look on his face is so troubling that I will cut it off and make him stop talking. The other day, we were talking about a subject. I can't remember what it was. It might have been something related to animal husbandry or something. It's a long story. We've been talking about baby deers a lot. Anyway, so he said, can you ask Cha-pa-tee-tee? And I was like, Cha-pa-tee-tee? Who Cha-pa-tee-tee? And then he was like, the person who talks from your phone and answers my questions. And I was like, oh my god, we are finished using this technology as parents. This is upsetting. And honestly, this is free for you, OpenAI, but Cha-pa-tee-tee is a very cute and very benign-sounding nickname for an extremely powerful machine. So — I love that story. And it just makes me curious about the tension. Because I feel like the tension that you're describing is also in the movie of, on the one hand — Exactly. That's what I was just going to say. Yeah. Like, you have this thing that is able to mesmerize your son, answer his question. Kids are famously curious. They often exhaust their parents' patience. But now you have something that can just explain everything to them forever. That's kind of the promise of Megan too, right, is, hey. Let me take a little bit of this parenting work off your hand, be an extremely supportive friend, commit a little light murder for you if necessary. Totally. So I'm curious, in the real world, when you're away from the killer doll and you just have this sort of mysterious new technology, how you navigate that tension. Well, it's really interesting. Honestly, I never get tired of explaining stuff to him if it's in my wheelhouse. The times that I reach for ChatGPT is when he has wandered beyond — I can't explain gravity, period. I can't explain it to a 3 and 1/2 year old for sure. You know who can? ChatGPT. So what I used to do was, I would look it up on ChatGPT and then I would translate it so the information was coming from me. And then there was a time when I needed my hands, and I just did the voice-activated thing, and I didn't think about it. And then now here we are. I think our strategy is to limit the amount of stimulus to an amount that he can tolerate. And he and I talk — we talk all the time about overstimulation. When he was like 2 and 1/2, he was running around the house at breakneck speed. And he was like, Mama, I think I'm overstimulated. And I was like, you have nailed it. That is exactly what we're seeing right now. And so in the same way, I think that an amount of knowledge that is delivered in such a confusing vehicle can also be overstimulating. I think there's such a thing as just overdoing it, being overwhelmed by the amount of information that's coming at you. And as anyone with a toddler will tell you, often, the best amount to give them is just enough for them to wonder more and fill in the gaps for themselves. Because sometimes our instinct to overexplain things deprives them of the opportunity to answer some of it on their own. And the things they come up with are so extraordinary and the questions they end up having. So I try to remind myself that less is more. And he's just learning so much every single day. And a little bit every day is totally enough. So that's how you feel about AI as a parent. Yes. I'm curious, as a creative and a person who makes and acts in movies, how you feel about it. Obviously, AI in Hollywood have had tensions going back years. You've now been in two films featuring AI as a major theme. And I'm curious, when you put your actor hat on, what you feel about this technology. It's obviously intimidating. My mind goes instantly, of course, to job security. Because I'm like, OK, what about my job can't be performed by an algorithm or an AI or a computer or something like that? And the answer honestly is a little bit embarrassing, but it's the parts of us that are flawed and that make mistakes and that don't do things perfectly, like a hair out of place that looks normal, or a smudge of lipstick, or a lack of continuity here, or a slurred word occasionally in a sentence, the way we all speak, or handwriting that's not consistent. All of those things are so human. I kind of rely on the tiny moments where I'm bad at my job to save my job, frankly, because I think that's how art ends up feeling human to me, is the parts of it that aren't executed perfectly. Well, my question in this vein was like, a few years from now, it's time to make 'M3GAN 5.0.' They come to you. They say, Allison, we have so much footage of you. We have so much — Oh, I've been anticipating this since the first movie. You have? OK. Keep going. Keep going. Keep going with your question. Sure. So if they come to you, they say, look. We're going to write you a really nice check, and you don't actually have to do anything. You can stay at home, go make another movie, whatever you might like to do. We'll just make 'M3GAN 5.0' using your digital likeness. What's your gut reaction to that kind of offer? I've actually contemplated this from a contract standpoint, that I would want my likeness compensated, first of all, to the same amount that my actual personhood would be. So that's the first one, is I would want to make it as cost prohibitive — not to say that I'm enormously expensive to hire. I just mean I would not want it to be the vastly cheaper option. And I actually think, for now, at least, it is the more laborious and difficult option. So luckily, I feel safe there, unless you're going for an uncanny kind of thing. But even for the 'M3GAN' movies, we do a combination of human and machine. It's crucial to our achievement of M3GAN and for Amelia and for all of the iterations of all of these little beings that we have in this movie — I don't want to give them all away, but they're all a collaboration. But there will always have to be, I think, a human component for all of it, just because of what it is. And so I think that even if they want to do — let's say something happens to Gemma. She's no longer alive, and she's reanimated as AI. Let's say that's the situation in 'M3GAN 5.0' I may have just written it with you guys on this podcast. I'm going to — what do I do, like, put a flag in it? Like IP, this is mine. Yeah, that's yours. No, that belongs to the 'Hard Fork' podcast now. Sorry. Kevin! We don't have room for — You'll write something else. — four cooks in the kitchen. That's fine. It would be an awesome collab. Anyway, so I think if that were the case, they would still at this point need me to be involved, need someone's physical body to be involved for it to work, even from a motion-capture standpoint. But I do want to — I guess I should copyright my likeness. I don't know. I already watch cuts of trailers for movies that I'm in that have lines of dialogue that aren't in the movie that are said by an AI version of my voice that don't end up making it to air. They're just in the draft versions of them, and then I go in and record them. That is always really strange because it doesn't exactly sound like me. But for a second, I'm like, wait, I don't remember saying that. Oh, OK, that's AI. And it's just so rudimentary now. But yeah, as of now, there has to be then a human pass on it to make it sound worse, I guess, in a way that's more normal and better, conversely. I want to ask a follow-up related to how different the two films are. So 'M3GAN' 1 feels very much like a horror film. 'M3GAN 2.0' feels a lot more like an action film. To me, it was feeling like — Yeah, for sure — — kind of 'Mission Impossible' cross with 'Terminator 2.' I wonder, as you're reading both scripts — like, you read the script for 'M3GAN 2.0,' do you feel as an actor like, oh, the genre has evolved here, and so my performance, it needs to evolve? And if you did feel that way, maybe that is exactly the sort of thing that's going to be hard to translate when it comes time to make 'M3GAN 5.0' and the genre has maybe shifted yet again, and they don't actually have the raw materials they need to do the performance — Exactly. — that you would have done. Exactly. That's a great point. I think the thing that's fun about this movie is that we started having conversations about what it was going to be before the first one even came out. And the clear mandate from every corner of our world was, there's going to be a second doll. And so the question then was like, OK, let's extrapolate from there. Obviously, we're in a world where T2 exists, so let's not make a direct one-to-one reboot of that movie. Let's figure out how to make it interesting and also live in our world. And then as Gerard started to put the pillars of the plot together in a way that felt so logical to him and is so unpredictable as you start watching the movie to everyone else — and makes for such a fun and unexpected and unpredictable ride — he realized we had to be in an action world, for reasons I don't want to spoil. The stakes just get really bigger. The world gets bigger. The stakes get really bigger? That's what a Yale education can give you — and not just a Yale education, an English major. The stakes get a lot higher. And the world expanded in such a way that the story pushed us into action. It wasn't the tail wagging the dog in the other way. Once we realized we were in that genre, it was a really cool thing to realize, that we had created a tone in the first movie and characters that could be transported. As long as there's still that thriller DNA in it, it can be translated into a different genre. And now as we're talking about possibly being lucky enough to do another one, we're asking that question again of like, OK, so where do we go next? Where should we take this little team of misfits? Where should we creep other people out in the future? And it's a really fun way to iterate the franchise. Yeah. The thing that stuck out to me about 'M3GAN 2.0' as compared to the first one is, it just feels like a much more complicated moral. I feel like if the takeaway from the first movie was like, AI bad. there was some complication of that in the second one, where — I don't want to spoil any details, but there are points at which AI is part of the solution. So did you feel like the script that you were reading and then performing was a more complicated — is the moral of 'M3GAN 2.0,' to the extent that the film has a moral, something different than AI bad? Yeah, for sure. I think it had to be. Because I think making a movie with the moral AI bad would be a deeply dick move in an era where AI is. I don't know. It would just be obnoxious to make a movie that's like, psych, we think this is bad and should go away, but you're stuck with it. You know what I mean? It would just be counterproductive. Whereas I feel like the movie we made is asking a much more nuanced question. It just feels like, yeah, we're all in a similar moral journey to the one that Gemma is on. And by the end of the movie, without giving anything away, we hear exactly how she feels on the topic. And it is, shocker, very different from the way it is at the beginning of the movie — not that being cautious is a bad idea, but just that there needed to be asterisks to her argument because of where we are as a society. And there just are certain realities to that that she needed to contend with. Yeah. In the first movie, there's a wonderful scene of a kind of combination dance murder. In this one — Uh-huh, one of those. In this one — I desperately want to spoil, but I won't — there's an incredible song that brings the house down. How important is it to the creative team for there to be an iconic moment of gay culture in every 'M3GAN' film? Extremely important, but it's not engineered like that. It's just a moment where she behaves in just a kind of a shocking use of the arts, I guess, in a moment where — especially when it's coming from tech, it's kind of shocking. I had this realization the other day that I played a character on 'Girls' who broke into spontaneous song, to the detriment of everyone around her, quite frequently and never asked permission. And it was never the right time. And that I'm almost being karmically punished by watching this other doll — This is your cross to bear, yes. It is, sort of. Like, I've now brought another being to life that does this, where she'll spontaneously dance and/or sing at certain points in a movie when it's never feeling quite right. Anyway, I think that it's important to us that we make a movie that feels so tonally specific. Making sure that we hit the same tone as the first movie was like priority number one. Because if we became too self-aware and too in on the joke and too winking at the camera, it would be a totally boring movie to watch and feel exhausting. And so we knew that eventually, the camp would be there and the self-awareness and the in on itself would be there, but it would only be there if we executed completely earnestly on the story and the emotional beats as they were there. And I think watching women with really strong personalities committing to an emotional beat and then rising to the occasion in their strength is, in and of itself, sort of a celebration, somehow, of queer culture. Absolutely. And so it feels like making sure that we just stick to that in these movies is not at all an effort to, I don't know, placate anybody, but it ends up just taking us in that direction every single time. I'm glad you did. Allison Williams, thanks so much for coming on. Thanks, Allison. Thank you for having me. This was so fun. I'm starstruck. We hope you'll come back for 'M3GAN 3.0.' I absolutely will, especially if I get to play myself, a human being. You will. It would be an honor. [FUTURISTIC MUSIC] Before we go, for even more Alison Williams, head over to YouTube at She participated in one of our favorite segments, Group Chat Chat, about what's been blowing up her phone lately 'Hard Fork' is produced by Whitney Jones and Rachel Cohn. We're edited by Jen Poyant. We're fact-checked by Caitlin Love. Today's show was engineered by Katie McMurran. Original music by Marion Lozano, Diane Wong, Rowan Niemisto, and Dan Powell. Video production by Sawyer Roquette, Pat Gunther, and Chris Schott. You can watch this whole episode on YouTube at Special thanks to Paula Szuchman, Pui Wing Tam, Dahlia Haddad, and Jeffrey Miranda. You can email us hardfork@ with how you would protect yourself from a killer robot. [FUTURISTIC MUSIC] CASEY NEWTON Allison Williams, welcome to 'Hard Fork.' ALLISON WILLIAMS Oh my gosh, what an honor. Thank you so much for having me. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
The Verge
02-07-2025
- Entertainment
- The Verge
Blumhouse is going back to the drawing board.
Blumhouse is going back to the drawing board. You could see that Blumhouse really believed it could recreate the success of the original M3gan with its recently-released sequel. But according to The Hollywood Reporter, M3gan 2.0's bombing at the box office this month has spooked the studio into reassessing its plans to put out a spin-off next year.
Washington Post
01-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Washington Post
The people behind ‘M3gan 2.0' think AI might be good, actually
The robot that cleans Allison Williams's home is called Pauna Gauna. The vacuum was named by the 'Girls' and 'Get Out' actress's toddler, and the family refers to it using she/her pronouns. Williams has even caught herself thanking the 'giant hockey puck' out loud for its work. After starring in 2022's 'M3gan,' a horror hit about an adorable android that murders any threat it perceives, Williams may have developed a healthy deference to the automatons in her life.
