The longtime tech journalist says she's seen Silicon Valley make the same mistakes again and again. As the AI industry likes to tell it, superintelligent bots could one day cure cancer and end poverty. Or in the worst-case scenario, they might wipe out all humans from the face of the Earth. In recent weeks, Silicon Valley's existential concerns about the technology it is racing to build have blown up. The tech journalist Kara Swisher sees it differently. "We have to stop thinking AI is going to kill humanity," she told executive editor Adrienne LaFrance at The Atlantic Festival. If the AI future goes sideways, bots won't be to blame. "These are people at the helm of these things." In the several decades that Swisher has covered Silicon Valley--formerly as a reporter at, now as the host of two podcasts--she says that she's seen tech whizzes make the same mistakes again and again: failing to take proper precautions against the products they are building. "One of the things about tech people is they're the smartest people in the world, in case you need to know, because they like to tell you," she said. In her interview with LaFrance, Swisher also discussed the economic implications of the AI race, who is likely to win, and how Americans can respond to this dizzying and worrying AI moment. You have been paying attention to the tech world and AI for basically ever. And now it seems like within the past, say, two weeks, the rest of the world is suddenly paying much closer attention. So I wanted to start just by talking about where you think we are, in this moment.

Access a subscriber-only eBook of a collection of stories about how militaries are using Al models to make decisions. This ebook is available only for subscribers. A collection of stories about how militaries are using AI models to make decisions. Stories written by James O'Donnel by James O'Donnell A new US phone network for Christians aims to block porn and gender-related content James O'Donnell Musk v. Altman week 1: Elon Musk says he was duped, warns AI could kill us all, and admits that xAI distills OpenAI's models Michelle Kim Launching next week on T-Mobile's network, the cell plan takes a nuclear approach to online safety. Musk v. Altman week 1: Elon Musk says he was duped, warns AI could kill us all, and admits that xAI distills OpenAI's models Musk kept his cool, and OpenAI's lawyer bulldozed him with piercing questions about his motivations for suing the company. China has approved the world's first invasive brain-computer chip--here's what's next The country wants to become a global leader in brain implants.

Learning algorithms are often used to make decisions in sequential decision-making environments. In multi-agent settings, the decisions of each agent can affect the utilities/losses of the other agents. Therefore, if an agent is good at anticipating the behavior of the other agents, in particular how they will make decisions in each round as a function of their experience that far, it could try to judiciously make its own decisions over the rounds of the interaction so as to influence the other agents to behave in a way that ultimately benefits its own utility. In this paper, we study repeated two-player games involving two types of agents: a learner, which employs an online learning algorithm to choose its strategy in each round; and an optimizer, which knows the learner's utility function and the learner's online learning algorithm. The optimizer wants to plan ahead to maximize its own utility, while taking into account the learner's behavior.

This approachyields biased estimates ofthe expected risk, and therefore leads to poor decisions for two reasons.

Researchers have succeeded in developing the smallest fully autonomous robot in history. It measures less than 1 millimeter and can swim underwater for months powered only by light. Miniaturization has long been a challenge in the history of robotics . While engineers have made great strides in the miniaturization of electronics in the past few decades, builders of miniature autonomous robots have not been able to meet the goal of getting them under 1 millimeter in size. This is because small arms and legs are fragile and difficult to manufacture.

We study the problem of augmenting online algorithms with machine learned (ML) advice. In particular, we consider the \emph{multi-shop ski rental} (MSSR) problem, which is a generalization of the classical ski rental problem. In MSSR, each shop has different prices for buying and renting a pair of skis, and a skier has to make decisions on when and where to buy. We obtain both deterministic and randomized online algorithms with provably improved performance when either a single or multiple ML predictions are used to make decisions. These online algorithms have no knowledge about the quality or the prediction error type of the ML prediction. The performance of these online algorithms are robust to the poor performance of the predictors, but improve with better predictions. Extensive experiments using both synthetic and real world data traces verify our theoretical observations and show better performance against algorithms that purely rely on online decision making.

We have only limited understanding of how and why large language models (LLMs) respond in the ways that they do. Their neural networks have proven challenging to interpret, and we are only beginning to tease out the function of individual neurons and circuits within them. However, another path to understanding these systems is to investigate and develop their capacity to explain their own functioning. Here, we show that i) LLMs can accurately describe quantitative features of their own internal processes during certain kinds of decision-making and ii) that it is possible to improve these capabilities through training. To do so, we fine-tuned GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini to make decisions in a wide variety of complex contexts (e.g., choosing between condos, loans, vacations, etc.) according to randomly-generated, quantitative preferences about how to weigh different attributes (e.g., the relative importance of natural light versus quiet surroundings for condos). We demonstrate that the LLMs can accurately report these preferences (i.e., the weights that they learned to give to different attributes during decision-making). Next, we demonstrate that these LLMs can be fine-tuned to explain their decision-making even more accurately. Finally, we demonstrate that this training generalizes: It improves the ability of the models to accurately explain how they make other complex decisions, not just decisions they have been fine-tuned to make. This work is a step towards training LLMs to accurately and broadly report on their own internal processes -- a possibility that would yield substantial benefits for interpretability, control, and safety.

As artificial intelligence rapidly transforms society, developers and policymakers struggle to anticipate which applications will face public moral resistance. We propose that these judgments are not idiosyncratic but systematic and predictable. In a large, preregistered study (N = 587, U.S. representative sample), we used a comprehensive taxonomy of 100 AI applications spanning personal and organizational contexts-including both functional uses and the moral treatment of AI itself. In participants' collective judgment, applications ranged from highly unacceptable to fully acceptable. We found this variation was strongly predictable: five core moral qualities-perceived risk, benefit, dishonesty, unnaturalness, and reduced accountability-collectively explained over 90% of the variance in acceptability ratings. The framework demonstrated strong predictive power across all domains and successfully predicted individual-level judgments for held-out applications. These findings reveal that a structured moral psychology underlies public evaluation of new technologies, offering a powerful tool for anticipating public resistance and guiding responsible innovation in AI.

We introduce a framework for modeling decisions with axioms that are statements about decisions, e.g., ethical constraints. Using our framework we define a taxonomy of decision axioms based on their structural properties and demonstrate a tension between the use of axioms to make decisions and the use of axioms to evaluate decisions which we call the Decision-Evaluation Paradox. We argue that the Decision-Evaluation Paradox arises with realistic axiom structures, and the paradox illuminates why one must be exceptionally careful when training models on decision data or applying axioms to make and evaluate decisions.

AI is changing the grid. Could it help more than it harms? Massive data centers are pushing energy demand higher. Some people claim that AI will be a net benefit for the grid. The rising popularity of AI is driving an increase in electricity demand so significant it has the potential to reshape our grid. Energy consumption by data centers has gone up by 80% from 2020 to 2025 and is likely to keep growing.