Karen Hao On The Overreach Of AI

Karen is a tech journalist and leads the Pulitzer Center’s AI Spotlight Series — a program that trains journalists on how to cover AI. She was a senior editor for AI at MIT Technology Review and a reporter for the WSJ covering Chinese and US tech companies. Her first book is Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman’s OpenAI — the most accessible and readable narrative of the rise of AI.

For two clips of our convo — on the environmental impact of AI, and its threats to democracy — head to our YouTube page.

Other topics: raised by two computer scientists; her mechanical engineering at MIT; the birth of AI at Dartmouth; IBM Watson on Jeopardy!; how the internet made data cheap to collect; the junk info swept into AI; massive data centers; ideology driving the AI industry more than science; ChatGPT; the networking and fundraising skills of Sam Altman; his family scandal; his near ouster at OpenAI; the AI bubble and propping up 401(k)s; the threat to white-collar jobs; the brutal conditions of AI work in developing countries; Chinese authoritarianism and DeepSeek; the illiberalizing effect of Silicon Valley; Musk and Thiel; how the IDF uses AI against Hamas; autonomous weapons; how AI has done wonders with Pharma; transhumanism; chatbot safety for kids; Pope Leo’s tech warnings; and AI as the ultimate apple in the Garden of Eden.

Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: David Ignatius on the Trump effect globally, Mark Halperin on the domestic front, Michel Paradis on Eisenhower, Fiona Hill on Putin’s war, and Arthur Brooks on the science of happiness. As always, please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

From a fan of last week’s episode on taking religion seriously:

I listened intently to your excellent discussion with Charles Murray — one of your best so far. Both of you were on a journey of discovery, and Murray is so unpretentious and so honest that I could listen to his learning happening as you exchanged observations.

Twice during your exchange, he complimented you honestly, saying, “This is the first interview that has been a real learning experience for me.” The first time was immediately after your explanation of the significance of the Eucharist in Mass (1:15:08). Your comment opened up a new dimension of God’s presence for him, and my thought was that this was a conversion moment for Murray.

Another writes:

How lucky Charles Murray is to have a friend like you! If not for your promotion of his work through the years, I would only have known about him through his most controversial works — and the widespread criticism of it. I’m embarrassed to say that I probably would have assumed he was a racist, and avoided it entirely. But every time you have shared his work and especially interviewed Charles, I am struck by how curious, thoughtful, and brave he is. Those qualities are essential to do the challenging work he does. I hope that future researchers will use his work as he clearly intends, which is to better mankind’s knowledge of ourselves so that we can find solutions that improve everyone’s future.

Now he has turned those qualities inward. What a beautiful result. Your conversation made my Sunday run a bit like church. I can’t wait to read his book, and perhaps revive my own Catholic journey, as you called it. Thanks as always for challenging me, and please let Charles know he has fans out here!

I will. Here’s a dissent:

I LOVE the Dishcast, and I respect your religious beliefs (you remind me of my oldest and best friend of 50 years who is a devout Catholic), and it’s great that you discuss all kinds of things on your podcast. But your talk with Murray sent me around the bend. The line of logic used in so many of the examples mentioned for the “obvious” existence of God and the special value of religion went so far into “just too far” for me. Examples:

• Saving someone we don’t know from drowning means that we can’t explain it through evolutionary reasons, so it means that some greater power must exist.

• The fact that after Christ’s resurrection, so many people were so stirred up to start spreading the Word, that it obviously must have been something that really did happen.

Add psychedelics to all this, and it further makes me the skeptic of the reasons for believing (and I have nothing against the use of psychedelics). It’s a river I can’t say I’ll ever cross back over (I was a believer for a while when I was in my early 20s), and this edition of the podcast helped me see why. :-)

Here’s another dissent from a “loyal follower since your New Republic days — love you always, even when I think you’re bonkers”:

Your argument that the Bible must be historically true because “they couldn’t possibly make this shit up” is comically absurd. I appreciate that you are a man of faith and don’t require a logical explanation to believe something, but when you pretend you do have a logical argument, it sounds suspiciously like the Chewbacca defense.

You are literally saying, “This does not make sense ... so therefore it must be true!”. What other hare-brained ideas would you apply this standard to? Trump’s tariff policy? Modern monetary theory?

Your arguments about the enormous improbability of the constants of the universe resulting in a universe where life (or even matter) could exist is less comical but just as erroneous. You seem to be misunderstanding the idea of “alternate universes” — understandable, given the way movies routinely abuse the concept of the “metaverse”. The idea is not that there actually are millions of other universes “out there somewhere” that are identical to ours but for one tiny difference.

Think of it this way: Imagine a perverse cosmic casino in which any person who enters is dealt a hand of five cards. If the hand is a royal flush, the person may continue into the game room; if it’s anything else, the person is murdered on the spot. Now suppose that every person in the world enters this casino. The 12,000 or so who beat the odds and make it into the game room can then look at each other and say, “It is unimaginably improbable that each of us would have been dealt a royal flush; this cannot possibly be just random chance.”

But they are wrong. It can be random chance and indeed it is. It just doesn’t look like it because all of the “could have been” hands aren’t there to be considered.

The point I was making was a different one, I think. It was that if you were to come up with a fiction to persuade someone that Jesus was the son of God, it would be a lot less internally coherent, would have far fewer unnecessary digressions, no internal conflict whatever than the Gospels. Just the Gospels, not the Bible as a whole.

Another writes, “No dissent here”:

I have long enjoyed the Dishcast, but the episodes with the greatest impact on me are those that have dealt with religious themes. At 84 — having grown up in a non-observant, ostensibly Jewish household — I have maintained my non-observance throughout my adulthood, believing in God on my own terms and for my own reasons. I’m not likely to change at this late stage in life.

So how have these pods impacted me? Your articulation of your very different religious upbringing, your retention of your faith despite a secular education and intellectual career that has constantly challenged that faith, and your lived experiences (e.g. the daffodils at Oxford, dropping down on the dunes in Provincetown, the health catastrophe that struck you and friends that you loved) have made me think deeply.

In one sense, these discussions have awakened my consciousness of something important that I have missed. In another sense, they have reassured me that the personal beliefs that I have blundered along with are not so far off the mark. Thanks, and keep these discussions coming.

What a wonderful email to get. Next up, “an old, Christian, lesbian, law-and-order Democrat (ha ha — what a combo!)”:

The pod with Charles Murray was superb. So rich and meaningful. I so appreciate how open you each were about your faith. I will read Murray’s new book.

And I would (with some withdrawal symptoms) be happy to keep subscribing to the Dish while you step away to finally write your own book on faith. If you can at least keep the podcast going while you do that, that would be fantastic. When you and Chris took a three-week break a few months ago, I was seriously missing my weekly Dish fix.

So I say: Take a break from the writing the Dish column and get a move-on. Your new book/memoir — whatever you will call it — will be worth the wait. God bless you and Chris.

Another is also supportive of the book project:

Your reader wrote, “As someone who looks forward to the Dish each week (and having just recently renewed), it’s hard to say this, but just step away and write the book.” You replied:

I’m weighing exactly that: keeping the podcast and the contest every week but taking a few months off the column to get the book written. My mother’s death has allowed me to write honestly about what created my strangely tenacious faith, and I feel I’m finally ready to unload the thing. How do other readers think of this idea?

By all means do it. The fundamental problem with politics nowadays is the collapse of mortality and religion in places like the MAGA evangelicals, but even with youth nowadays who profess a secular morality that seems to be more oriented to wealth and status than to eudaimonia.

For the most part, I have stopped paying attention to politics since Trump came back. “Flooding the zone” is not good for your mental health when your ability to respond in a way that affects change is very limited. Pass that torch on to others who can carry it for you. You’d be better off for it.

Writing a book on religion may, in the long run, be better for humanity by helping to provide a road back to a more righteous society. Done well, it can change hearts and minds.

One of the most powerful books of the last century was Mere Christianity. As a Unitarian Universalist and a Naturalist Pantheist in alignment with Einstein’s religious views (and a Taoist to boot), I was not persuaded by C.S. Lewis’s arguments — but I recognize that this was one of the best contemporary apologies for Christianity. Personally, I would prefer to see as many devout Christians who evince the Fruits of the Holy Spirit than I would to have more poor theologians like Richard Dawkins — someone who gives atheism a bad name.

“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” Yes, and this also applies to those things that are unseen. We need all the help we can get in this struggle. I trust your ability to take a stand while recognizing the complexity of truth and the possibility of error. Your book could even be an inspiring addition to this endeavour.

A reader who’s inspired:

Please, please do it! I’ve been waiting for this book ever since you started mentioning it way back in the day. As someone struggling to live a Christian life under unorthodox circumstances, I’ve always looked to you — your life story, the way you express your faith — for grounding and inspiration. Your book will not just be a long-awaited read for me; it’ll be — not to put too much pressure on you! — much-needed spiritual nourishment.

Another writes, “Perhaps a compromise?”

If you need six months, do like the old Daily Dish did: have guest bloggers lined up for six months, one month each. Let them do the podcast too, with you maybe doing it once a month. Dishheads lived through your previous “retirement.” We’ll manage for six months.

Another idea from a Dishhead:

Why not split the difference with the column and your book, and do a column every other week? I’m a little bit selfish in wanting my Andrew fix — one of the highlights of my week — but I also think it’s a legit concern that you’d lose a significant chunk of the community. And those dissents are as precious as the columns they’re responding to.

I serialized my first novel on Substack by releasing on Fridays pretty much because that’s the way you do it, and I didn’t think twice about it. But my second novel (coming in the next few weeks!) will be every other week, just because a faster
pace was rough on me. I’d rather have a slower pace of Andrew columns
for a longer time (even indefinitely, if you want) over nothing for several months.

One more idea for now:

Take time off to write your next book. Keep up with the weekly Dishcast — with one caveat: try adding video again. I still love watching David Frum cringe as the cloud of marijuana smoke wafts past his face.

Haha. Here’s a followup from a dissenting reader in the UK:

Thank you for including my comment last week. First, I was a little surprised to read that your advice for my German husband, who’s lived here for 20 years, paid 20 years of British taxes, saved countless British lives (he’s a heart surgeon), and has the right to live here as a German citizen permanently enshrined in an international treaty … is that he should either get a British passport or go back home where he came from.

Do you have any idea how much of the NHS, let alone other professions, is in the same position as he is? Good luck doing the hip replacements and triple bypasses of Reform supporters if you give the same ultimatum to all the foreign doctors with settled status or indefinite leave to remain.

Second, I was also disappointed, but at the same time a little amused, that you should describe my attitude towards my country as repellent. As you were frank with me, I’ll be frank with you. You’re probably right; I don’t care much for England these days. But at least I’ve stayed. I don’t begrudge you translating the second best education that England can provide (you’re talking to a Cambridge man here) into foreign fame and fortune, but at least when I look back on my life, I’ll be able to say that I repaid the investment my country made in me many times over in taxes. Can you say the same?

In the finest traditions of Private Eye, I will not be cancelling my subscription.

And that email was in the finest tradition of biting English dissent. I thank you.

On last week’s column, “The Secret Of Trump’s Gaza Triumph,” a dissent:

I take issue with the following paragraph:

It’s not as if Netanyahu had a genuine change of heart. He continued to insist after two years of devastation that Hamas still posed a mortal threat, and if the handful of Hamas teenagers still left fighting with other gangs in Gaza were not completely obliterated, another 10/7 was inevitable.

I strongly disagree with how you frame Hamas as merely a “gang of teenagers.” I also think it’s offensive to the innocent Palestinians in Gaza that you purport to care about.