Skip to content
Sign in
Artwork for The Rip Current
TechnologyScience

The Rip Current

Jacob Ward

We're in the invisible grip of technology, politics, and our own weirdness. We gotta get better at seeing it. Hosted by veteran journalist Jacob Ward (correspondent for Al Jazeera, PBS, NBC News, and CNN), The Rip Current is your guide to spotting the hidden forces at work in our lives and getting across them safely. Each week we speak to experts in the stuff you didn't know was having an impact on your life, from venture capital to racism to the tried-and-true tactics of bullies, and teach you how to see The Rip Current before it sweeps you out to sea. Read more at TheRipCurrent.com!

www.theripcurrent.com
Play
Open in
  • 28 episodes
  • Avg 15 min
  • English

Episodes 28

NewestOldestLongest
All20Unplayed20In progress0Played0
Counted on this page — what you have heard stays on this device, so it is not something the list can be paged by.
  • Friday · 1 hr 4 min

    Debating Khan Academy’s Founder: Is AI Ruining Education?

    Sal Khan is one of the most universally admired people in tech — a tutor who turned his makeshift online study guides for his young cousin into a free online education for 200 million people around the world. So when the Greenwich Public Library asked me to debate him on the role of AI in education, I knew that I wasn’t going to be getting into a fistfight with him on stage, but I also knew that we had very different experiences navigating the world of tech power, and that an audience might learn a lot about how that world works from our conversation. We wound up having what I consider a very thoughtful and very interesting discussion, moderated by a Dartmouth senior, in front of a live audience, and with the kind permission of the library, I’m sharing it with you here. Stay tuned for the audience Q&A at the end, which produced some of the sharpest stuff of the night, including a finance professional who couldn’t quite see why we’re all so worried about AI, and a dad of four kids under the age of seven desperate for advice on how to raise them. Also, give Greenwich Library a follow on YouTube — they were very kind in letting me distribute this talk, and they have a wide range of fascinating guests on offer! For more cutting-edge conversations and insights about the latest news in tech, power, and politics, subscribe to The Rip Current with Jacob Ward. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theripcurrent.com/subscribe

  • September 29 · 12 min

    Trump Says AI Companies Will Police Themselves Under “Morally Binding” Agreement

    I’m currently in Amsterdam to speak at a pair of events — TechSummit this week and World Summit AI next week — and I’m learning that being a European correspondent for American networks is brutal night-shift work. I landed at 9am local time this morning, stayed awake by biking around in the sun, and somehow managed to make it to 9pm, when I was pulled into a CNN appearance to offer my thoughts on the AI meeting at the White House today. But about halfway through an appearance on CNN International, the presenter cut in to say that Trump had taken the stage. Here’s a clip of how far I got: I then had to sit and listen live as he brushed aside the existential threats that the tech leadership standing with him had raised, boasting instead that the very smart and very rich people behind him were going to “self-police.” Speaker Mike Johnson said that some sort of document would be distributed that solved our AI problems once and for all. Trump said that while the document might not be legally binding, it was “morally binding,” which I guess is good enough for him. Here, then, is my reaction to the presidential continuation of the anti-democratic nightmare that is the American rollout of AI at scale. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theripcurrent.com/subscribe

  • September 11 · 22 min

    The Terrifying Things Claude Can Do

    The public resignation of Jacob Coxon — who told the world his industry is “gambling with our lives” — buried two other chilling warnings from inside the AI industry this week. The first is “An Alien Mind,” an essay OpenAI’s chief scientist Jakub Pachocki published on September 6, in which he describes his own creation as an intellect nobody fully understands and says no lab has solved alignment well enough to keep scaling at full speed. The second is Anthropic’s September threat report, which lays out what people have already done with Claude: a Russian espionage group whose AI agents rewrote their own malware until security products stopped catching it; hotel WiFi networks turned into software delivery systems; one person who built a searchable doxxing database of political dissidents; a Wagner-funded radio station in the Central African Republic where the model wrote the loyalty contracts and the scoring rubric used to decide which journalists to fire; and a cell in northern Yemen running three weapons programs, including a multi-stage ballistic missile with a stated range goal above 2,000 kilometers. In this episode I go through the report, explain why the labor curve that used to limit what a small group could do has collapsed, and lay out the questions I submitted to a CNN producer for the executives running these companies — including whether Dario Amodei would support the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, the bill Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar announced on September 3, which would carry penalties comparable to those for unlawfully developing nuclear weapons. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theripcurrent.com/subscribe

  • September 3 · 3 min

    “They Are At The Whim of The President”

    The story of MapQuest refusing to rename a lake isn’t about MapQuest. It’s about Big Tech, and whether we can rely on its principles. On Anderson Cooper 360 last night, anchor Jim Sciutto asked me whether Google and Apple’s decision to rename Lake Ontario per the president’s wishes was a matter of business. “I don’t think it’s because they’re outraged by Canadian names on lakes,” I told him. And that’s not just a feeling: Trump last year said into the microphones that Apple was excluded from his 100% tariff on semiconductors because it had agreed to invest $100B domestically. When the lifeblood of your company — which for Apple is a steady flow of chips and hardware from China — is at the discretionary whim of the president, the name of a lake on your map isn’t a hill you’ll die on. The question, of course, is what hills a Big Tech player will die on, even if it threatens the business. As we see software engineers laid off (and with them, their political demands), and AI hyperscalers emboldening the tech industry to imagine a life without having to employ anyone (that’s how you should read the phrase “one-person unicorn” whenever you encounter it), the hills a company like Google or Apple consider non-negotiable feel like they’re getting taller and taller. Consider becoming a paid subscriber to read the reporting and analysis I can’t share on CNN. So while we want to tell this story in terms of the courage of MapQuest, I encourage you to think instead in terms of what big firms are willing to compromise, because I don’t think we know yet. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theripcurrent.com/subscribe

  • September 2 · 28 min

    “We Were Gonna Win.” So Why Did the States Settle with Meta? I Asked Colorado’s Attorney General.

    By now you know how I felt about it. When I heard, seven days into the Meta trial, that the company would be allowed to settle with the States, I was astounded. “They did what?” I shouted at my phone first thing that morning. For one thing, it was clear in even those first few days in court that there was a mountain of evidence showing that executives at… This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theripcurrent.com/subscribe

  • September 1 · 6 min

    "Maybe He'll Listen to the CEOs Who Are About to Get This in the Throat"

    Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey has spent a career worrying about the twin threat of debt and valuations. On Monday, in the Financial Stability Board’s letter to the G20’s finance ministers and central bank governors, Bailey says a new horror has moved to the front of his nightmares: “For the financial system, the most immediate concern is the potential impact of frontier AI on cyber risk.” He’s worried about sovereign debt fragilities, private credit, and stretched asset valuations, sure. But what frontier AI can do, he wrote, is “materially alter the speed, scale and economics of cyber risk.” Last night, I tried to articulate what he means. In February 2016, a crew the Justice Department later attributed to North Korea’s military spent months inside Bangladesh Bank’s systems, took its SWIFT credentials, and tried to move $951 million out of its account at the New York Fed. They got $81 million out the door. That operation took a nation-state’s patience and a nation-state’s payroll. Rapid7’s threat researchers catalogued the criminal AI-as-a-service market this June and found FraudGPT renting for a few hundred dollars a month, entry-level tools going for a few dozen, and a class of product that expands “the range of actors able to perform tasks that previously required more time, skill, or external support.” To be an effective cyber-criminal today, you don’t need to know code, cryptography, or even English. Please share this with anyone in your life who could use cutting-edge coverage and analysis of the many ways technology and power are shaping our lives in this weird new world. Meanwhile, the president spent the same day telling Americans that towns opposing AI data centers will end up “backwards and poor.” Why all this anger about data centers? I think they are the first time most people have been able to point a finger — and a camera — at AI. The building is where the thing lives — the one that threatens your job and your kids. And as I explained to Jim Sciutto, if the administration won’t hear that from the people living next to one, the numbers arriving from the business leader Trump prefers to listen to aren’t friendlier — the FBI’s IC3 logged $20.9 billion in reported U.S. cybercrime losses in 2025, and the IMF’s 2024 estimate puts a single financial firm’s worst year at about $152 million in a median year and $2.2 billion once a decade. Even Bill Gates, who spent the antitrust era railing against regulation, published nearly 6,000 words last week arguing that AI needs an international body in the spirit (and with the authority) of nuclear weapons inspections, aviation rules, and the ozone treaties. When Trump isn’t motivated by attention, he’s motivated by money, and has made a career out of borrowing vast sums of it. Bailey is telling the people who loan it what’s coming for them. Perhaps a banker can get through to the president. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theripcurrent.com/subscribe

  • August 26 · 21 min

    Inside the Meta Settlement: $16.7 Billion, No Fault, and a Clause That Saves Meta $5 Billion.

    Meta Platforms settled with 51 state and territorial attorneys general at 6am PT this morning — about an hour after I’d published a vast think piece about what I thought the next six weeks could hold, dang it. It ended the trial taking place in front of Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland one day after Instagram head Adam Mosseri began to testify and days before Mark Zuckerberg was scheduled to take the stand. The agreement — you can read it here — requires new tools and design features from Meta, and is worth a maximum of $16,680,647,753.21. But it splits the money into $11.66 billion guaranteed over 10 years, and makes $5.02 billion contingent on some very unusual conditions. Under the agreement’s provision about “Industry-Wide Adoption,” Meta owes the final 30 percent only when Snap, TikTok, and YouTube all come under “substantively equivalent obligations” in a given state, and only when each competitor with annual profits above $10 billion owes that state at least what that state’s own contingency is worth. Section VI.D.3 says any state that fails to get there within ten years permanently forfeits its share, and Meta keeps the money. A separate provision entitles Meta to matching terms if a state later settles with one of those competitors on more favorable terms than Meta received. Will it be worth it to Meta to save the $5 billion? Or will they want to pay that money to ensure their competitors have to play by the same rules? I follow society-changing technology and the landmark cases shaping it, every day, for paid subscribers. Thank you for supporting what i do. I talk through the product changes — the two-hour default cap, the midnight-to-6 a.m. block, the school-hours notification blackout, age assurance and its false-positive targets — and the four notable things excluded from the agreement entirely: direct messaging, long-form video, AI chatbots, and WhatsApp. I also look at the risks we’ve seen from past settlements like the 1998 tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, which had no contingency at all — and what happened five years later when 33 state attorneys general filed a brief asking a court to reduce Philip Morris’s appeal bond. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theripcurrent.com/subscribe

  • August 22 · 12 min

    Meta Trial Day 2: If Zuckerberg Wanted it Done, It Would Be Done

    Day two of the multistate trial against Meta in federal court in Oakland, where 29 state attorneys general are asking Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to reach inside the company and change how Instagram and Facebook work. Arturo Bejar — former head of engineering for Facebook’s protection group, later head of well-being at Instagram — is the states’ first witness, and their strongest. He testified on direct and under cross-examination by Meta’s defense. Bejar told the court that priorities at Meta flow from one person: “If Mark Zuckerberg wakes up and decides something is a priority, then mountains move.” He described a “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude toward the millions of children under 13 on platforms where they aren’t permitted, product managers who acknowledged knowing and had no plans to act, and Instagram posts where kids stated their own ages outright. He called Meta the most sophisticated company in the world at detecting fake accounts — machine learning made that routine long before anyone called it AI — and said that if the same capability had been aimed at underage accounts, the problem could have been solved in three to six months. After reading a public letter from Zuckerberg claiming the company was succeeding at protecting kids, Bejar told the court that he concluded: “You cannot trust Mark Zuckerberg with kids.” The Rip Current with Jacob Ward is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. On cross, Meta’s lawyers pressed him to call his survey data “subjective.” He refused. Asking a teenager whether they were sexually harassed in the past seven days measures an experience, not an opinion — and the whole defense strategy depends on making that harm sound too squishy to count. I cover the invisible forces shaping our lives, and I’ve been in the courthouse since day one. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theripcurrent.com/subscribe

  • August 19 · 12 min

    The Meta Trial: How Zuck Will Fight Back

    Reader note: I’m making these installments free for everyone, as I consider this trial to be a matter of crucial public interest. Still, support the work! Become a paid subscriber to get tech coverage no one else sees, and to keep me on the beat. Meta’s opening statement in Oakland was delivered by Paul Schmidt, a Covington & Burling partner who co-chairs the firm’s product liability and mass torts practice. His track record includes trial wins for McKesson in the opioids litigation, Eli Lilly in the Cymbalta cases, and Hoffmann-La Roche in the Accutane trials. Covington’s own website quotes a book by Washington Post reporters calling one of his cross-examinations “a master class in how to destroy a witness.” I was in the courthouse for both sides. California Deputy Attorney General Megan O’Neill gave the states a four-word shorthand — hook, hold, harvest, hide — and walked the eight-member advisory jury through the gap between what Meta said publicly and what its internal documents show. Schmidt’s answer was a phrase he returned to again and again: wait for all the evidence. His core argument is that science has not established a causal link between rising teen mental health problems and rising social media use. That argument is not wrong on the facts. Science deals in consensus, not certainty, and as the former editor-in-chief of Popular Science I can tell you no serious researcher will ever say a thing is 100% settled. Manufacturing doubt inside that gap is exactly the strategy that worked for Big Tobacco and for the oil industry on climate. The filters fight shows how the same facts get framed twice. O’Neill described Meta banning appearance-altering filters, asking outside experts whether to make the ban permanent, hearing yes from the experts and yes from its own staff — and then Zuckerberg putting them back after seeing the growth numbers. Schmidt described a ten-month review Meta was under no obligation to conduct, ending in a split decision that kept surgery-adjacent filters off and let the giraffe ears back on, all built by third parties in the first place. Anderson Cooper asked me tonight whether this is social media’s cigarette moment. What I wish I’d said: the value of a trial like this is that it turns a decade of vague dread about these products into specific, testable, legislatable language. Arturo Bejar, Instagram’s former head of wellbeing turned whistleblower, took the stand Tuesday for direct examination. I’m waiting for the cross this morning before I bring it to you, so you get both halves. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theripcurrent.com/subscribe

  • August 19 · 12 min

    The Meta Trial: The States Say “We Have the Evidence”

    Reader note: I’m making these installments free for everyone, as I consider this trial to be a matter of crucial public interest. Still, support the work! Become a paid subscriber to get tech coverage no one else sees, and to keep me on the beat. I’m outside the federal courthouse in Oakland, where Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is hearing what may be the biggest legal threat Meta has ever faced — not just because of the dollar amount, but because a federal judge could order the company to fundamentally change how its products work. Twenty-nine states have joined a federal case arguing Meta violated COPPA, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act — a claim that, if it wins, applies nationwide, not state by state. A smaller group of four states — California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey — are trying their own state-law claims first, as a test case the other 25 states are waiting to follow. Here’s the twist most coverage (including mine) missed: the $1.4 trillion damages figure everyone’s been repeating — including, briefly, me on CNN last week — didn’t come from the states. It came from Meta. The states’ actual ask is just under $200 billion, still enormous, but a fraction of Meta’s own number. Meta’s lawyers put the trillion-dollar figure out there, and it looks like the goal was to make the whole case sound absurd. I’m not sure it worked the way they hoped. If a company’s product is doing the kind of harm the states are alleging, an existential number might be exactly the point. Beyond the numbers game, California’s Deputy AG walked the jury through Meta’s own internal documents this morning — internal goals to increase teen time spent, internal surveys showing harm rates dramatically higher than what Meta reported publicly, and an internal message from the head of global safety saying the company doesn’t do much to keep teens off the platform. This trial is expected to run four to six weeks, and I’ll be covering it from inside the courtroom the whole way. One detail worth sitting with: on the very same day this trial opened, OpenAI announced a teen version of ChatGPT with new safety guardrails. The entire tech industry is watching this courthouse and adjusting in real time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theripcurrent.com/subscribe

  • August 17 · 2 min

    Inside Meta's Biggest Case Yet

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.theripcurrent.com Meta goes to trial in Oakland tomorrow, and this one works differently from the two it already lost. Twenty-nine state attorneys general are trying claims that Facebook and Instagram collected personal data from children under 13 without parental consent, violating COPPA, the federal children’s privacy law passed in 1998. Four of those states — Californ…

  • August 14 · 2 min

    Zuckerberg's Biggest Trial Yet

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.theripcurrent.com A.I. Disclosure: I use LLM technology to help with research, fact-checking, document summaries, editing, and rewrites. I’m trying to use it responsibly, but I’m learning as I go. You can read my full ethics disclosure here.

  • August 13 · 15 min

    Why AI Must Confess Now

    In 1937, a Texas school exploded because natural gas has no smell — nobody could detect the leak until it killed nearly 300 people, most of them children. Within weeks, Texas passed the first law forcing gas companies to add an odor. That fix, mercaptan, is still the reason your kitchen reeks of rotten eggs during a leak today. It didn’t change the product. It just made an invisible danger detectable — and only because regulators forced the industry’s hand. That’s the history behind this week’s AI news. On August 2nd, the EU AI Act’s transparency rules took effect, requiring any company serving EU users to make AI-generated content detectable — or face a fine of €15 million or 3% of worldwide revenue, whichever is larger. Google and OpenAI committed to compliance back in May. This week Anthropic followed, saying it will embed statistical watermarks in AI-generated text and use C2PA provenance standards for images. None of them have shipped a public tool that lets you or me actually check the mark yet — the additive is in the gas, but we can’t smell it. The bigger question is whether it’s already too late. One widely cited study found nearly half of new articles online are now AI-generated — though a follow-up from the same firm found human-written work still dominates what Google actually surfaces in search. I dig into what that split might mean, and why the social embarrassment of getting “outed” by a watermark might do more to change our behavior than the regulation itself. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theripcurrent.com/subscribe

  • August 7 · 9 min

    Here Come AI Romance Scams

    In 2022 I interviewed a young Nigerian man outside Lagos who’d spent years working as a romance scammer, grinding one target at a time until he finally convinced a lonely widow to send him more than $200,000. The lesson of that story was never about technology. For criminals like him, the biggest cost was time. On July 31, OpenAI disclosed a scam operation run out of Poipet, Cambodia — a border town linked to forced labor and trafficking — where a cluster of ChatGPT accounts wrote the romance pitches, translated the messages, and handled the administration: shift tracking, handoff notes between managers, the immigration status of the workers being pressed into the job. OpenAI says it found out because WhatsApp tipped them off, not through its own detection. Bandwidth was the one thing holding scam crime back, and AI removes it. Meanwhile the transborder legal system built to prosecute fraud gets slower and harder to coordinate every year. This is what that gap looks like, and why the people supposed to stop it are already behind. Know anyone who’s been the victim of a romance scam? This post is free, feel free to share it with them. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theripcurrent.com/subscribe

  • August 6 · 4 min

    "You Did It Before You Considered Whether You Should"

    I do a lot of hits these days as a contributor to CNN, but I don’t post most of them — you’re getting the raw thinking here as a subscriber. But every so often the conversation produces some nice, new moments, and this interview with Elex Michaelson last night felt like one of those. Thanks, as always, for your support, and here’s more context on what we were discussing: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theripcurrent.com/subscribe

  • August 1 · 1 min

    Let Us Make A.I. Nudes If We Want, Say Elon Musk's xAI Lawyers

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.theripcurrent.com Minnesota’s HF 1606 takes effect this weekend. It is the first law in the country to target the companies that build “nudification” tools rather than the users who operate them, with civil penalties of $500,000 each time a user generates a prohibited image. On Monday, Elon Musk’s xAI — now owned by SpaceX — sued Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison …

  • July 16 · 1 min

    Here's Where Prediction Markets Go Wrong

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.theripcurrent.com Gabriel Perez has run Donald Trump’s teleprompter since 2016. According to CFTC investigators, he spent months betting on Kalshi’s “Mentions” market on which words and phrases Trump would use in his own speeches, and made more than $100,000 doing it. He’s now in settlement talks with regulators, on unpaid leave from the White House (where the president’…

  • July 15 · 13 min

    Revisiting "The Loop"

    I’ve been on a very lovely summer break, thanks to you. Your patience allowed me time with my family camping, roaming New York City in apocalyptic heat, and squiring a kid to a national tournament. I appreciate you sticking with me. Let’s get back to it.Four years ago (damn it, I think this means I have to write a new book) I finished The Loop: How AI is Creating a World without Choices and How to Fight Back. In it I posed the highly speculative thesis that commercial AI would fundamentally alter our ability to make good decisions, and not in a good way, because our brains are built to offload choices whenever and however we can, and because as my decades of time reporting on the tech industry has taught me, its incentives always drive it to amplifying our worst impulses. As a commenter on TikTok said to me the other day, “The only thing worse than being wrong is being early.” Amen, sister. The Loop was my effort to draw a line between the best and worst parts of being human, so we could sort out which ones we want to allow tech companies to amplify. This summary is free. Keep up with the rest of that fight by subscribing. I’ve been on a jag of speaking gigs — perhaps you’d like to book me yourself? — in which the book’s thesis is finding ever-more-receptive audiences, from boardrooms to professional organizations. Everyone seems to be feeling the malaise of using this stuff, and want to sort out the best way to resist it. So here I’ve broken down the basics of what I argued. Short version: Your brain runs on shortcuts — what Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky called System 1, the fast-thinking brain that drives your car, picks your lunch, and carries you through the day on autopilot. (System 2, your slow-thinking brain, is for the rare moments of caution, creativity, and mindfulness when you fully engage your decision-making abilities.) That autopilot kept our ancestors alive. It makes moving through our day a light load, cognitively speaking. But it's also at the root of prejudice, bad choices with money, and political and financial manipulation. It's also the exact vulnerability that a system built to make your choices for you is perfectly suited to exploit, because your brain is wired to hand off effort wherever it can.So I make the case for cognitive friction — for what one federal judge described to me as "weak perfection": the idea that a harder, slower process is what keeps a mind strong. Entering a guilty plea is a pain, yes, but that's a good thing, because that choice is permanent, and will change your life — and a system that makes the decision frictionless takes away your chance to put your best thinking into it. That’s the challenge we face in all walks of our cognitive lives from here on out. Let’s get ready to protect what’s important. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theripcurrent.com/subscribe

  • June 24 · 25 min

    The Fight to Protect You Against AI (with Rep Sara Jacobs)

    Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) just introduced the Sectoral AI Governance Act, a bill that would let federal agencies enforce existing laws — on housing, hiring, disability rights, benefits — when an algorithm is the one making the decision. It creates no new crimes. It’s what she calls a “minimum viable product.” I sat down with her to push on the hard parts: why the bill leans on agency power at the exact moment the Trump administration is stripping it and suing states over their AI laws; what it means that a $140 million super PAC backed by Andreessen Horowitz, OpenAI’s president, and a Palantir co-founder is spending to beat candidates who back regulation; and why she keeps comparing AI to the early days of commercial aviation. We get into the evidentiary trap that makes algorithmic discrimination so hard to prove, her four-level map for governing AI, her fear of an AI “Fukushima,” and her blunt fallback if Congress does nothing: the states. Paid subscribers get early access to this and all my analysis. For written reports, including all the source documents, consider becoming one. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theripcurrent.com/subscribe

Showing 1–20 of 28 episodes