June 17, 2026 • 43 mins
Is AI happening to you — or for you? Pew Research found that 50% of Americans are more concerned than excited about artificial intelligence. Michele Jawando and John Palfrey think that's a signal that more people need to get involved.
Oz sits down with Michele, CEO of the Omidyar Network, and John, president of the MacArthur Foundation, to unpack Humanity AI: a coalition of ten major philanthropies pooling $500 million to ensure the future of AI is shaped by — and for — everyone. Along the way, they get into why Michele believes "AI is not destiny, it is design," how Humanity AI grantees are using the technology to serve the public good and what success will look like for the collaborative effort.
Additional Reading:
- What the data says about Americans’ views of artificial intelligence | Pew Research Center
- Humanity AI
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Welcome to tech stuff. I'm a Velocian. As you may
have heard, AI is rather unpopular in the US. The
most recent polling by Pugh shows fifty percent of Americans
are more concerned than excited about the technology, with just
ten percent more excited than concerned, and across twenty five
country surveyed, Americans expressed among the lowest trust that the
(00:38):
government could effectively regulate AI. At the same time, twenty
twenty six may well be the year of the three
largest IPOs in American history, with SpaceX, Anthropic and Open
AI all on course for trillion dollar valuations support their
AI buildout. It's a weird moment, but like it or not,
AI is here to stay. The question of how we
(01:00):
decide to live with it remains up for grabs, and
our guest today are building a new organization, Humanity AI,
which they describe as quote a broad coalition to build
a more human future, in which AI is shaped by
and four people, and which will make five hundred million
dollars in grants. Michelle Jouanda, a civil rights lawyer turned
(01:21):
CEO of the Omidian Network, a philanthropic organization, and John Palfrey,
president of the MacArthur Foundation. Welcome to take stuff.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
Great to be with you and with my friend Michelle
Hi An's.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
Great to be here.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
We shall start with you. You've had a fascinating career.
You came from a family of civil rights lawyers, you're
a civil rights lawyer yourself, and you work for Google.
Talk about the kind of driving red thread of your career.
Speaker 4 (01:48):
You know, I always like to think about there's always
an origin story that each of us find and it
usually motivates most of the work that we do.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
If you look at the threads and the patterns in your.
Speaker 4 (02:00):
Life and so on my father's side of the family,
we're from Bermuda and Jamaica and were a part of
that kind of civil rights.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Movement on the island of Bermuda.
Speaker 4 (02:11):
My great aunt was the first black woman attorney on
the island of Bermuda. She was later knighted by Queen Elizabeth.
There's a family joke that they say the queen knighted
her so she would stop bothering them about independence for Bermuda.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
And I know she right.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
So I had this great kind of example that you
could organize people and ideas and use the law as
a mechanism for good. On the other side of my family,
we are entrepreneurs and chemists and biologists, and so I
have these two sides, so on my mother's side and
on my father's side, that really have always motivated the
(02:54):
work that I've done. And I see that as these
threads of could you use science and technology in service
of a greater good? Could you use the law to
change the lives of the people around you?
Speaker 1 (03:06):
Interesting, you've kind of you understand technology companies from within,
obviously having work at Google or Media is the family
foundation I guess of Pierre and Palm or Media, which
comes out of the Fortune pm A. As the founder
of eBay, how do you navigate kind of being inside
of the tech industry but also being in this space
where you're trying to create a new paradigm between society
(03:31):
and technology. Essentially, you know.
Speaker 4 (03:32):
One of the things that I love about the kind
of origin story of eBay And it feels almost quaint
how when you talk about it now, but it was
really one of those first moments and experiences where there
was the sense of trust between two strangers that I
could have a transaction and I can use this platform
to share something.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
Like Napster Craigslist, eBay that the kind of the golden
era of the trust based pipe Internet.
Speaker 4 (03:59):
It was a beautiful moment, and so at the core
of all of our work we think about that trust,
the relationship, and the use of technology in service of
the greater good. I think every origin story of most
of the major tech companies started with that simple idea,
could you use Facebook to connect friends? Could you use
(04:19):
Uber to get people around to different places? And over
time that is thwarted those original ideas and intentions and
in many cases the incentive structures that we put around
these companies, and we say, the only thing that we
want you to use the great engineering might and talent
of the people who work at your companies for is
(04:41):
more extractive, uses, more engagement, more shareholder value. And that
has perverted the system and the technology that so many
of us love and use.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
John, you run the MacArthur Foundation, one of the most iconic,
largest and oldest philanthropies I think in the United States,
and before that, you ran the bertman Clein Center at
Harvard for Internet and Society. You probably should book about
digital natives and how different generations engage with technology. What
motivates you today, as John and as the head of
(05:14):
the MacArthur Foundation in terms of how you're thinking about
the questions of how Internet technology and society should be interacting.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
MacArthur Foundation is a foundation that has been working to
support creativity and the kinds of effective uses of philanthropy
through its history, and this really is a part of
what we do. We support people individually as fellows who
are doing some of the most interesting work in every
space of human endeavor, and that's what we're best known for,
(05:41):
sometimes called the Genius Grants, but we also do grant
making of the sort that is to organizations. Sometimes they're
ones led by MacArthur fellows and others. Over time, I
think about Sophia Noble, a relatively recent MacArthur fellow from
about five years ago, who also leads an organization in
the space. So we will follow on with those individuals.
And what's motivating is really what's motivating Michelle and Omitir,
(06:03):
and it's why we are teamed up in deep, deep
collaboration around humanity AI is this technology is touching every
part of our lives. You cover this on your podcast
over over and over, and it is no longer the
remit just of you know, engineers. It's no longer the
remit just of some people. It touches every one of us.
And I believe that there are ways in which we can,
(06:24):
through philanthropy, make sure that more people get the benefits
of this technology rather than having it just accrue to
the few. And that's the kind of thing that we
can do through an effort like humanity AI. And if
we don't do it now during this window, then I
think we're going to be missing a big opportunity. So
what motivates me is how do we support the kind
of creativity that make sure that AI is popular, not unpopular,
(06:44):
as you started with, for a good reason, because it's
actually helping us in our everyday lives, across the span
of education or democracy or any of the other things
that we're all working on as philanthropies.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
So I had to ask you both straight out, why
do so many people mistrust and even Frankie hate AI?
Speaker 4 (07:00):
Because right now, the way that it shows up in
their lives is attractive, and it is a narrow conception
of what the possibilities of AI could be. If I'm
forced to be stuck in the imagination of about six
or seven people and not even companies six or seven people.
Then the way that I experience it is so narrow.
(07:23):
So much of the work that we do at MacArthur
and OMIDR and what we're trying to do with humanity
AI is say, let's open up the bounds of possibility
of what imagination could look like. Here the way that
AI can show up in your lives and real use
cases that improve the way that you live. We owe
(07:43):
that to people and people are not seeing that, and
that is why people don't enjoy it.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
And when you see these numbers.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Is it too late to be a technology optimist? I mean,
people have been so burned out by social media and
then all of the horror cases of teen suicide and
other associated negative consequences with social media, and now AI
has come along and you have, you know, the CEOs
of many of these AI companies talking about how it's
(08:11):
going to displace all labor and you know what what
is that? What is the marketing challenge to get people
to believe that technology may be helpful in their lives.
Speaker 4 (08:22):
AI is not destiny, It is designed. There are intentional
design choices that happen every day that are not inevitable.
And I think part of the reason why we feel
like it is is because again we're only seeing four
or five versions of what that future could be like.
One of the reasons Humanity AI is so exciting in
(08:44):
some of the grantees that we have in our network
are building new ecosystems and new tools and ways to
interact and research and information, and we're opening up the
doors of access. That is the number one thing that
people feel is happening, that they are out once again,
that there's this veneer of expertise and superiority. And I
(09:05):
have to just accept what you're giving me. And I
think what we're trying to do with Humanity AI in
all of our work has changed.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
That as I would just add that to your question,
is it too late to be an optimist around these technologies?
I think it's naive to be just an optimist, right.
I think we need to be a realist about the technology.
I think in some areas you mentioned a few kids
safety which we could get around to, we should be skeptics,
not not even realists. But is the opportunity that is
(09:33):
afforded by these digital technologies something that could touch every
human on the planet. Of course, it could touch all
of us in our in our pockets, you know, in
this moment, you know, even in relatively poor countries where
people have mobile technologies, you know, this is a technology
that could be helpful for opportunities. So I think the
answer to your question is, don't blindly believe what you're
(09:54):
being sold by people who have something to sell you,
but absolutely feel that there is something that you could
use and do, because actually, on the upside of this,
the opportunity side still remains that for any human they
have more access to more information, more opportunity in a
variety of different ways by virtue of what's in their
pocket than ever before. And we shouldn't lose sight of
those possibilities. They just aren't front and center right now.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
I want to ask you about, you know, the work
you did earlier in your career around digital natives and
the digital divide. Like people who grew up before the
internet essentially and then had to adjust to its norms
felt like the kind of technological infrastructure of everyday life
was not for them. Now, it feels like most people
in the world feel like the non digital natives felt
(10:37):
in the early two thousands. Right most people have this feeling.
This is not for me, What can you learn about
that earlier time of technological adoption that applies today.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
Yeah, a couple of things. And I I was smiling
as you and Michelle were talking about the early days
of Kaixlesterybay or other early technologies. So I'm thinking about
twenty five years ago, and the approach that we all
took was to say, let's let one thousand flowers bloom.
Let's have basically no regulation. Let's see how this goes.
And there were positive things that came of that. Of
course we can go through those, but there also are
(11:09):
a bunch of negative things that came about that. Some
of the harms to children, which I've been concerned about
for twenty five years, whether that was social media or AI.
Today totally plain that there are harms to children through
these technologies. They're totally plain that there is room for
healthy forms of regulation that could in fact drive innovation.
Think about the car, by having people put seatbelts on,
we actually caused innovation in the car industry by virtue
(11:30):
of regulating it. The same is true here think about
drug discovery in the US. By virtue of forms of regulation,
we can help prompt innovation in various ways we need
to apply those good smarts to this technology. And at
a moment where a lot of people, I think politically
are starting to think this isn't a great deal, this
could take away my.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
One but bards of issue seemingly yeah in the United States,
which kind of remarkable, without.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Question, it really is, and I think we have to
realize what window this is as people are acknowledging, Okay,
I want some of this, but I don't want others.
And I think that adds up for me to the
fact that we don't want a total wild West in
terms of letting as Michelle said five six, seven, eight,
people make a decision that's touching every one of us
in the US or around the world.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
So I mean, let's talk about humanity AI and the
role of philanthropy, because it seems like we're in this
moment where everyone is kind of wrestling over the paradigm.
Right you have like the Pope recently saying quote, even today,
colonialism assumes new forms. It no longer dominates only bodies
but appropriates data. Bernie Sanders has said, quote the creative
(12:34):
work of millions of people have essentially been stolen by
some of the wealthiest people in the world and call
for an American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund, which interestingly Trump
is also talking about and as is Sumultment. So that's
kind of a weird mind bender. But you know, you
have government, you have religion, you have philanthropy of obviously
capital and capital markets, private companies, these six or seven
(12:54):
individuals you mentioned, how will to shake out and how
should it shake out?
Speaker 4 (13:00):
One of the ways that we see and when we
think about the future and where we know we will
be successful. It's not the question of can civil society
affect what's happening in AI governance or in what the
future looks like, but you see actually the expectations and
the rules and the questions that civil society organizations want
(13:21):
to see happen. Great example, we've been working for many
years on kids online safety and harms, but recently, for
the first time, you're seeing courts catch up and actually
say there's regulation, there's harm here, and that we actually
have a background on consumer safety and information that we
(13:43):
know harm was caused, there is some liability here, and
we need to see some change. That is civil society
saying it is unacceptable for our children to be harmed
in this way, and so what then happens? You create
something new. There are social media platforms like Spill and
(14:03):
New Public from Eli Praser and so many others who
are building alternatives, who are saying we don't need the
same extractive engagement models of the past. And so I
think HUMANITYI and philanthropy stands up and says government has
a role to play, even if they've abdicated that role.
To be fair and honest, corporations have a shareholder mentality.
(14:27):
They're constantly looking at that as their main incentives. And
so who is thinking about and who is putting capital
and ideas and resources behind the questions that you and
I as may have around healthcare, around science, around education
in a way that is not designed to harm or
to extract value, but simply to help. And so that's
(14:48):
where philanthropy comes in. That's where humanity AI comes in,
and we see that that is our role to catalyze
that space, those organizations and those leaders who can help
to push us forward.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
And if five hundred million dollars on the one hand,
is a lot of money, on the other hand, compared
to a trillion dollars times three not so much, how
do you get impact with so much power and money,
maybe pulling in opposite direction to you.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
I think it's about harnessing the people ultimately. I mean,
we think about the moment that we're in with a
consolidation of power and of resource and money in a
relatively few and that's not just true in the US,
but it is true around the world. But we also
see that when large groups of people hold up their
hand and say we don't want this, This is actually
not who we are. We want to be a different
(15:36):
kind of people, and I think we're seeing that to
some degree in the America's two fiftieth and how we're
reacting to that. We want to be a community of
people who come across to do things, even when we're different.
Michelle and I come from very different family backgrounds. We
are working deeply together, arm in arm on this issue,
and that can happen from any number of different ways,
and that's part of the American story. So I feel
(15:57):
like there is a possibility by virtue of supporting civil
society and the way we are, and we can get
into the kinds of grants that we're making early on.
We're doing an open call coming up where we will
learn from others who are working in this that we
can tap into some great power sources. The popes and
cyclical is no small thing. There are many other people
with a great deal of power who are also saying,
let's actually focus on some humanistic topics here, and that's important.
(16:21):
But I actually think this is about galvanizing bottom up
support for the kinds of voices that need to be
at the table in shaping this, the kinds of creative
ideas that one person or one small group can come
up with and can change the world. All of those
things still hold, all of those things are still true,
and that's where philanthropy has its magic because we invest
without looking at the financial return. We're looking at the
(16:43):
value of this creative idea and the next best thing.
So somebody coming to us looking for a grant just
because oh we do something on AA, not interested just
because everybody wants to do something on AA. If you've
got some really incredible creative idea that's going to be
a breakthrough, or a group of people who do, that's
where we need to be investing.
Speaker 4 (16:59):
You know, I was an English major me too wise
wise choice. Ts Eliot is one of my favorites and
four quarters is one of the seminal works, and one
of the lines that I actually have up in my
bathroom and I read every day is for us, there
is only the trying. The rest is none of our business.
(17:22):
There will always be people with more money, There will
always be there will always be people who have a
perceived more power. But what we have are people who
are trying to do something better. And I think what
happens for so many people right now to your point
at the very beginning of the conversation, why people feel
(17:43):
so disconnected and disenchanted with this is because we have
stopped trying to answer and meet their needs. And so
Humanity AI shows up and said, I want to listen
to you and what you want in this moment. I
want to try something new. I want to give you
an an alternative. I want you to question and even
say do I want this at all? And I'm going
(18:05):
to create a space for that. And if we can
just try and build an alternative, I think people will
respond to that.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
Do you study why trust and optimism in AI is
so much higher in China than it is in the US.
Speaker 4 (18:21):
One hundred percent. One of the pillars of Humanity AI
is national security and often our conversations about innovation and
regulation is juxtaposed. We can't do this here because China.
But when you look at China, there's a few things
that are really interesting. Some of the largest, the most
open source models Chinese. There is great regulation that the
(18:46):
Chinese government are putting in place. Why because AI is
a disruptive technology. There is a desire for people in
China not to just be consumers of the current platforms,
but to be created and builders. When you juxtapose that
kind of idea, and again, this isn't about we need
(19:06):
to be us first them, This is about what are
the ideas that we want to put forward for people
here in US right now, which is how do you
get people more access, how do you have people feel
like they can build the future that they want. So
there are real contrasts that we can learn from, not
just here but in the UK and around the world.
(19:27):
So to the point of the US first China, I
think sometimes that conversation is so flattened that there is
no nuance. And what really what we want to say
is what are the best things that we want for
people here right now?
Speaker 2 (19:40):
And I think you know, there's a form of healthy competition, right,
that could be really positive. So I actually, you know,
in some of those I don't love the frame of
it's just an arms race between two countries. It's just
frankly not true. Right there obviously are leading companies and
leading efforts in both countries. But you know, if we
could lean into who's doing it better, who's using it
better to promote economic growth, both to create new jobs,
(20:01):
to create better cars, to create better opportunity of very sorts,
that's healthy.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
There's a I'm not sure if you've either of you
come across this book by Dan Wong called Breakneck, but
that the premise was basically America as a society of
lawyers and China as a society of engineers, and like
if you look at the members of the polit borough
of the last fifty years, like ninety percent of their
engineers versus like eighty percent of all US presidents and lawyers.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
And he kind of uses to take that personally, both John.
Speaker 1 (20:27):
And I know what I was going to say. I
was going to say, but I mean his his sort
of his conundrum that he lays up because he lived
in China. He left because he found it. You know,
he basically found his lack of freedom there was was
too oppressive. You couldn't get books he wanted, et cetera,
et cetera. We said, there's a difference in the United
States if you if you look out of your window
year on year, like the newest, most innovative thing you
(20:48):
might see as a new coffee shop, whereas in China
you see a whole new city emerging, you know, out
of your window. And that in a sense, the fact
that the Chinese model, which is you know, has less
freedom for citizens certainly nonetheless is like top down imposed.
This build a vision where people can see the development
of technology enriching society versus you know, what people see
(21:12):
in the US is a kind of is a drag
on the US's ability to have the national mentality required
to partners the new technological wave in a way which
has build everyone's prosperity and happiness. So it's just a
fascinating time. The kind of meta conversation even above the
grant making thing, which is how do you how do
(21:33):
you get people to believe they have a stake in
the future.
Speaker 4 (21:36):
There are a few things. So Raschetti researchered a few
years ago put forward a really fascinating study that looked
post World War two patent holders. US patent holders were
equally distributed among race, class, income levels, and across the
United States. You fast forward to the early two thousands,
(21:59):
that was mainly concentrated in the most higher echelon of class,
predominantly white, and mostly on the coasts.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
What changed.
Speaker 4 (22:11):
Did people all of a sudden stop innovating or did
we start to shut off access points for people all
across the US to feel that they had the power
to innovate? And so part of this moment and I
think it's a reckoning for us, and I talk often
about this kind of veneer of expertise because in many ways,
and John alluded to it, in each of our pockets
(22:33):
right now is a smartphone that has more power and
dynamism and access and information than our ancestors could have dreamed.
And so at some level we have more access and information,
and yet fewer people feel like they can tap that
and use that. So part of it is a narrative
(22:53):
that we have to change that you have power, that
you have access, that you have possibility, and then we
set up this systems and the structures in place to
actually make them Real.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
After the break, we'll hear about some of the projects
that Humanity AI is funding and what success means for
a philanthropic organization.
Speaker 5 (23:20):
Stay with us.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
We talk a lot on this show about protecting your data,
especially in the age of AI, and how scary it
can be when it's breached. And I want to tell
you today about NordVPN, which really covers all the bases
when it comes to privacy. I travel a lot, and
I use Wi Fi when I'm flying all the time,
and NordVPN makes me confident in no matter where I
am in the world or the sky for that matter,
(23:52):
my private details like bank information, passwords, and online identity
is safe. And it's also possible to switch on virtual location,
which allows you to save money by buying flights and hotels,
or subscriptions or even streaming soccer or football as I
like to call it from other countries at a cheaper price.
And NordVPN doesn't slow you down. It has super fast
(24:14):
internet speed, no buffering or lagging while streaming. It is
premium cybersecurity for the price of one cup of coffee
per month. To get the best discount of your NordVPN plan,
go to NordVPN dot com slash tech stuff. Our link
will also give you four extra months on the two
year plan and there's no risk with Nord's thirty day
(24:34):
money back guarantee. The link is in the podcast episode
description box. So talk about the mission of Humanity AI
and also concretely how you're delivering on it. And also
I'm proud to ask you. I mean, you're only two
representatives of the coalition. There's also the Doris Duke Foundation
the Ford Foundation are many of the largest and most
(24:58):
well known philanthropies in the US room in this efforts,
what have been the biggest disagreement?
Speaker 4 (25:06):
Listen, I'll start with all of the things that we agree.
The wide breath and range of the coalition is something
that we're really proud of. You have organizations like Lumina,
who's a leader in education, Doris Duke and Mellon who
are at the forefront of cultural, arts, science and humanities.
(25:27):
The diversity and the breath of the coalition is intentional
because this moment AI is not about one specific access point.
We see it show up in every area of our lives,
and so our coalition needed to reflect that. I think
that there are questions about priority and what are the
(25:48):
most important things that we need to focus on right now.
So I think some people may say there's a question
about national security and we need to lean into that,
and I think others are saying work and labor and
questions about art and humanities and how we think about
creators create tension points of where our focus and our
priority should all move or aligne at the moment. But
(26:11):
the thing that unites us is recognizing that this is
a moment that we cannot step away from. And I
think often philanthropy is maybe a little slow to move.
And I think what's different about this is we're showing up,
not moving on the same normal grant making timelines or
(26:32):
just kind of let's set back and observe. We are
moving in real time to pay attention and also to
shape the moment in the conversation.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
And I would say, you know, I think this is
one of the really attractive things about this approach of
collaborating at this large scale. Five hundred million dollars, I realized,
is nothing compared to the trillions, but for philanthropy, it's
a fair amount of money. And just to restate it's
Doorstoke Foundation, Ford Foundation, Lumina Foundation, cape Or Foundation, MacArthur
and Video or Course, Melon Foundation, Mozilla Foundation, Packered and
(27:02):
the Seagull Family Endowment. If you think across those ten,
there's actually a fair amount of diversity of approach and
we come from every part of the country in west coast,
east coast to the center of the country, you know
where many of the foundations are based. But we actually
have a bunch of different approaches to what we're doing.
And actually, I think it is modeling in some ways
how we think these problems have to be addressed.
Speaker 1 (27:24):
I was going to ask you, Jacky about how do
you I mean, how do you interact with you how
do you make decisions? And what is the model that
comes out of that.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
So one is we are pooling a certain amount of
money to make some grants together. That's the first set
of grants that we just released on the pooled grants
that we'll be making. Most of what we're doing, honestly,
is information sharing and then aligning. So Michelle and I
might say, Okay, we care very much about making this up,
but what's happening with the tech policy in California right now,
and let's together support tech equity and this amazing woman,
(27:51):
Catherine Bracy, who's leading a coalition of people. This is
a time limited, important thing, and it matters for us
in Illinois, it's going to matter for people in New
York where you're sitting, et cetera. So let's go in.
So it's going to be pooled. Some of it's going
to be aligned, and I think, really, really importantly it
is the information sharing that we're doing and creating strength
and power through the knowledge of what we can do together,
(28:11):
which is different than each of us saying, oh, we're
such a special snowflake and each of these ten foundations
just going to do our own thing. No, we're actually
saying we're going to be stronger together by virtue of
this collaboration. And that's what we're about.
Speaker 4 (28:21):
Yeah, philanthropy often has capital, but we don't often move
and collaborate. And I think a distinguishing feature is moving
together in real time. It is paying attention to both
the trends of what's happening in the kind of broader
ecosystem and then saying, where are there opportunities for us
(28:42):
to concentrate our energy, our firepower, our bully pulpits, our
resources so that we are part of changing the narrative
and again access points for people to engage.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
I guess nothing focus is the mind like like a
threat either. I mean, the philanthropy has been a target
of the Trump administration, right, and so I wonder was
that a galvanizing force allowed ten different philanthrophies to come
together in this moment? Is that just background noise? And
how do you deal with that?
Speaker 2 (29:10):
I think it is a key factor for us in
terms of how we operate us in some ways. I'm
just going to step back for a second. We as
philanthropy when you actually ask Americans, we are as popular
as puppies.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
That's pretty good.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
We pull it like ninety percent popular. Why we're giving
away money? Yeah, exactly, can't do better puppies. I don't
know what else, what else is puzz Maybe podcast hosts
could be just as popular anyway. And what's important about
that is what we're doing is giving away money to
accomplish good things in our communities, and they really directly
(29:45):
affect what's happening in people's lives. And that could be
a boys and girls club. We all know the power
of mentorship, right, might be what Catholic charities is doing
in a community. It might be a life saving disease
that helps your your loved one. Right, all of these things,
access to education that's very popular. It turns out that
in this moment, for whatever reason, we're under attack for
the first time in a generation. And so people like Michelle,
(30:08):
people like me, people like our friend Tanya Allen at
McKnight Depac Bargava in New York at Freedom Together Foundation,
we have linked arms to stay. We are actually going
to make the case for what we're doing and make
the case that this is a distinctly American thing. We
have a freedom to give and a freedom to invest
our money according to the First Amendment, and these attacks
on us don't make any sense. In fact, the American
(30:29):
people don't want them. The good news is none of
the attacks, whether from the Congress or this administration, have stuck,
and we are united across the ideological spectrum to push
them back. And the example of when you are bullied
to stand together and to push back is really really powerful.
So I would then go over here and extrapolate just
as you've done to the space of AI to the
(30:50):
extent the American people are being sold something they don't
really want by relatively small group people. The answer is
to stand up and say we don't want it, and
we want something else. And by the way, this market
out there is very powerful. The market, the social norms,
how we move as individuals, where we spend our money,
where we spend their time. We do still have that
in our control. And yes, these companies are very powerful corporations,
(31:12):
but the most powerful thing is the behavior of their consumers,
of out their customers, and that's still us. And so
that same method of pushing back on concentrated power can
work here too.
Speaker 1 (31:21):
I mean, you work to Google emission. What are your
former colleagues who are still in the tech industry, how
are they seeing this moment?
Speaker 4 (31:28):
First off, they're all rooting me on. I get an
email every other day from someone I'm deep mind and Google,
you guys should go and focus on this area. We're
not going to do this, but you should do that again.
I think it's important also to separate the people and
the motivations of people who want to see this technology
use for good. We have a whole group of potential
(31:51):
new millionaires and billionaires coming out of these soon to
be IPOs who have reached out and said, hey, even
as we're thinking about this and preparing for this, we
want to make sure that job displacement and conversations about labor,
and a conversation we're having across the board on AI
populism and our concerns about this permanent underclass. We want
(32:12):
to interrupt that. What are some ideas and solutions that
you have for us? It's one of the pillars as
a part of humanity AI. So I think we are
constantly seeing people who are wrestling internally with that tension,
and what we're offering are both solutions, opportunities to give
resources organizations, and quite frankly, the more people who can
(32:33):
chime in inside and out and say this is not
the future that we want. We desire something else that
is going to help change the tide on all of this.
Speaker 1 (32:43):
It's a find year program initially, How will you know
if it's worked.
Speaker 4 (32:48):
I think we're already starting to see that. If I'm honest,
I think the we don't like where AI is headed
is a ready and early indicator because that is a
both a market and for anyone who's worked in business,
when there are market signals, it would behoove you to
pick that up and to pay attention, which is why
you're seeing more philanthropic dollars come from any of these
(33:11):
AI companies because they're recognizing we are missing the point here.
We developed something that people no longer want, and so
the question that we have now is how do we
not just kind of paper over these conversations about concentration
or power or how it's used and actually say, what
do people want this technology to be used for and
(33:33):
how it shows up in their lives, and hey, by
the way, there are some rules of the road that
we need to lay out because the way that you're
operating right now are not good and not okay, and
we need leaders like Katherine Bracy and Sophia Nobel and
so many others who are saying, actually, here's a way
that you can move. This is something that you should
pay attention to. And by the way, this is better
(33:55):
for all of us when we do these things.
Speaker 1 (33:58):
It's interesting you mentioned the Asian with the tech companies
because it's obviously a fine line, like obviously you want
them to be engaged and you want their fanthermic donations,
but you'll have to avoid becoming the like quote unquote
loyal opposition. Even the Pope was criticized for making his
you know remarks with an anthropic exeg so how do
you how do you navigate wanting the support and both
(34:20):
of the individuals who work in those companies and frankly
of the resources they have, at the same time as
not becoming beholden to them.
Speaker 2 (34:27):
I'd say for starters, just one thing about humanity, AI
is none of the money is coming from the companies directly,
and I can't imagine it will, right I think we
are we are not. I mean, Michelle and I haven't
actually had this conversation, so who knows. Maybe we will
shake their minds, but no, you know, And it is
true that the you know, several families involved, including the Omdias,
made their money in tech, but they're not of this
(34:48):
group of five or six you know, controlling entities right now,
and I think that's quite important. That's not to say that,
you know, Eric Schmith's philanthropy can't do wonderful things because
he was a big player at Google. Of course they can,
and they do. But I don't see us taking tech
company money to be the loyal opposition in that in
that sense that I don't think that's our role. I
think Our role is, however, to crowd in philanthropic dollars
(35:09):
to be more powerful together than separate. So back to
your previous question is when you said, how will we
know it's successful? It's very hard to know on a
short timeline how philanthropy is successful. I do think you've
got a wonderful leading indicator, and what Michelle just said,
public sentiment, which is one thing that we're working on.
I do think the idea that there is a civil
society that is pushing back in a number of ways,
(35:31):
a very strong group of individuals and organizations that's important.
So a universe of people who are doing that is
part of it. But fundamentally to me, the question for
me at MacArthur in four or five years, when we
have to decide whether to keep going in this direction
or to have it wind down, will be are we
stronger together? Is it better to do this together? I
can't imagine that philanthropy is going to say AI doesn't
(35:54):
matter anybody's life in five years, we're done. It's a
little like climate or something else, like it's hard to
say you're done until well thing that we could possibly see,
or democracy. So my hunches, a number of us are
still going to be in this The question is going
to be should we just go back to doing it
each on our own without any real deep connectivity, deep collaboration.
My hunch is we're going to find that this is better,
(36:15):
this is stronger, that we are together able to support
the field in a better way with better results for
real people in real communities. And that's going to be
the marker.
Speaker 1 (36:23):
Of course, the succession the program will be driven in
large pop by how well the grandees do. And so
I think maybe we can talk now about three of
the kind of initial grantees of the program. Michelle, I
maybe we can start with you in Kinfolk Tech.
Speaker 4 (36:37):
Andris Brewster is an artist, He is an engineer, He
is a visionary. Kinfolk Tech is an organization that focuses
on how do we remember and what are the monuments
and the legacies of mostly Black, Latino, Indigenous and queer
(36:59):
history are often forgotten. About a few months ago, Idris
worked and can Folk Tech put out a piece in
collaboration with the James Baldwin family. We were celebrating one
hundred years of James Baldwin's work and his deep reflection,
and they put together a AI organized typewriter, and it
(37:23):
was right here at the Brooklyn Museum that you could
come into the museum and you could say, I don't
know what the purpose of my life is. James helped
me to figure it out. And this typewriter would then
produce some of his seminal works and words. But it
was using an AI culture and a database of James's work,
(37:45):
some published, some unpublished, but it was done in concert
with the Baldwin family and it was such a great
example of art and AI and remembrance and honoring culture.
Speaker 1 (37:57):
And it was direct quotes. It wasn't it wasn't a
James No.
Speaker 4 (38:00):
It wasn't a James boltwen Bot. It was direct quotes
from the Baldwin archives. But it was using AI to
be responsive to the prompt that you would put into
the typewriter. And it was this interactive moment and they
won a number of awards and were featured in the
New York Times about it. But what I love about
Idris and the team at kin Folk is it is engineers,
(38:22):
it is writers, it is philosophers, it is creative visual
artists who were saying, at our best when we think
about who is worthy of being remembered and how we
honor and value the stories that often are not told
when we center that and we use technology to augment
(38:42):
and to tell those stories. And now they're doing a
virtual reality you can look at and points your smartphone
at different places and monuments around the city and tell
stories that are often not told. And only technology can
create the opportunity to do this at.
Speaker 1 (38:58):
That scale, John, what about the Distributed AI Research Institute
and the AI civics led by Data in Society?
Speaker 2 (39:06):
Two wonderful things. Although to hear Michelle rhapsodize about the
kin Folk and James Baldwin, I cannot compete in describing,
although I will say this work is equally brilliant and wonderful.
But Distributed AI Research Network is one that we've supported
for a long time, I think literally from its inception
at MacArthur. But we're delighted as part of the Humanity
(39:27):
AI Group to meet Gebrew is an amazing you know,
PhD computer SCIENTI former Googler, and in fact she was
let go by Google quite famously.
Speaker 1 (39:36):
So let go of her criticisms.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
Essentially, yes, and she is among those who have been
in leading positions and tech companies who have emerged as
the most powerful critics. Anyway, What to me did was
she set up a distributed it's in the name AI
research network that actually is global, and it is people
who have amazing expertise on a range of topics who
have stood up something that is a research network of
a different sort that is app absolutely bringing some of
(40:01):
the most most powerful information and knowledge forward about this
set of technologies and so among other things, they're working
on the topic of linguistic diversity. So how do you
ensure that the use of this doesn't just make English
the lingua franca for the history of the world right.
In fact, it has huge power in terms of preserving
(40:22):
local knowledge as well as local languages around the world.
But it doesn't always pay right. That's not something that
these companies are always gonna be able to do. So
to me, it has been a powerful voice around that.
You mentioned AI and civics. So one thing that I
think Michelle said earlier so nicely was there lots of
people who are positionally able to do something about this,
but don't really have the on ramps or the way
(40:43):
to do it. And so the AI Civics effort slightly
different is we've teamed up with two organizations, one in
New York City, Data and Society, another distributed effort, although
the person's based here in Chicago in the Midwest, called
the Digital Public Library of America, and the effort here
to say, let's think particularly about libraries librarians. They have
a huge reach in literally every one of thirty thousand
(41:03):
communities across America, and they're all about information and knowledge,
and they're all about civic life. How do we use
that network to light up this very broad national effort
to be involved in the civic discourse about AI. And
in fact, we're talking about organizations being very trusted. Libraries
are deeply trusted institutions and communities and so building from
(41:25):
that trust the opposite of mistrust.
Speaker 1 (41:28):
And they have distribution. I mean, I was thinking earlier, Michelle,
when you're mentioning the alternative, you know, social media networks,
nagging it back in my head was how do you
break through that distribution? But I guess you're harnessing a
distribution system like the local library system with trusted advocates
to spark a conversation is really interesting.
Speaker 5 (41:45):
Right, you know.
Speaker 4 (41:46):
One of the things and many people forget this libraries
at the very beginning, we're paid to join institutions. And
so you fast forward to where we are now, where
you have libraries in every part of the country and
there's acts points for every person to walk in any day,
use the internet, and take out books. My daughter is neurodiverse.
(42:07):
She reads about thirty books a week because it's one
of the places that she goes to rest her mind.
You know, she's autistic, and one of the places that
she finds peace and quiet is in a library. And
you think about these access points that we as a country,
this fantastic, beautiful, messy, problematic country put together. Libraries are
(42:28):
a part of that. And so we think about now
digital public library and data and society saying this is
an access point for everyone to engage on this question
of AI, whether that's in your local communities and asking
how this works, Why do I need to have this?
Speaker 3 (42:43):
What are the dangers?
Speaker 4 (42:44):
But also can I use this to help with my
little league? Can I use this to develop my own company?
I mean, there are so many questions that most people
have and they don't know where to go. So let's
go back to our basics where we found community and
try and libraries and digital public Libraries are one of them.
Speaker 1 (43:03):
Michelle Jowanda, John Palfrey, thank you.
Speaker 2 (43:06):
Thank you so much, fun, Thank you for having us.
Speaker 5 (43:23):
The tech stuff.
Speaker 1 (43:23):
I'm oz Voloshin. This episode was produced by Eliza Dennis
and Melissa Slaughter. It was executive produced by me Julian
Nutter and Kate Osborne for Kaleidoscope and Katrian Novel for
iHeart Podcasts. Our engineer was Bihid Fraser. Jack Insley mixed
this episode and Kyle Murdoch wrote our theme song
Welcome to tech stuff. I'm a Velocian. As you may
have heard, AI is rather unpopular in the US. The
most recent polling by Pugh shows fifty percent of Americans
are more concerned than excited about the technology, with just
ten percent more excited than concerned, and across twenty five
country surveyed, Americans expressed among the lowest trust that the
(00:38):
government could effectively regulate AI. At the same time, twenty
twenty six may well be the year of the three
largest IPOs in American history, with SpaceX, Anthropic and Open
AI all on course for trillion dollar valuations support their
AI buildout. It's a weird moment, but like it or not,
AI is here to stay. The question of how we
(01:00):
decide to live with it remains up for grabs, and
our guest today are building a new organization, Humanity AI,
which they describe as quote a broad coalition to build
a more human future, in which AI is shaped by
and four people, and which will make five hundred million
dollars in grants. Michelle Jouanda, a civil rights lawyer turned
(01:21):
CEO of the Omidian Network, a philanthropic organization, and John Palfrey,
president of the MacArthur Foundation. Welcome to take stuff.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
Great to be with you and with my friend Michelle
Hi An's.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
Great to be here.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
We shall start with you. You've had a fascinating career.
You came from a family of civil rights lawyers, you're
a civil rights lawyer yourself, and you work for Google.
Talk about the kind of driving red thread of your career.
Speaker 4 (01:48):
You know, I always like to think about there's always
an origin story that each of us find and it
usually motivates most of the work that we do.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
If you look at the threads and the patterns in your.
Speaker 4 (02:00):
Life and so on my father's side of the family,
we're from Bermuda and Jamaica and were a part of
that kind of civil rights.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Movement on the island of Bermuda.
Speaker 4 (02:11):
My great aunt was the first black woman attorney on
the island of Bermuda. She was later knighted by Queen Elizabeth.
There's a family joke that they say the queen knighted
her so she would stop bothering them about independence for Bermuda.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
And I know she right.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
So I had this great kind of example that you
could organize people and ideas and use the law as
a mechanism for good. On the other side of my family,
we are entrepreneurs and chemists and biologists, and so I
have these two sides, so on my mother's side and
on my father's side, that really have always motivated the
(02:54):
work that I've done. And I see that as these
threads of could you use science and technology in service
of a greater good? Could you use the law to
change the lives of the people around you?
Speaker 1 (03:06):
Interesting, you've kind of you understand technology companies from within,
obviously having work at Google or Media is the family
foundation I guess of Pierre and Palm or Media, which
comes out of the Fortune pm A. As the founder
of eBay, how do you navigate kind of being inside
of the tech industry but also being in this space
where you're trying to create a new paradigm between society
(03:31):
and technology. Essentially, you know.
Speaker 4 (03:32):
One of the things that I love about the kind
of origin story of eBay And it feels almost quaint
how when you talk about it now, but it was
really one of those first moments and experiences where there
was the sense of trust between two strangers that I
could have a transaction and I can use this platform
to share something.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
Like Napster Craigslist, eBay that the kind of the golden
era of the trust based pipe Internet.
Speaker 4 (03:59):
It was a beautiful moment, and so at the core
of all of our work we think about that trust,
the relationship, and the use of technology in service of
the greater good. I think every origin story of most
of the major tech companies started with that simple idea,
could you use Facebook to connect friends? Could you use
(04:19):
Uber to get people around to different places? And over
time that is thwarted those original ideas and intentions and
in many cases the incentive structures that we put around
these companies, and we say, the only thing that we
want you to use the great engineering might and talent
of the people who work at your companies for is
(04:41):
more extractive, uses, more engagement, more shareholder value. And that
has perverted the system and the technology that so many
of us love and use.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
John, you run the MacArthur Foundation, one of the most iconic,
largest and oldest philanthropies I think in the United States,
and before that, you ran the bertman Clein Center at
Harvard for Internet and Society. You probably should book about
digital natives and how different generations engage with technology. What
motivates you today, as John and as the head of
(05:14):
the MacArthur Foundation in terms of how you're thinking about
the questions of how Internet technology and society should be interacting.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
MacArthur Foundation is a foundation that has been working to
support creativity and the kinds of effective uses of philanthropy
through its history, and this really is a part of
what we do. We support people individually as fellows who
are doing some of the most interesting work in every
space of human endeavor, and that's what we're best known for,
(05:41):
sometimes called the Genius Grants, but we also do grant
making of the sort that is to organizations. Sometimes they're
ones led by MacArthur fellows and others. Over time, I
think about Sophia Noble, a relatively recent MacArthur fellow from
about five years ago, who also leads an organization in
the space. So we will follow on with those individuals.
And what's motivating is really what's motivating Michelle and Omitir,
(06:03):
and it's why we are teamed up in deep, deep
collaboration around humanity AI is this technology is touching every
part of our lives. You cover this on your podcast
over over and over, and it is no longer the
remit just of you know, engineers. It's no longer the
remit just of some people. It touches every one of us.
And I believe that there are ways in which we can,
(06:24):
through philanthropy, make sure that more people get the benefits
of this technology rather than having it just accrue to
the few. And that's the kind of thing that we
can do through an effort like humanity AI. And if
we don't do it now during this window, then I
think we're going to be missing a big opportunity. So
what motivates me is how do we support the kind
of creativity that make sure that AI is popular, not unpopular,
(06:44):
as you started with, for a good reason, because it's
actually helping us in our everyday lives, across the span
of education or democracy or any of the other things
that we're all working on as philanthropies.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
So I had to ask you both straight out, why
do so many people mistrust and even Frankie hate AI?
Speaker 4 (07:00):
Because right now, the way that it shows up in
their lives is attractive, and it is a narrow conception
of what the possibilities of AI could be. If I'm
forced to be stuck in the imagination of about six
or seven people and not even companies six or seven people.
Then the way that I experience it is so narrow.
(07:23):
So much of the work that we do at MacArthur
and OMIDR and what we're trying to do with humanity
AI is say, let's open up the bounds of possibility
of what imagination could look like. Here the way that
AI can show up in your lives and real use
cases that improve the way that you live. We owe
(07:43):
that to people and people are not seeing that, and
that is why people don't enjoy it.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
And when you see these numbers.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Is it too late to be a technology optimist? I mean,
people have been so burned out by social media and
then all of the horror cases of teen suicide and
other associated negative consequences with social media, and now AI
has come along and you have, you know, the CEOs
of many of these AI companies talking about how it's
(08:11):
going to displace all labor and you know what what
is that? What is the marketing challenge to get people
to believe that technology may be helpful in their lives.
Speaker 4 (08:22):
AI is not destiny, It is designed. There are intentional
design choices that happen every day that are not inevitable.
And I think part of the reason why we feel
like it is is because again we're only seeing four
or five versions of what that future could be like.
One of the reasons Humanity AI is so exciting in
(08:44):
some of the grantees that we have in our network
are building new ecosystems and new tools and ways to
interact and research and information, and we're opening up the
doors of access. That is the number one thing that
people feel is happening, that they are out once again,
that there's this veneer of expertise and superiority. And I
(09:05):
have to just accept what you're giving me. And I
think what we're trying to do with Humanity AI in
all of our work has changed.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
That as I would just add that to your question,
is it too late to be an optimist around these technologies?
I think it's naive to be just an optimist, right.
I think we need to be a realist about the technology.
I think in some areas you mentioned a few kids
safety which we could get around to, we should be skeptics,
not not even realists. But is the opportunity that is
(09:33):
afforded by these digital technologies something that could touch every
human on the planet. Of course, it could touch all
of us in our in our pockets, you know, in
this moment, you know, even in relatively poor countries where
people have mobile technologies, you know, this is a technology
that could be helpful for opportunities. So I think the
answer to your question is, don't blindly believe what you're
(09:54):
being sold by people who have something to sell you,
but absolutely feel that there is something that you could
use and do, because actually, on the upside of this,
the opportunity side still remains that for any human they
have more access to more information, more opportunity in a
variety of different ways by virtue of what's in their
pocket than ever before. And we shouldn't lose sight of
those possibilities. They just aren't front and center right now.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
I want to ask you about, you know, the work
you did earlier in your career around digital natives and
the digital divide. Like people who grew up before the
internet essentially and then had to adjust to its norms
felt like the kind of technological infrastructure of everyday life
was not for them. Now, it feels like most people
in the world feel like the non digital natives felt
(10:37):
in the early two thousands. Right most people have this feeling.
This is not for me, What can you learn about
that earlier time of technological adoption that applies today.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
Yeah, a couple of things. And I I was smiling
as you and Michelle were talking about the early days
of Kaixlesterybay or other early technologies. So I'm thinking about
twenty five years ago, and the approach that we all
took was to say, let's let one thousand flowers bloom.
Let's have basically no regulation. Let's see how this goes.
And there were positive things that came of that. Of
course we can go through those, but there also are
(11:09):
a bunch of negative things that came about that. Some
of the harms to children, which I've been concerned about
for twenty five years, whether that was social media or AI.
Today totally plain that there are harms to children through
these technologies. They're totally plain that there is room for
healthy forms of regulation that could in fact drive innovation.
Think about the car, by having people put seatbelts on,
we actually caused innovation in the car industry by virtue
(11:30):
of regulating it. The same is true here think about
drug discovery in the US. By virtue of forms of regulation,
we can help prompt innovation in various ways we need
to apply those good smarts to this technology. And at
a moment where a lot of people, I think politically
are starting to think this isn't a great deal, this
could take away my.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
One but bards of issue seemingly yeah in the United States,
which kind of remarkable, without.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Question, it really is, and I think we have to
realize what window this is as people are acknowledging, Okay,
I want some of this, but I don't want others.
And I think that adds up for me to the
fact that we don't want a total wild West in
terms of letting as Michelle said five six, seven, eight,
people make a decision that's touching every one of us
in the US or around the world.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
So I mean, let's talk about humanity AI and the
role of philanthropy, because it seems like we're in this
moment where everyone is kind of wrestling over the paradigm.
Right you have like the Pope recently saying quote, even today,
colonialism assumes new forms. It no longer dominates only bodies
but appropriates data. Bernie Sanders has said, quote the creative
(12:34):
work of millions of people have essentially been stolen by
some of the wealthiest people in the world and call
for an American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund, which interestingly Trump
is also talking about and as is Sumultment. So that's
kind of a weird mind bender. But you know, you
have government, you have religion, you have philanthropy of obviously
capital and capital markets, private companies, these six or seven
(12:54):
individuals you mentioned, how will to shake out and how
should it shake out?
Speaker 4 (13:00):
One of the ways that we see and when we
think about the future and where we know we will
be successful. It's not the question of can civil society
affect what's happening in AI governance or in what the
future looks like, but you see actually the expectations and
the rules and the questions that civil society organizations want
(13:21):
to see happen. Great example, we've been working for many
years on kids online safety and harms, but recently, for
the first time, you're seeing courts catch up and actually
say there's regulation, there's harm here, and that we actually
have a background on consumer safety and information that we
(13:43):
know harm was caused, there is some liability here, and
we need to see some change. That is civil society
saying it is unacceptable for our children to be harmed
in this way, and so what then happens? You create
something new. There are social media platforms like Spill and
(14:03):
New Public from Eli Praser and so many others who
are building alternatives, who are saying we don't need the
same extractive engagement models of the past. And so I
think HUMANITYI and philanthropy stands up and says government has
a role to play, even if they've abdicated that role.
To be fair and honest, corporations have a shareholder mentality.
(14:27):
They're constantly looking at that as their main incentives. And
so who is thinking about and who is putting capital
and ideas and resources behind the questions that you and
I as may have around healthcare, around science, around education
in a way that is not designed to harm or
to extract value, but simply to help. And so that's
(14:48):
where philanthropy comes in. That's where humanity AI comes in,
and we see that that is our role to catalyze
that space, those organizations and those leaders who can help
to push us forward.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
And if five hundred million dollars on the one hand,
is a lot of money, on the other hand, compared
to a trillion dollars times three not so much, how
do you get impact with so much power and money,
maybe pulling in opposite direction to you.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
I think it's about harnessing the people ultimately. I mean,
we think about the moment that we're in with a
consolidation of power and of resource and money in a
relatively few and that's not just true in the US,
but it is true around the world. But we also
see that when large groups of people hold up their
hand and say we don't want this, This is actually
not who we are. We want to be a different
(15:36):
kind of people, and I think we're seeing that to
some degree in the America's two fiftieth and how we're
reacting to that. We want to be a community of
people who come across to do things, even when we're different.
Michelle and I come from very different family backgrounds. We
are working deeply together, arm in arm on this issue,
and that can happen from any number of different ways,
and that's part of the American story. So I feel
(15:57):
like there is a possibility by virtue of supporting civil
society and the way we are, and we can get
into the kinds of grants that we're making early on.
We're doing an open call coming up where we will
learn from others who are working in this that we
can tap into some great power sources. The popes and
cyclical is no small thing. There are many other people
with a great deal of power who are also saying,
let's actually focus on some humanistic topics here, and that's important.
(16:21):
But I actually think this is about galvanizing bottom up
support for the kinds of voices that need to be
at the table in shaping this, the kinds of creative
ideas that one person or one small group can come
up with and can change the world. All of those
things still hold, all of those things are still true,
and that's where philanthropy has its magic because we invest
without looking at the financial return. We're looking at the
(16:43):
value of this creative idea and the next best thing.
So somebody coming to us looking for a grant just
because oh we do something on AA, not interested just
because everybody wants to do something on AA. If you've
got some really incredible creative idea that's going to be
a breakthrough, or a group of people who do, that's
where we need to be investing.
Speaker 4 (16:59):
You know, I was an English major me too wise
wise choice. Ts Eliot is one of my favorites and
four quarters is one of the seminal works, and one
of the lines that I actually have up in my
bathroom and I read every day is for us, there
is only the trying. The rest is none of our business.
(17:22):
There will always be people with more money, There will
always be there will always be people who have a
perceived more power. But what we have are people who
are trying to do something better. And I think what
happens for so many people right now to your point
at the very beginning of the conversation, why people feel
(17:43):
so disconnected and disenchanted with this is because we have
stopped trying to answer and meet their needs. And so
Humanity AI shows up and said, I want to listen
to you and what you want in this moment. I
want to try something new. I want to give you
an an alternative. I want you to question and even
say do I want this at all? And I'm going
(18:05):
to create a space for that. And if we can
just try and build an alternative, I think people will
respond to that.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
Do you study why trust and optimism in AI is
so much higher in China than it is in the US.
Speaker 4 (18:21):
One hundred percent. One of the pillars of Humanity AI
is national security and often our conversations about innovation and
regulation is juxtaposed. We can't do this here because China.
But when you look at China, there's a few things
that are really interesting. Some of the largest, the most
open source models Chinese. There is great regulation that the
(18:46):
Chinese government are putting in place. Why because AI is
a disruptive technology. There is a desire for people in
China not to just be consumers of the current platforms,
but to be created and builders. When you juxtapose that
kind of idea, and again, this isn't about we need
(19:06):
to be us first them, This is about what are
the ideas that we want to put forward for people
here in US right now, which is how do you
get people more access, how do you have people feel
like they can build the future that they want. So
there are real contrasts that we can learn from, not
just here but in the UK and around the world.
(19:27):
So to the point of the US first China, I
think sometimes that conversation is so flattened that there is
no nuance. And what really what we want to say
is what are the best things that we want for
people here right now?
Speaker 2 (19:40):
And I think you know, there's a form of healthy competition, right,
that could be really positive. So I actually, you know,
in some of those I don't love the frame of
it's just an arms race between two countries. It's just
frankly not true. Right there obviously are leading companies and
leading efforts in both countries. But you know, if we
could lean into who's doing it better, who's using it
better to promote economic growth, both to create new jobs,
(20:01):
to create better cars, to create better opportunity of very sorts,
that's healthy.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
There's a I'm not sure if you've either of you
come across this book by Dan Wong called Breakneck, but
that the premise was basically America as a society of
lawyers and China as a society of engineers, and like
if you look at the members of the polit borough
of the last fifty years, like ninety percent of their
engineers versus like eighty percent of all US presidents and lawyers.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
And he kind of uses to take that personally, both John.
Speaker 1 (20:27):
And I know what I was going to say. I
was going to say, but I mean his his sort
of his conundrum that he lays up because he lived
in China. He left because he found it. You know,
he basically found his lack of freedom there was was
too oppressive. You couldn't get books he wanted, et cetera,
et cetera. We said, there's a difference in the United
States if you if you look out of your window
year on year, like the newest, most innovative thing you
(20:48):
might see as a new coffee shop, whereas in China
you see a whole new city emerging, you know, out
of your window. And that in a sense, the fact
that the Chinese model, which is you know, has less
freedom for citizens certainly nonetheless is like top down imposed.
This build a vision where people can see the development
of technology enriching society versus you know, what people see
(21:12):
in the US is a kind of is a drag
on the US's ability to have the national mentality required
to partners the new technological wave in a way which
has build everyone's prosperity and happiness. So it's just a
fascinating time. The kind of meta conversation even above the
grant making thing, which is how do you how do
(21:33):
you get people to believe they have a stake in
the future.
Speaker 4 (21:36):
There are a few things. So Raschetti researchered a few
years ago put forward a really fascinating study that looked
post World War two patent holders. US patent holders were
equally distributed among race, class, income levels, and across the
United States. You fast forward to the early two thousands,
(21:59):
that was mainly concentrated in the most higher echelon of class,
predominantly white, and mostly on the coasts.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
What changed.
Speaker 4 (22:11):
Did people all of a sudden stop innovating or did
we start to shut off access points for people all
across the US to feel that they had the power
to innovate? And so part of this moment and I
think it's a reckoning for us, and I talk often
about this kind of veneer of expertise because in many ways,
and John alluded to it, in each of our pockets
(22:33):
right now is a smartphone that has more power and
dynamism and access and information than our ancestors could have dreamed.
And so at some level we have more access and information,
and yet fewer people feel like they can tap that
and use that. So part of it is a narrative
(22:53):
that we have to change that you have power, that
you have access, that you have possibility, and then we
set up this systems and the structures in place to
actually make them Real.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
After the break, we'll hear about some of the projects
that Humanity AI is funding and what success means for
a philanthropic organization.
Speaker 5 (23:20):
Stay with us.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
We talk a lot on this show about protecting your data,
especially in the age of AI, and how scary it
can be when it's breached. And I want to tell
you today about NordVPN, which really covers all the bases
when it comes to privacy. I travel a lot, and
I use Wi Fi when I'm flying all the time,
and NordVPN makes me confident in no matter where I
am in the world or the sky for that matter,
(23:52):
my private details like bank information, passwords, and online identity
is safe. And it's also possible to switch on virtual location,
which allows you to save money by buying flights and hotels,
or subscriptions or even streaming soccer or football as I
like to call it from other countries at a cheaper price.
And NordVPN doesn't slow you down. It has super fast
(24:14):
internet speed, no buffering or lagging while streaming. It is
premium cybersecurity for the price of one cup of coffee
per month. To get the best discount of your NordVPN plan,
go to NordVPN dot com slash tech stuff. Our link
will also give you four extra months on the two
year plan and there's no risk with Nord's thirty day
(24:34):
money back guarantee. The link is in the podcast episode
description box. So talk about the mission of Humanity AI
and also concretely how you're delivering on it. And also
I'm proud to ask you. I mean, you're only two
representatives of the coalition. There's also the Doris Duke Foundation
the Ford Foundation are many of the largest and most
(24:58):
well known philanthropies in the US room in this efforts,
what have been the biggest disagreement?
Speaker 4 (25:06):
Listen, I'll start with all of the things that we agree.
The wide breath and range of the coalition is something
that we're really proud of. You have organizations like Lumina,
who's a leader in education, Doris Duke and Mellon who
are at the forefront of cultural, arts, science and humanities.
(25:27):
The diversity and the breath of the coalition is intentional
because this moment AI is not about one specific access point.
We see it show up in every area of our lives,
and so our coalition needed to reflect that. I think
that there are questions about priority and what are the
(25:48):
most important things that we need to focus on right now.
So I think some people may say there's a question
about national security and we need to lean into that,
and I think others are saying work and labor and
questions about art and humanities and how we think about
creators create tension points of where our focus and our
priority should all move or aligne at the moment. But
(26:11):
the thing that unites us is recognizing that this is
a moment that we cannot step away from. And I
think often philanthropy is maybe a little slow to move.
And I think what's different about this is we're showing up,
not moving on the same normal grant making timelines or
(26:32):
just kind of let's set back and observe. We are
moving in real time to pay attention and also to
shape the moment in the conversation.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
And I would say, you know, I think this is
one of the really attractive things about this approach of
collaborating at this large scale. Five hundred million dollars, I realized,
is nothing compared to the trillions, but for philanthropy, it's
a fair amount of money. And just to restate it's
Doorstoke Foundation, Ford Foundation, Lumina Foundation, cape Or Foundation, MacArthur
and Video or Course, Melon Foundation, Mozilla Foundation, Packered and
(27:02):
the Seagull Family Endowment. If you think across those ten,
there's actually a fair amount of diversity of approach and
we come from every part of the country in west coast,
east coast to the center of the country, you know
where many of the foundations are based. But we actually
have a bunch of different approaches to what we're doing.
And actually, I think it is modeling in some ways
how we think these problems have to be addressed.
Speaker 1 (27:24):
I was going to ask you, Jacky about how do
you I mean, how do you interact with you how
do you make decisions? And what is the model that
comes out of that.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
So one is we are pooling a certain amount of
money to make some grants together. That's the first set
of grants that we just released on the pooled grants
that we'll be making. Most of what we're doing, honestly,
is information sharing and then aligning. So Michelle and I
might say, Okay, we care very much about making this up,
but what's happening with the tech policy in California right now,
and let's together support tech equity and this amazing woman,
(27:51):
Catherine Bracy, who's leading a coalition of people. This is
a time limited, important thing, and it matters for us
in Illinois, it's going to matter for people in New
York where you're sitting, et cetera. So let's go in.
So it's going to be pooled. Some of it's going
to be aligned, and I think, really, really importantly it
is the information sharing that we're doing and creating strength
and power through the knowledge of what we can do together,
(28:11):
which is different than each of us saying, oh, we're
such a special snowflake and each of these ten foundations
just going to do our own thing. No, we're actually
saying we're going to be stronger together by virtue of
this collaboration. And that's what we're about.
Speaker 4 (28:21):
Yeah, philanthropy often has capital, but we don't often move
and collaborate. And I think a distinguishing feature is moving
together in real time. It is paying attention to both
the trends of what's happening in the kind of broader
ecosystem and then saying, where are there opportunities for us
(28:42):
to concentrate our energy, our firepower, our bully pulpits, our
resources so that we are part of changing the narrative
and again access points for people to engage.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
I guess nothing focus is the mind like like a
threat either. I mean, the philanthropy has been a target
of the Trump administration, right, and so I wonder was
that a galvanizing force allowed ten different philanthrophies to come
together in this moment? Is that just background noise? And
how do you deal with that?
Speaker 2 (29:10):
I think it is a key factor for us in
terms of how we operate us in some ways. I'm
just going to step back for a second. We as
philanthropy when you actually ask Americans, we are as popular
as puppies.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
That's pretty good.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
We pull it like ninety percent popular. Why we're giving
away money? Yeah, exactly, can't do better puppies. I don't
know what else, what else is puzz Maybe podcast hosts
could be just as popular anyway. And what's important about
that is what we're doing is giving away money to
accomplish good things in our communities, and they really directly
(29:45):
affect what's happening in people's lives. And that could be
a boys and girls club. We all know the power
of mentorship, right, might be what Catholic charities is doing
in a community. It might be a life saving disease
that helps your your loved one. Right, all of these things,
access to education that's very popular. It turns out that
in this moment, for whatever reason, we're under attack for
the first time in a generation. And so people like Michelle,
(30:08):
people like me, people like our friend Tanya Allen at
McKnight Depac Bargava in New York at Freedom Together Foundation,
we have linked arms to stay. We are actually going
to make the case for what we're doing and make
the case that this is a distinctly American thing. We
have a freedom to give and a freedom to invest
our money according to the First Amendment, and these attacks
on us don't make any sense. In fact, the American
(30:29):
people don't want them. The good news is none of
the attacks, whether from the Congress or this administration, have stuck,
and we are united across the ideological spectrum to push
them back. And the example of when you are bullied
to stand together and to push back is really really powerful.
So I would then go over here and extrapolate just
as you've done to the space of AI to the
(30:50):
extent the American people are being sold something they don't
really want by relatively small group people. The answer is
to stand up and say we don't want it, and
we want something else. And by the way, this market
out there is very powerful. The market, the social norms,
how we move as individuals, where we spend our money,
where we spend their time. We do still have that
in our control. And yes, these companies are very powerful corporations,
(31:12):
but the most powerful thing is the behavior of their consumers,
of out their customers, and that's still us. And so
that same method of pushing back on concentrated power can
work here too.
Speaker 1 (31:21):
I mean, you work to Google emission. What are your
former colleagues who are still in the tech industry, how
are they seeing this moment?
Speaker 4 (31:28):
First off, they're all rooting me on. I get an
email every other day from someone I'm deep mind and Google,
you guys should go and focus on this area. We're
not going to do this, but you should do that again.
I think it's important also to separate the people and
the motivations of people who want to see this technology
use for good. We have a whole group of potential
(31:51):
new millionaires and billionaires coming out of these soon to
be IPOs who have reached out and said, hey, even
as we're thinking about this and preparing for this, we
want to make sure that job displacement and conversations about labor,
and a conversation we're having across the board on AI
populism and our concerns about this permanent underclass. We want
(32:12):
to interrupt that. What are some ideas and solutions that
you have for us? It's one of the pillars as
a part of humanity AI. So I think we are
constantly seeing people who are wrestling internally with that tension,
and what we're offering are both solutions, opportunities to give
resources organizations, and quite frankly, the more people who can
(32:33):
chime in inside and out and say this is not
the future that we want. We desire something else that
is going to help change the tide on all of this.
Speaker 1 (32:43):
It's a find year program initially, How will you know
if it's worked.
Speaker 4 (32:48):
I think we're already starting to see that. If I'm honest,
I think the we don't like where AI is headed
is a ready and early indicator because that is a
both a market and for anyone who's worked in business,
when there are market signals, it would behoove you to
pick that up and to pay attention, which is why
you're seeing more philanthropic dollars come from any of these
(33:11):
AI companies because they're recognizing we are missing the point here.
We developed something that people no longer want, and so
the question that we have now is how do we
not just kind of paper over these conversations about concentration
or power or how it's used and actually say, what
do people want this technology to be used for and
(33:33):
how it shows up in their lives, and hey, by
the way, there are some rules of the road that
we need to lay out because the way that you're
operating right now are not good and not okay, and
we need leaders like Katherine Bracy and Sophia Nobel and
so many others who are saying, actually, here's a way
that you can move. This is something that you should
pay attention to. And by the way, this is better
(33:55):
for all of us when we do these things.
Speaker 1 (33:58):
It's interesting you mentioned the Asian with the tech companies
because it's obviously a fine line, like obviously you want
them to be engaged and you want their fanthermic donations,
but you'll have to avoid becoming the like quote unquote
loyal opposition. Even the Pope was criticized for making his
you know remarks with an anthropic exeg so how do
you how do you navigate wanting the support and both
(34:20):
of the individuals who work in those companies and frankly
of the resources they have, at the same time as
not becoming beholden to them.
Speaker 2 (34:27):
I'd say for starters, just one thing about humanity, AI
is none of the money is coming from the companies directly,
and I can't imagine it will, right I think we
are we are not. I mean, Michelle and I haven't
actually had this conversation, so who knows. Maybe we will
shake their minds, but no, you know, And it is
true that the you know, several families involved, including the Omdias,
made their money in tech, but they're not of this
(34:48):
group of five or six you know, controlling entities right now,
and I think that's quite important. That's not to say that,
you know, Eric Schmith's philanthropy can't do wonderful things because
he was a big player at Google. Of course they can,
and they do. But I don't see us taking tech
company money to be the loyal opposition in that in
that sense that I don't think that's our role. I
think Our role is, however, to crowd in philanthropic dollars
(35:09):
to be more powerful together than separate. So back to
your previous question is when you said, how will we
know it's successful? It's very hard to know on a
short timeline how philanthropy is successful. I do think you've
got a wonderful leading indicator, and what Michelle just said,
public sentiment, which is one thing that we're working on.
I do think the idea that there is a civil
society that is pushing back in a number of ways,
(35:31):
a very strong group of individuals and organizations that's important.
So a universe of people who are doing that is
part of it. But fundamentally to me, the question for
me at MacArthur in four or five years, when we
have to decide whether to keep going in this direction
or to have it wind down, will be are we
stronger together? Is it better to do this together? I
can't imagine that philanthropy is going to say AI doesn't
(35:54):
matter anybody's life in five years, we're done. It's a
little like climate or something else, like it's hard to
say you're done until well thing that we could possibly see,
or democracy. So my hunches, a number of us are
still going to be in this The question is going
to be should we just go back to doing it
each on our own without any real deep connectivity, deep collaboration.
My hunch is we're going to find that this is better,
(36:15):
this is stronger, that we are together able to support
the field in a better way with better results for
real people in real communities. And that's going to be
the marker.
Speaker 1 (36:23):
Of course, the succession the program will be driven in
large pop by how well the grandees do. And so
I think maybe we can talk now about three of
the kind of initial grantees of the program. Michelle, I
maybe we can start with you in Kinfolk Tech.
Speaker 4 (36:37):
Andris Brewster is an artist, He is an engineer, He
is a visionary. Kinfolk Tech is an organization that focuses
on how do we remember and what are the monuments
and the legacies of mostly Black, Latino, Indigenous and queer
(36:59):
history are often forgotten. About a few months ago, Idris
worked and can Folk Tech put out a piece in
collaboration with the James Baldwin family. We were celebrating one
hundred years of James Baldwin's work and his deep reflection,
and they put together a AI organized typewriter, and it
(37:23):
was right here at the Brooklyn Museum that you could
come into the museum and you could say, I don't
know what the purpose of my life is. James helped
me to figure it out. And this typewriter would then
produce some of his seminal works and words. But it
was using an AI culture and a database of James's work,
(37:45):
some published, some unpublished, but it was done in concert
with the Baldwin family and it was such a great
example of art and AI and remembrance and honoring culture.
Speaker 1 (37:57):
And it was direct quotes. It wasn't it wasn't a
James No.
Speaker 4 (38:00):
It wasn't a James boltwen Bot. It was direct quotes
from the Baldwin archives. But it was using AI to
be responsive to the prompt that you would put into
the typewriter. And it was this interactive moment and they
won a number of awards and were featured in the
New York Times about it. But what I love about
Idris and the team at kin Folk is it is engineers,
(38:22):
it is writers, it is philosophers, it is creative visual
artists who were saying, at our best when we think
about who is worthy of being remembered and how we
honor and value the stories that often are not told
when we center that and we use technology to augment
(38:42):
and to tell those stories. And now they're doing a
virtual reality you can look at and points your smartphone
at different places and monuments around the city and tell
stories that are often not told. And only technology can
create the opportunity to do this at.
Speaker 1 (38:58):
That scale, John, what about the Distributed AI Research Institute
and the AI civics led by Data in Society?
Speaker 2 (39:06):
Two wonderful things. Although to hear Michelle rhapsodize about the
kin Folk and James Baldwin, I cannot compete in describing,
although I will say this work is equally brilliant and wonderful.
But Distributed AI Research Network is one that we've supported
for a long time, I think literally from its inception
at MacArthur. But we're delighted as part of the Humanity
(39:27):
AI Group to meet Gebrew is an amazing you know,
PhD computer SCIENTI former Googler, and in fact she was
let go by Google quite famously.
Speaker 1 (39:36):
So let go of her criticisms.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
Essentially, yes, and she is among those who have been
in leading positions and tech companies who have emerged as
the most powerful critics. Anyway, What to me did was
she set up a distributed it's in the name AI
research network that actually is global, and it is people
who have amazing expertise on a range of topics who
have stood up something that is a research network of
a different sort that is app absolutely bringing some of
(40:01):
the most most powerful information and knowledge forward about this
set of technologies and so among other things, they're working
on the topic of linguistic diversity. So how do you
ensure that the use of this doesn't just make English
the lingua franca for the history of the world right.
In fact, it has huge power in terms of preserving
(40:22):
local knowledge as well as local languages around the world.
But it doesn't always pay right. That's not something that
these companies are always gonna be able to do. So
to me, it has been a powerful voice around that.
You mentioned AI and civics. So one thing that I
think Michelle said earlier so nicely was there lots of
people who are positionally able to do something about this,
but don't really have the on ramps or the way
(40:43):
to do it. And so the AI Civics effort slightly
different is we've teamed up with two organizations, one in
New York City, Data and Society, another distributed effort, although
the person's based here in Chicago in the Midwest, called
the Digital Public Library of America, and the effort here
to say, let's think particularly about libraries librarians. They have
a huge reach in literally every one of thirty thousand
(41:03):
communities across America, and they're all about information and knowledge,
and they're all about civic life. How do we use
that network to light up this very broad national effort
to be involved in the civic discourse about AI. And
in fact, we're talking about organizations being very trusted. Libraries
are deeply trusted institutions and communities and so building from
(41:25):
that trust the opposite of mistrust.
Speaker 1 (41:28):
And they have distribution. I mean, I was thinking earlier, Michelle,
when you're mentioning the alternative, you know, social media networks,
nagging it back in my head was how do you
break through that distribution? But I guess you're harnessing a
distribution system like the local library system with trusted advocates
to spark a conversation is really interesting.
Speaker 5 (41:45):
Right, you know.
Speaker 4 (41:46):
One of the things and many people forget this libraries
at the very beginning, we're paid to join institutions. And
so you fast forward to where we are now, where
you have libraries in every part of the country and
there's acts points for every person to walk in any day,
use the internet, and take out books. My daughter is neurodiverse.
(42:07):
She reads about thirty books a week because it's one
of the places that she goes to rest her mind.
You know, she's autistic, and one of the places that
she finds peace and quiet is in a library. And
you think about these access points that we as a country,
this fantastic, beautiful, messy, problematic country put together. Libraries are
(42:28):
a part of that. And so we think about now
digital public library and data and society saying this is
an access point for everyone to engage on this question
of AI, whether that's in your local communities and asking
how this works, Why do I need to have this?
Speaker 3 (42:43):
What are the dangers?
Speaker 4 (42:44):
But also can I use this to help with my
little league? Can I use this to develop my own company?
I mean, there are so many questions that most people
have and they don't know where to go. So let's
go back to our basics where we found community and
try and libraries and digital public Libraries are one of them.
Speaker 1 (43:03):
Michelle Jowanda, John Palfrey, thank you.
Speaker 2 (43:06):
Thank you so much, fun, Thank you for having us.
Speaker 5 (43:23):
The tech stuff.
Speaker 1 (43:23):
I'm oz Voloshin. This episode was produced by Eliza Dennis
and Melissa Slaughter. It was executive produced by me Julian
Nutter and Kate Osborne for Kaleidoscope and Katrian Novel for
iHeart Podcasts. Our engineer was Bihid Fraser. Jack Insley mixed
this episode and Kyle Murdoch wrote our theme song
TechStuff News
Hosts And Creators
Oz Woloshyn
Karah Preiss
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.