Offline with Jon Favreau - 223: Zuckerberg Takes the Stand, Pete Hegseth vs. AI, and Max-Maxxing with Max Fisher

Episode Date: February 21, 2026

Max Fisher returns to the show to podmaxx with Jon about the latest Offline-worthy news, including the landmark court case that's put Mark Zuckerberg on trial and internal drama at the AI giants that has the companies feuding with the Department of Defense, Hollywood, and their own employees. Plus, the two discuss the role citizens' social media videos have played in holding ICE agents accountable and attempt to make sense of Clavicular, a 20-year-old "looksmaxer" who has taken over their Twitter feeds.For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Offline is brought to you by Zbiotics pre-alcohol. Let's face it, after a night with drinks, I don't bounce back the next day like I used to. You've got to make a choice. Either have a great night or a great next day. That is until I found pre-alcohol. Zbiotics, pre-alcohol, probiotic is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by-money. It's a build-up of this by-product, not dehydration. That's to blame for rough days after drinking. Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this by-product down. Just remember to make a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's a build-up of this byproduct down. Just remember to make a product down. Just remember to make a product down. It's a build-up of this byproduct down. It's a good. It's a good. It's a good make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night, drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow. No joke, hours before we recorded this. Another friend of ours, Chelsea, text in a picture of ziotics that this stuff works so well. I love it. I feel like there's people in my life who are suffering needless. You know what I mean? Yes. Just buy one pack of zibiotics. Try it once. If you're going to Vegas for your bachelor party, it might not fully fix. It's not going to do the trick. Okay, but if you're going out, if you're going to a work dinner and you're having like one extra drink and normally that would put you under, for me, it is a lifesaver. Picture says, these work, I just tried them the other night. I need more, exclamation. That's what I got. That's the review I just got.

Ready to try it, go to Zbiotics.com slash offline now. You'll get 15% off your first order when you use offline at checkout. Plus, it's backed by 100% money back guarantee, so there's no risk. Subscriptions are also available for maximum consistency. Remember to head to Zbiotics.com slash offline and use the code offline at checkout for 15% off. Access Storage presents Team Canada snowboarder Mark McMorris. It's a huge honor to call myself an Olympic medalist and an even bigger honor to be a three-time Olympic medalist to do those all under the Maple Leaf is incredibly special and I'm eternally grateful. Thank you, Canada, for your continued support. It's a huge honor to represent our country. Keep cheering. Let's go Canada. Access Storage, official storage partner of Team Canada. monging the idea being that if you have a like more correctly shaped frame you will win the

interaction and winning the interaction is the way that you get ahead and that's the only thing that matters because that's the only thing that's real and it's like this same idea that it's like dating and relationships are fake and it's all just a big con so you got to get in on the con by treating people as objects to be kind of manipulated and push around and it does seem to speak to the same core like nihilism that we have talked about is like a very online thing thing, but also is not just online, but it's like one of the main things that had been driving our political culture for the last 10, 15 years. I was going to say it's very, it's very Trumpian, even though Donald Trump definitely not

a looks maxer. Much more, much more of a jestergoon. He is frame-mogging, but not on the way that the looks-maxers would suggest that you should do that. Yes, he is burger cake maxing. Welcome to Offline. I'm John Faber. I'm Max Fisher.

Max, welcome back. Back in the chair. Oh, man, it's so nice to be back. It's always such a pleasure to chat. It always makes me feel better, especially when I'm feeling bad. You know what? I was looking forward to this all week as I was jet lagged on my flight back from Australia. I was like, at least I have Max on Friday. Max. And now, in addition to you, a great Supreme Court ruling as well. I know. I saw that. Yeah. Although I had to roll my eyes, it's like, yeah, the Supreme Court finally miraculously discovered there are limits to presidential. power when he is using it in a way that will hurt Republicans in the midterms. It's like, okay, great. They're going to go back to forgetting that the president is not a king tomorrow. Don't worry. Classic. It's classic. It's like IJ.R.

This is such a great week to have you back because there's so much offline news to discuss. Mark Zuckerberg is on trial. AI companies are feuding with the Defense Department, Hollywood, and their own employees. And we're going to talk about whether we finally hit peak clavicular and whether you or anyone knows what that means. I was really expecting, I got to tell you, the intro to be written in clavicular speak. I was like, here we go. We're triumarging, Mark.

You know what? We're law maxing AI. We're max maxing today. There's the title. That's it. We got it. Title of the episode. Just thought of that, just now.

That's where you're an artist. Speaking of big questions, before we get to all of that, we got to talk about the new project you've recently launched. You've gone from podcaster to YouTuber. with a new series called The Bigger Picture with Max Fisher. Congratulations. The first video was fucking great. I'm so psyched for you. Tell us all about the series.

Oh, thank you. Yeah, we have been baking this cake for like almost a year now, so it's nice to finally pull it out of the oven. It is a bi-weekly, visual-driven, long-form show that will be exploring big questions about the world, partnering with a guy named Johnny Harris, former guest on the show. former Vox. I actually worked with him like a decade ago at Vox. We would occasionally make

videos together. And Dinosaur that I am, I would spend like a week on an article and it would get like 50,000 views and it would be like, great. And then I would spend a day making a video with Johnny about it that would get three million views. And I'd be like, oh, that's interesting. Time to go back to writing articles, which is clearly the way that we should be doing this. But he like went independent, went on YouTube. He reached out to me a while ago and said, you should come on. And I, like, had and still have some real trepidations about being on YouTube, you know, a platform and company that we have talked a lot about and whose harms I've reported on. And, you know, the thing is, is that I still believe those things, but I got tired at the same time

of having these, like, lamentation discussions all the time with people in the industry or on the show with you about how, you know, news consumers are fleeing traditional news for social And I still think that that's bad. Like, I still think the world would be a better place if we had the media ecosystem that we had 20 years ago and we all got our news from the newspaper. But we don't. And, you know, I got into this business in 2008 and the industry has been in crisis every single day of that for my entire career. And like, I don't want this shift to happen. But if it's going to happen, I do want to try to be, and I see this as an attempt to try to be part of making the news that people get on, you know, the increasingly hegemonic online social information ecosystem better. And I don't, there are some people who like leave traditional media and are like, you know, fuck my old employer. It's, you know, independent creators of the future. That's not how I feel like I still read the newspaper and still love it. I see myself as trying to establish kind of a beachhead for the values of traditional news and the things that make it important on the

social web and in a way that can speak to where audiences are and where people want to get their news because I'm you know I'm tired of fighting them I'm tired of trying to convince them to consume news in a way that they don't want to consume it anymore well I mean part of what we have talked about is the short form nature of social media and this sort of the infinite scroll which we'll talk about in a second too as as one of the most damaging aspects of this and you know what you're doing which is like very compelling explainer type journalism on YouTube.

I don't think it's clearly nothing like that. And it's also like a very effective way, I think, in presenting like very well done journalism. Oh, thanks, Ray. You launched the show

the day before I shot Alex Preti with a phenomenal video about the reason ICE wears masks and what Trump and Miller's end game is. would you learn? So we kind of went into this video as an investigation both into ICE, but also because, you know, we're launching a new thing, an investigation into this format that is completely new for me. And we wanted this to be kind of a test case for could we find a way to give audiences the things that they like or find valuable about both traditional news and kind of independent creator social videos in one package?

and if we could find a way that this format could do things that more familiar formats might be as well suited to. Because it's not like people aren't reporting on ice. There's a ton of great reporting on ice. There's a ton of great commentary on ice. People aren't lacking for like the truth or the real story about ice. What we wanted to show and what we thought this format was uniquely suited to was what happens when you take all of that information, all of that reporting and all that commentary and take like a giant step back and look. at the totality of this huge multi-aum story all at once, because I think it's easy for people like you were me to take for granted that, you know, when you see a video on your phone

of some fucking rock-headed ice chud, like macing a grandma in the snow, that that isn't just that one incident that that actually represents like the tip of the spear of this concerted plot to like remake all of American society. But that larger story is not necessarily obvious. And like even I lose sight of the scope of it. So the main thing that I, learn in trying to construct this and trying to say let's look at the entirety of what ice is doing every place on the ground and what everybody who is overseeing ice has said they wanted to do let's look at all the legal filings look let's look at the like budget documents is just like how obvious and how unadorned their endgame is when you actually follow it out step by step it's just like

as an example because again this is something that like will not be shocking to think i think to a lot of the listeners the idea that ice is about authoritarian is like i had heard a lot of individual cases of ICE targeting people for criticizing Israel, which is like, why would ICE, like an immigration agency even care about that? But I had not realized until I started putting all that together how systemic that had become and how that is being built into these like billion dollar programs that ICE is getting funding for for monitoring what people say online to, you know, target people who speak out against it. So my hope is that what this can do for people. And if I'm doing what I want to do, which is try to exploit what's good about and leverage what's good about

YouTube instead of just falling victim to what's bad about it. Yeah. I mean, I feel like I talk about ICE and tweet about ICE and post about ICE like, you know, every day and happen for the last however many months we've been going through this now. And, you know, I was, I watched your video this morning when I started on my 5 a.m. walk to Starbucks as I was jet lagged and it was just like so hooked and learned and learned a ton. And I do think there's like there's such value. you in putting everything we've learned in perspective. And you also take great care to just deal with the facts as we have them and what the administration has said and what court filings have said. Like, there's no need to exaggerate. There's no need to put a lot of spin on the ball.

There's like, it probably is unhelpful, as you point out, to just like talking about authoritarianism and what happens in other countries. Like you just, this is, unfortunately, this is an instance where you don't need any of that to make a case that is both. compelling and terrifying. Well, like, as you and I have talked about a lot, and this is something that Johnny pushed me on a lot, too. Like, most YouTube viewers are younger. They're, like, contrarian, not necessarily right-wing in, like, a hard-baked way,

but that's maybe the direction that their instincts tend to go. So if you want to reach those people with a story that is, like, you know, obviously it's not a secret, like fundamentally progressive, the idea that racist, fascist, authoritarianism is bad, then you kind of have to think about. about how you're delivering that. And part of what is great about the video format is if you have good visuals, you can get people to stay with you for a long time. Like 40 minutes is a long time. And it's like not so different from what you guys learned with crooked media, that you can take what people love about podcasts, that it feels like a sense of connection and a sense of humor

and get them to stick around for a like really nuanced in-depth hour-long policy conversation. And I think it's notable that so much of the footage you used and so much of the footage, you know, that has opened all of our eyes up to what ICE is doing, comes from people holding up their phones, filming, putting it on social media, which is maybe finally and tragically, a positive use case for social media and screens that you and I have been searching for for so long.

I know. I found myself, like, almost grudgingly being like, wow, this is actually a pretty effective use case for social media. And it's like the use case of social media that they promised us like 15 years. ago. Remember when the Arab Spring happened and social media is going to bring like democracy and liberation and freedom to people and then it did the opposite of that? And it like it really feels like that because like would you do the research or try to do the research into what's going on with ice? Like I said, there's so much reporting that's so great. But so much of what you end up watching and

consuming. And I know you've been watching a lot of these too. It's just like citizen videos. Just like ice runs up on somebody and somebody pops out of phone and records a video and then that gets picked up by activists and then that later gets picked up by the media and then the next thing you know it's in like a federal court filing and the idea that there's this like totally decentralized grassroots organic undirected like societal pushback against authoritarianism that happens because everybody has a phone in their hand and they have apps that allow them to share those videos with everybody I know it sound like oh you put out one video on YouTube and all of a sudden you're fucking Mark Zuckerberg Well, we've also talked about how the promise of social media evolved in terms of, you know,

leading to democratic transitions and creating democratic movements, sort of led to, like, authoritarian figuring out how to use social media to sort of flood the zone with misinformation and disinformation. And I think they still have the ability to do that. And they're still doing that. But I think we have probably overcorrected too far in the other direction and forgotten that there is still this power to show people images and video that they are going to. to believe more than Stephen Miller and Christine Ome's lies that they told, you know, they've been telling all along, but especially in the cases of Alex Pready and Renee Good.

We have the numbers ultimately, which is one of the things that social media shows. You see that, like, oh, everybody in my community hates this and they're willing to go out on the streets to, like, push it back. That's really powerful. Well, everyone should go check out your first video and go subscribe. It's the bigger picture with Max Fisher. Go on YouTube. Check it out.

This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. February often feels like a non-stop parade of romance, but let's be real, navigating your love life can be confusing. Whether you're partnered up or flying solo, there's no right way to feel right now. Therapy's a great way to cut through that noise, helping you find your footing, and gain some clarity on what you truly want. Whether you care about Valentine's Day or not, you probably have feelings that you want to talk about with a therapist. Sure, yeah. Life is going great.

That's fine, but like, yeah, you probably got some problems. World's a little scary. Everyone does. No one's just cruising through without any care in the world, you know, especially these days. Nope. So talk to a therapist about it. Better helps quality therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and are fully licensed in the U.S. Better Help does the initial matching work for you so you can focus on your therapy goals. A short questionnaire helps identify your needs and preferences. And their 12 plus years of experience and industry leading match fulfillment rate means they typically get it right the first time. If you aren't happy with your match, switch to a different therapist at any time from their tailored wrecks. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is the world's largest online therapy platform, having served over 6 million people globally. And it works with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews. Sign up and get 10% off at BetterHelp.com slash offline. That's better help.com slash offline.

Offline is brought to you by three-day blinds. There's a better way to buy blinds, shades, shutters, and drapery. And it's called three-day blinds. They are the leading manufacturer of high-quality customers. and window treatments in the U.S. and right now, if you use my URL, 3dayblinds.com slash offline, they are running a buy one,

get one, 50% off deal. The expert team at 3Day blinds even handles all the heavy lifting. They design, measure, and install so you can sit back, relax, and leave it to the pros. Long before we ever started Pod Save America, C crooked media,

I used 3-day blinds at my very first place I lived in Los Angeles, and it was a miracle. Pitch just, couldn't see a damn thing. It was like, blinds. I'm like, I've got to figure out what the blinds are, and then I got to put them up.

I can't do that. No, it's impossible. They tell you what you need. They measure it for you. They put them up. It's fantastic. Also, we did it in the office here. You and I are lazy people,

and we've definitely lived in apartments for years where your bedroom just doesn't get dark, and you just don't sleep. It's the worst. It's terrible. You need room darkening shades. Three-day blinds has been in business for over 45 years,

and they've helped over 2 million people get the window treatments of their dreams, so they are a brand you can trust. Right now, get quality window treatments that fit your budget with three-day blinds. Head to 3dayblins.com slash offline for their buy one, get one, 50% off deal on custom blinds, shade, shutters, and drapery for a free, no charge,

no obligation consultation. Just head to 3dayblind.com slash offline. One last time, that's buy one, get one 50% off when you head to the number three, D-A-Y,blinds.com slash offline. Let's talk about some other news this week. On Wednesday, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took to the stand in a Los Angeles courtroom to testify before a jury for the first time about the way Facebook and Instagram addict teens. I was out there. there cheering outside the, no, I was. I saw it's in LA and I was like, are we going to do this recording on the courthouse steps? Zuckerberg's testimony was part of a lawsuit brought against Mehta and Google's YouTube by a 20-year-old woman from California identified as Kaylee or KGM in

court documents. She alleges that meta and YouTube knowingly built addictive features like infinite scroll, auto play, and beauty filters to encourage compulsive use among children, later leading to adverse mental health effects, including her own body issues, depression, and suicidal thoughts. Zuckerberg was unsurprisingly defiant during his eight hours on the stand, saying at one point that people will want to use Instagram more because it's a valuable service, not addictive. Kaly's is actually the first of at least 1,500 lawsuits recently filed against major tech companies by parents, teens, school district, and state attorneys general, who all hope to hold tech giants accountable for the way their services have harmed young people. In fact,

Zuckerberg was served for another one of these suits as he entered the courtroom on Wednesday. I think we have a clip. You've been served with the summons. He's a complaint. Mark Zuckerberg. You've been served. You've been served. Really no value to that clip other than just we wanted to, if that would be fun,

to watch Mark Zuckerberg being served, right? I had a great time. Man, if you're the guy at the office who serves papers, do you think that this is like your Super Bowl? It's like you're never going to get a bigger one than this. You want to tell people, you're like, guess who I got. Oh, yeah. You know what?

I bet he didn't even take a fee on that one. I bet he said, I'm going to do this one for the love of the game. If anyone needs any other tech CEOs served, you have two. Putting our hands up. You have two people right here who will do that. Let's start with Kaylee's lawsuit. What do you think about the strength of her case from everything you've read and seen so far? So my understanding is the thing that makes this case really strong is the way that it establishes liability,

which is what's been really tough by bringing legal accountability for the tech companies. Because to show liability, you can't just show that, like, for example, Facebook, like medical misinformation proliferate on its platforms. You have to actually show that a person in the world was materially harmed by decisions that the company made. And what Kaylee's case does a good job of is establishing every link in the, like, causal chain from decisions and policies set, you know, knowingly in Menlo, to the platform then operating in a way that they knew was going to harm users, to then compelling those users to take harmful actions via addictive features, which is kind of the main

new thing that they're trying to establish in this case, to those users then suffering as a result. And it's a really short causal chain, too, is the real important thing. Like, a lot of these cases before have been like, well, rates of depression are like higher when people use Facebook more. And then it becomes like very thorny to draw a straight line from Facebook implementing a feature to like a person in the world has been harmed and therefore Facebook owes the money. I mean, it's fascinating because I think that the debate for so many years, as you know, was over content moderation. And will the companies do the content moderation?

No. Can the government force them to? Can lawsuits force them to? And it seems so obvious now looking back, but it's just a much more difficult sort of area to prosecute these cases, I think, because it's so subjective and it's difficult. But once you get to the design of the platforms and the algorithms, which is something you and I have talked about,

is the bigger problem than the content itself, it feels like it could be a turning point in ways to trying to hold tech companies accountable. I've saw some people compare it to the tobacco cases in the 1990s. What do you make of that comparison and whether this might be a turning point? I actually think that that comparison makes a ton of sense because these cases are meant to address a similar problem that the big tobacco cases in the 1990s were addressing, which is that it's not enough to show, like you were saying, that social media is harmful because as a user, it's still your choice to use it, and it's your choice to take whatever actions you take as a result. So if, like, if, you know, Facebook promotes that medical misinformation and you die from treating your lymphoma from Ivermectin, Facebook can still say, like, that was your choice.

It was your choice to get a medical recommendation on Facebook. It was your choice to take Ivermectin. And, like, with the big tobacco lawsuits happened, like, the link between cigarettes and cancer had been established for 40 years. Like, it was not new information at all, like, legally had been established. The kill shot in those 1990s cases was to, to, to, to, to, to, you know, to, to, you know, to, to, you know, confront the idea that the defense the big tobacco had always made, that customers were making their own informed choice as to whether or not to smoke, and therefore the consumer was responsible for the consequences of smoking cigarettes. But what those cases in the 90s proved is that the

companies had made their products deliberately addictive in order to, like, basically physically compel people, like kind of at the point of a biological gun, to smoke those cigarettes more. And that made the companies legally responsible for smoking that took place as a result of the choices to make these addictive features, which is why these cases are focusing so much on addictive features, and it's why they're focusing so much on harms to children, because the legal bar is lower for showing that a child has been led to do something. Like, we kind of take for granted the idea that adults will have more personal responsibility

and are more responsible for a decision, but there are a lot of laws premised in the idea that adults can be held responsible for leading a child to do something harmful. It's also, I think, notable in terms of how the companies and meta is responding, and Zuckerberg responded on the stand because they're trying to defend the fact that they track engagement and how long you spend on the platform. And I think Zuckerberg at one point was like, well, we just do that now to compare with our competitors. That's the only reason we care about how much time is spent on the platform, which tells me. at least, that they know that the weakness of their case here is the fact that they purposely tried and designed the platform to try to maximize engagement.

You can pull up right now, like a hundred different videos of Mark Zuckerberg or Adam Masseri talking about all the ways that they juice the algorithm to try to boost engagement. I mean, you know, the videos are like 2016, 2012, whatever, but this is their business model, which again, like the business model with cigarettes is not nicotine. it's addiction. And that was the big breakthrough that came in those trials. And once they prove that, and it's helped, like you're saying, it's helpful that we just all fucking know this is true. That this is not something. It's not like societal harms. It's like kind of an abstract, complex case to make. But like, is Facebook designed to maximize your time on it? Of course it is.

So they make money. Right. I'm fascinated that Snapchat and TikTok settled ahead of these cases and that meta and Google did not. You make anything of that? That was my big question, Mark, too, because, like you said, this is one of, like, a zillion cases. And the main importance of this case is not whether Kaylee herself receives damages as a result of the lawsuit. The main importance of the case is whether it establishes legally that one can sue a social media company for harm under this set of, like, you design features that were deliberately addictive. So I don't know if the, I think the, I think the. big question is whether the snap and TikTok settlements in some way do something that shield them

from that form of liability in the future, because that's the main thing they care about. It's not this one case, but whether there is an established legal president. But I am very curious about exactly that. I hope that we'll get some more information about what's in the settlements. For sure, for sure. So the AI industry has had quite a couple of weeks. Before we get into the details, you and I haven't talked about AI in a while. How are you feeling about things where they are?

on a scale of annoying slop to apocalypse soon. Look, holding that everything that I've ever said about the harms of AI and my absolute zero faith in the AI industry are like still absolutely true. And I think it's like, I think, you know, the singularity is not coming. I don't think that we're going to date AI's except in the sad as way imaginable, which does seem to be happening more and it's pretty bad for society. There do seem to be more useful use cases out there. You read a lot more about medical imaging that uses AI and has like crazy good success rates of identifying, you know, tumors early on.

You read it about its use in law firms for doing like, you know, research work. And I think the reason I'm optimistic about that is not because I think AI is going to cure cancer. Although it is, you know, you talk to people who work in any medical field and they will be like, this is actually pretty helpful and pretty good. The reason that that makes me feel less pessimistic overall is if those use cases become profitable enough, the AI companies will not go in the direction that I think they would go otherwise, which is to push it into really harmful uses of like, you know, making us all want to fall in love with an AI, like chatbots that will take the place of our human relationships, like filling our feeds with AI slop that's going to, you know, ruin our appreciation of art. So I'm not saying we're definitely going towards the better path, but I do think that

there is potentially a use case of AI that is not all bad that I feel like we're seeing the outlines of. Yeah. I'm still nervous about it's like why not both? Totally. No, 100%. But I think what I'm realizing and have realized in the last several months, I think, is just like any other technology that is developed, right? There is, and maybe more so in the case of AI since it's so much more powerful, there is a really a good case for this technology to be. be harnessed for incredible good. And there is also a case in maybe a probability that it will be

harnessed for incredibly bad things, whether intentionally or just because profit motive and carelessness and political goals have, you know, leads certain people that are running these companies astray. And I think my biggest fear is that all of our political problems right now are rendering us unable to sort of put any kind of guardrails or even have any intelligent, thoughtful debate around whether and how and in what ways we unleash what is clearly an incredibly powerful technology. Yeah, I think there are a lot of ways that it will mirror and exacerbate whatever direction our broader political culture is going in. And it's like, it's tough to defined causality, but like with social media in the 2010s, like our political culture obviously

took a pretty horrible term for a number of reasons. Social media was driving some of those, and in other ways it was reflecting and exaggerating the back into the culture and AI, especially with its potential for deep fakes and disinformation, you know, if we are pushing in a bad direction politically, I'm sure that AI will be like part of that. But, you know, if things can get turned around, then maybe that constrains the harm that AI would do. Yeah. So last week, OpenAI announced that ChatGPT, their flagship product, would begin showing ads on their free tier, kicking off a wave of backlash from users and technology experts,

and their own employees. Zoe Hitzig, a former researcher at OpenAI, published a scathing op-ed about the decision in the New York Times entitled, Open AI is Making the Mistakes Facebook Made, I Quit. In it, she details the ways that ChatGPT has accumulated an unprecedented archive of users' data, and her worries that ChatchupT will in the future manipulate the information it provides to users based upon that data as it sees users more as consumers. What's you make of the op-ed? What's your level of concern about AI advertisements?

Could it really be worse than the Facebook and the Google Ads? I mean, it only has to be that bad. If it's as bad as Facebook or Google Ads, that's, like, plenty bad enough. I think that the op-ed made a good point was that the biggest concern, I think here is not so much that OpenAI will skew its results

to please an advertiser, something like that. But the biggest concern is, like you said, exactly what happened with Facebook and the other platforms, which is just running ads, incentivizes you as a company

to mass surveil and profile and manipulate users, which is something that we just take for granted that these companies do. And they're not doing it in the sense of like trying to manipulate you into buying a product sold by an advertiser. They're manipulating you to spend more time on the platform. So as soon as you are an advertisement-driven platform,

your entire incentive structure changes to maximizing screen time, which is like not really something we need people doing more of. And it's hard to imagine that that problem could get even worse. But this technology is incredibly powerful. We don't really know what it's capable of, but we know that something that it really zeroes in on is human interaction in a way that the old platforms never did. And it really zeroes in on like the way that it appeals to people

and tries to like connect to people's emotions. And even though it is like clumsy and obvious of that, it's obviously at least a little bit effective. And you do worry about like, okay, well, we're going to build a friend that is going to say whatever they have to say to get you to spend as much time talking to them as possible so that you will just look at the infinite scroll ads on the bottom. That's scary. Yes.

I talked to Amanda Askell, who wrote and has developed Claude's constitution at Anthropic for last week's episode. And it's like, okay, I know she works for Anthropic and they are selling a product as well. But it is notable that in the constitution itself, they have directed Claude to not maximize engagement with people through its answers. and I recently switched from partly to prepare for the interview, but now I just have stuck with it. I've changed from Chad GPT to Claude.

And sure enough, it feels a lot different because after giving you the answers you're asking for, Claude doesn't do the follow-up. And can I do this for you? And maybe I can do this for you. And like, like, chat GPT is always asking you if you want more because they want to keep you on. And it's not as sycophantic as chat chad-GPT.

Now. Yeah. And of course, we talked a little bit, too, about the fight between Open AI and Anthropic via the Super Bowl ads. Anthropic ran a bunch of Super Bowl ads, basically criticizing Open AI for running the ads. And then Sam Altman hit back with us, like, very long Bill Ackman-length tweet about how Anthropics just a product for rich people. So they're going to work out the fight over the business models. But it is interesting to me that whether Anthropic succeeds or stays true to the... to that mission or not. It is very clear that there is a discussion going on in these companies

about the value of maximizing user engagement in terms of how they're going to make money and keep people on the platform or whether there's alternative sources of revenue to keep these companies going that don't require ads on the platform. It's fascinating. It's very interesting to see these differences in how the companies address it. And obviously all of these companies have an interest in maximizing or emphasizing those differences and they're like probably more similar than they are different in a lot of ways. I've had the same reaction to you about Anthropic and Claude. I feel like everything I read about Anthropic and I'm going to be really careful not to fall into the trap of like Anthropic is the good one because I think that's not

not exactly what we're saying. But they do at least for the moment seem to be making a show of trying to be the ones who are like responsible. There's a really good like long file of them in New Yorker recently where they talked a lot about like the internal decision making about how they steer the agent one way or another. And again, like they have an interest in presenting that sort of image. But I think it is, even if you take the most cynical view and say that, oh, this is all just marketing and PR, it's at least a good sign that Anthropic believes that there is a lane for them as the like responsible AI company that is going to have an agent that will actually have, you know, useful functions for you rather than just the thing

that is the most addictive, that is the, like, chat GPT seems to have kind of become, like, well, it's the default you have on your phone. It's the thing you pull up instead of Google. It's a thing you just, like, spend time fucking around with on your phone. I don't know if that will actually make them the good one, but they, you know, it is funny, just the, like, branding of it. Like, they clearly want to be, like, the whole foods of AI. It's true. Yeah. Another data point for this argument is also in the news this week. Axios reports that Pete Hegeseth may designate Anthropic a quote supply chain risk, which would mean no company or contractor can work with the defense department if they also work with Anthropic. The reason Hegseth is threatening to punish

Anthropic is because the company reportedly wants to make sure that the government and specifically the military can't use AI to quote spy on Americans and mass or to develop weapons that fire with no human involvement. Jesus Christ. But we're told that the Pentagon claims that's, quote, unduly restrictive and, quote, unworkable. They also claim that they only want the military to be able to use AI for, quote, lawful purposes. Uh-huh. This all comes on the heels of a Wall Street Journal report that Anthropics Claude was used to help plan the raid that captured Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro. Anthropic at the moment is the only AI tool contracted with the Department of Defense to work on classified networks, but of course the Defense Department is working with Google,

Open AI, and all the rest of them. So whether or not we can be a swage that Anthropic is a good actor, I think the larger issue is, even if they are in a very competitive field, isn't it very possible and even likely that the government or other governments are just going to find their own AI models to use for, you know, ill intent? Awful stuff. Yeah. No, I'm sure somebody will be able to, they'll find one of these companies that will do it. And I'm sure Hegg said to some extent, like, yes, I'm sure he's trying to get Anthropic to like bend to his will. But he also just loves having a culture war enemy. So it might just be like, you know, he didn't like the way somebody from Anthropic spoke to him in a meeting. So he's just going to whip something up just because he like gets him back on Fox News that he's going to kill the woke AIs.

And you can tell that the government is trying to because I think Anthropic has been out there trying to like put in place these guidelines. and ethical and all that kind of stuff, they are going to be painted by the right as the woke AI, and pretty soon Grok will be firing all our weapons. Right, telling your AI not to bomb the Middle East as the new DEI that they're going to bar. And if this AI won't bomb the Middle East for us,

we'll find another one. Which just goes to show it's like you can't, again, whether the companies have good intentions or not, whether they stick with those good intentions or not, you can't trust the companies. there's no getting around needing a government and a political system and now many governments working together all around the world to agree on guidelines for artificial intelligence.

There's just no getting around that. My absolute dream scenario, which will never happen, it's a pipe dream, it's just like, but if you just like really live in fantasy land, is what if we had a branch of government and they existed just to pass laws and some of those laws could even constrain what the executive branch.

government did. Now, I don't, it's a silly idea. I don't think it'll ever go anywhere, but I do think that if we had that, I think that it would make a big difference. What if then you had an international body made up of all the, of representatives from all the different governments, and they came together to sort of work out some kind of international, global guidelines, rules? I know you're thinking it's the Board of Peace, but it's not the Board of Peace. No, you're talking about the Jewish one-world government, right? I know we try not to talk about it. the show because we're not supposed to reveal its existence. But I think that's true. Yeah, this is the Ross Child are in charge there. I completely agreeing with all of that, even if we had that,

the thing that I worry about is that at some point the AI bubble will start to, if not burst, deflate a little bit. And then there's going to be very fierce competition among these companies to get any contract they can get their hands on. And I think then it's just like, if DOD wants to do something terrible with AI, the only solution of that is having a more responsible DOD. Offline is brought you by Quince. A well-built wardrobe is about pieces that work together and hold up over time. That's what Quince does best.

Premium materials, thoughtful design, and everyday staples that feel easy to wear and easy to rely on, even as the weather shifts. Quince has the everyday essentials I love with quality that lasts, organic cotton sweaters, polos for every occasion, lighter jackets to keep you warm in the changing seasons, the list goes on. Quince works directly with top factories and cuss out the middlemen so you're not paying for brand markup, just quality clothing. Everything is built to hold up to daily wear and still look good season after season.

Plus, they only partner with factories that meet rigorous standards for craftsmanship and ethical production. Since it's February here in Los Angeles, it's already getting warmer. And I feel like it's time to get some new T-shirts, time to get some new spring clothes. And Quince is the place I go. You go online there, and it's all very affordable. It's great. There's a good variety. So very comfortable to wear.

Holds up well. So go get yourself some quince. Refresh your wardrobe with Quince. Go to quince.com slash offline for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada 2. That's QI-N-C-E.com slash offline. Free shipping and 365-day returns, Quince.com slash offline. Access Storage presents Team Canada snowboarder Mark McMorris.

It's a huge honor to call myself an Olympic medalist. And an even bigger honor to be a three-time Olympic medalist to do those all under the Maple Leaf is incredibly special and I'm eternally grateful. Thank you Canada for your continued support. It's a huge honor to represent our country. Keep cheering. Let's go Canada. Access Storage.

Official storage partner of Team Canada. Finally, it looks like all the big studios and streamers are finally waking up to the possibility that AI may actually kill Hollywood. This week, Bite Dance. You remember them, the Chinese company behind TikTok. They released a new AI model called C.D.

Dance 2.0 that can basically use any existing movie content or IP to create extremely realistic video clips within seconds. Within hours of C-Dance's release, the internet was flooded with videos using copyrighted material like AI-generated Marvel Spider-Man, AI-generated NFL highlights, and a viral video of an AI-generated Brad Pitt fighting Tom Cruise. Let's check that out. I mean, and then that wasn't even the part where they both talk to. and it's like, it's spooky. I had to turn it off then. Yeah, I had to turn it off when they started talking.

It's real uncanny value shit. They did it. Like, what's, this is it. What started is clumsy slop. It is now, it's here. It's here. We are a long way from Will Smith eating spaghetti. Although that was going around again, too.

So almost immediately, studios across Hollywood, including Netflix, Disney, Paramount, Warner Brothers sent cease and desist orders to bite dance to halt the use of copyrighted material. So far, bite dance has. said it quote respects intellectual property rights and has promised to increase safeguards. It's funny, like these clips started going around the next day. I saw the bite-dance statement that they were going to like put, you know, we're now putting in place safeguards. You're not going to be able to do this anymore.

And then like two days after that, I still saw the clips everywhere. And I couldn't tell if it was like old clips or people just getting around it. But like, do you think the studios will actually be able to stop this? So this is actually convinced me more than ever that. AI is not a risk to Hollywood in the way that we have been thinking about it. And I think it is a risk, but I think in like a different way than that is usually discussed. Because when you look at these clips, you feel nothing, right? Like there's no entertainment value.

The only value that it has whatsoever is the way that it's riffing off of real people who we know about. And the way that it's like making a reference to like, wouldn't it be funny if these two actual human beings who you have an actual relationship with had a like little fight on screen for a few seconds? And it really reminded me that the things that we care about, and by we, I mean, like you and I, and I think like people who listen to this show care about in our art and our entertainment are things that AI, I think, can't reproduce. And I don't know, we'll ever be able to. Just like the level of creativity and the human authenticity. And like, you go see a movie.

You go see a Brad Pitt movie, not because you're going to see a person who looks like Brad Pitt, like do polygon shapes on a screen, but because you have a relationship to Brad Pitt. to Brad Pitt the movie persona. And that makes you more interested in seeing him on screen and you feel the same way about other creators. I do think the risk for this that I think we have been missing a little bit the forest of the trees for is that

I think what this threatens is the ecosystem of like short form video is like the absolute bottom of the period. Like I don't think Hollywood needs to be scared about this. I think if you're a TikTok creator, you need to be scared of this stuff because this stuff is cheap to produce and the audience where it's really succeeding are like Facebook.

Doomscrollers. Yeah. You know, like older people who spend a lot of time on their iPad, scrolling Facebook, watching nonsense videos, that's the audience for these clips. And that's the audience that has really been consuming AI slop and big numbers. And I think that that's, you know, it's never going to replace prestige television, never going to replace Mad Men. But it might be the thing that people spend an hour scrolling instead of watching two men and a baby.

I mean, a couple things on this. One, prestige television commands a lot of good reviews and awards and gets the views from libs like us. It's the top of the pyramid. It's the top of the pyramid and sort of mass-produced entertainment. I think this could replace that, no problem. In some ways, and whether this is probably bad for big studios, but maybe good for creators, it might have the potential to empower.

Like, if you are a writer and you come up. up with a very, you know, moving script for a movie or a television show, you can now turn that into that show. Or, I mean, at some point, maybe not now, but at some point with using this technology, you could turn it into a whole film with tools that were not available to you last year. And by the way, you could probably do it with like, I don't know, 1% of the staff in the crew that's on a movie. And I wonder then where the actors come into this, right? Because like you said, you obviously can't be stealing people's likenesses, but maybe

people do. And then what if you don't need Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise? But you just have a like an artificially created actor that you imbue with all the words and all the lines that you write yourself or that AI gives you a first draft of that's not great. And then you decide, okay, well, I'm. I'm going to make it creative and wonderful and meaningful and all the things that we value in art. And then that becomes the next big movie.

So I don't worry about it becoming the next big movie because I think even if you could have an AI that designed something as good as a big movie, I don't think that people would go unless they knew it was real people in it. And I don't think that you would anyway. Because it can only iterate on things that already exist. Like the thing that make, like I just rewatched one battle after another. The thing that make that Leo's performance in it great is what he's doing that's original. If you made an AI slop version of one battle after another, I'm sure you could make it look like something that already existed. But then why would you go watch that instead

of the thing that already existed that's much more exciting because you know that it's authentic? I do think that to your point, though, it does threaten this stuff at kind of like the bottom but also much larger tiers of what we produce and consume in our media. I think a lot about the conversations I've had with designers and illustrators about AI. The people who do like really basic illustrations for like corporate clients who want like an icon to go like somewhere on their website or something have really been Hi AI because now the like marketing manager who is going to hire them to design that logo just makes it themselves on AI and like doesn't hire the designer. But at the same time the people I know who are doing like higher end design work. where it's like designing the entire look of a show, those people love AI because they're like,

the client still needs to hire me because they still need a human's mind and like eye and creativity. Judgment, yeah. Right. But now I as that designer am able to do 10 jobs and the time that it would have taken me to do one because I can use AI to come up with like

a bunch of different mockups. I can show the client about my different ideas before I spent a lot of time like actually crafting one of them. And I think we're going to see more of that bifurcation in creative fields where, you know, I don't think. think the day will ever come that AI replaces like the next Paul Thomas Anderson movie, but I think there will be a ton of like stuff that you have on in the background that will

start to become AI. And I think that stuff is really going to suck. Yeah. Well, speaking to people who may or may not be real, want to talk about clavicular. Good transition. Now, if you know who I'm talking about and are sick of hearing about him, congrats. You are a terminally online Just like me. You're online maxing. Yes, exactly. If you don't, an even bigger congrats and apologies for what we're about to discuss. Clivicular is a 20-year-old streamer who the New York Times described as, quote,

a beacon for a group of narcissistic, status-obsessed young men. In the past few weeks, Clavicular, born Braden Peters in West Orange, New Jersey, has gone from a relatively unknown kick streamer to the pages of GQ. As normal people attempt to make sense of, what's called looks maxing. Clivicular's unusual borderline white supremacist ideology that pursues physical appearance at any cost. So you may have stumbled upon dozens of videos over the past few weeks of him getting into fights at nightclubs, hanging with notorious douchebags like Andrew Tate, Sneco, and Nick Fuentes, or getting frame-mogged by frat boys at Arizona State.

To achieve his own appearance, clavicular has gone to some pretty extreme ends, procuring testosterone supplements off the dark web, taking anabolic steroids, and even hitting himself in the face with a hammer, which he believes has improved his jawline. Not kidding about that. Max, you look great. Have you also been bone smashing? I've found that my bone smashing is really, it's, you know, just with your morning coffee, just a little bit of bone smashing. There's something about the whole, like, in-cell culture that treats everything is like you either have to be the like ultra-chad or you. you the saddest beta in the world that just makes me feel pleased as punch to be like a five and a half and like very happy with that. And you you haven't been like clavicular was smoking meth

just to help with your appetite. Well, that's really none of your business. When I, what I am or I'm not smoking. Listen, I'm not, I'm not a crooked employee anymore. So I can smoke whatever I want. Oh, you think you very much. You know, I don't know if we have specific guidelines against smoking meth, at least in the office. So it is funny. It's like this has been. been, you know, people have known about clavicular for quite some time. It sort of broke out into the mainstream, like, into sort of the political realm and, you know, Twitter and everything else. When Michael Knowles from the Daily Wire interviewed clavicular, and he started talking about sort of the difference between Gavin Newsom and J.D. Vance, and even though, like, is right-wing

coded in many ways and, you know, like white supremacists coded in some ways as well, was basically like, oh, I would never vote for J.D. Vance over Gavin Newsom because Gavin Newsom mocks J.D. Vance. And, you know, J.D. Vance is obese. And it was this whole fucking thing. So then, from then on, it just like, it broke containment. Now it's lame. Now people like us are talking about it. I know. Right. I know. Now that we're talking about it, it's over. That's right. Although it does, it makes you wonder, what if the Democratic path to the White House in 2008 is wine moms, podcast listeners, and far right in cells? It's not the coalition I would pick. But, you know, sometimes, you've got to go to voters where they are. I believe in a big tent. Just as we were preparing for this today and the tariff decision came down, there was a tweet from a Democratic communication staffer. This is how you really know. It's over. Breaking, Trump brutally law-mogged by SCOTUS for tariff maxing, a decision sure to spike White House's cortisol. I saw that too. I had such a laugh on it. And I was like, if these jokes are for me now, then it's really like it couldn't be more dead.

Why do you think this is captured so much of our attention? Shock value, humor? I mean, look, having previously been a part of the young generation that is now the old generation, when you were the young generation, yes, every once in a while, the rest of society discovers, like, what you're up to, and there's shock and horror just like always drives the news cycle for a little bit. I would argue that far-right insult as mass culture is a little bit worse than avocado toast, but maybe that's just the millennial supremacist in me. No, I think it's just like, I mean, it's partly just like it's funny. Like the way that they talk is ridiculous.

The language is very funny. Right. The language, it's funny. It's fun to like, I've obviously used it like 18 times already today. Like, it's fun to pick up. It's fun to throw around. I do think there is also like a glimmer of reckoning. Like, I think we all instantly kind of recognize the vague contours of what this culture is,

even if like I was reading about like the looks max and community and like who they are and where they come from. But it's like, you kind of already know as soon as you, like, see this guy and you see, like, the videos and what they're interacting with. And seeing that there are still these remnants of, like, or not even remnants, like, in-cell culture and, like, men's rights, like, angry, aggrieved loners in their basement to, like, Andrew Tate is, like, still with us. And just kind of, like, off-simmering somewhere into this whole subculture that might not even know where it comes from is, like, kind of darkly fascinating. There are also, unfortunately, when you really dig into this, I say unfortunately, because digging into it is unfortunate. There is like a, you can see why there's a slight difference, but important difference between the Nick Fuentes pure sort of white nationalist right wing ideological types and the looks maxers who will say racist, bigoted things and sort of tried to be claimed by, or at least the right wing tries to claim them, even though it turns out like clavular isn't really. give a shit about politics at all. And the reason why they're lumped together, I think, is maybe best summed up in the GQ story

about this by a looks maxer known as Pariah the doll, who is asked to describe why clavicular has gone so viral. And he says, I think it's because the only chance at upward mobility as a normal white guy in America is to be extremely beautiful and an online troll. That's interesting. That's such a sad statement, but also I'm like, yeah, that's it. That's what this is reduced to, right? Which is that they think.

And that is what clavicular is. The only way you succeed is you've got to be as good looking as possible. And the only way you get attention is to be as trollish as possible. And so there are no other deep ideologically held beliefs other than that. And just like all that matters is me getting attention and me getting some kind of recognition. And whatever I have to say, whoever I have to hurt, whatever I have to do, whatever I have to do whatever I have to like stoop to is fine because that's the only thing that matters in life. And that is a very like extremely online kind of belief that I think that probably too many young men have today.

Right. It's the same animating belief that gave rise to like the insaw movement, the men rights movement, like GamerGate, as we know it, this belief that the system at large is rigged. Like in their case, it was dating in relationships. It seems like it's still kind of part of the looks maxing like. worldview, although it's also much more about like masculinity and whiteness, but this sense that like everything is fake, everything is like cynical and everybody is just like lying and being manipulative and it's like zero some and do whatever you have to do to get ahead. And it like kind takes that as a given and says, well, we're going to play that game and get into that. And that's how you like have this entire worldview that's about, you know, like frame mogging the idea being that if you have a more correctly shaped frame, you will win the interaction. And winning the interaction

is the way that you get ahead. And that's the only thing that matters because that's the only thing that's real. And it's like this same idea that it's like dating and relationships are fake. And it's all just a big con. So you've got to get in on the con by treating people as objects to be kind of manipulated and push around. And it does seem to speak to the same core like nihilism that we have talked about it's like a very online thing, but also it's not just online, but it's like one of the main things that had been driving our political culture for the last 10, 15 years. I was going to say it's very, it's very Trumpian, even though Donald Trump definitely not a looksmaxer. Much more, much more of a jestergoon. He is frame-mogging, but not on the way that the looksmaxers would suggest that you should do that. Yes, he is burger cake maxing.

Yeah, no, you're right. It is very trumping. He did have a cortisol spike at that press conference today. and he was definitely gesturing some of the reporters. The tweet was right. The tweet was correct. They were right that the White House's cortisol levels were spake. But you're right. And it's like, I know this is something we've talked about a thousand times, but it's like, how do you convince people that like actually there is a social contract?

Or wouldn't it be great if there was? Yes. Or if you buy into the idea of a collective good and a society and institutions, then like we can actually all be happy together. Like, as a society, like working together instead of constantly. constantly working against each other and seeing one another's threats that have to be, you know, frame-mogged away. And it is something that is, it's building a culture. It's going to take more than laws. It's going to take people like showing others that there is a better example to follow. Right. But anyway, it's been really fun max-maxing with you today.

Oh, thanks, fan. Yeah. Anytime. Anytime you want to max-max, I'm ready to do it. But not crucially, we're not. Crucially, we're not. not mocking. We're not mocking. We're, I mean, we're mocking Mark Zuckerberg, but we're not, you know. We did, we did some real mocking of Mark Zuckerberg today. Austin's ready, Austin's ready to run away and quit. It's shaking his head. Yeah. I texted, I was texting with Austin earlier, and we were talking about some of this stuff. And I was like, do people know what the Arab Spring is in your generation? Austin is the youngest person I've ever met. So I was like, do young people know what the Arab Spring is? And he was like, kind of, but they know game or game more. And I was like, well, I'm going to fucking kill myself. That's the one.

the worst thing I've ever heard. On that note, I've got to jump into another recording, so we're just going to end it here. Max. Perfect. Good to see you, buddy. All right, pal. Take care.

Anytime. See you. As always, if you have comments, questions, or guest ideas, email us at offline atcrucid.com, and if you're as opinionated as we are, please rate and review the show on your favorite podcast platform. For ad-free episodes of offline and Podsave America, exclusive content and more,

go to cricket.com slash friends to subscribe on Supercast, Substack, YouTube, or Apple Podcasts. If you like watching your podcast, subscribe to the Offline with John Favreau YouTube channel. Don't forget to follow Cricket Media on Instagram, TikTok, and the other ones for original content, community events, and more. Offline is a Cricket Media production.

It's written and hosted by me, John Favro. It's produced by Emma Ilich Frank. Austin Fisher is our senior producer. Adrian Hill is our head of news and politics. Jerich Centeno is our sound editor and engineer. Audio support from Kyle Segglin. Jordan Katz and Kenny Siegel take care of our music. Thanks to Dilan Villanueva and our digital team

who film and share our episodes as videos every week. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. If you guys like Pod Save America, please consider subscribing to our Friends of the Pod program. So Friends of the Pod get lots of stuff. You get more Pod Save America. That includes our new show,

which is called Pod Save America Only Friends. It's where Dan gets naked. Where Dan gets full frontal nudity, but mostly it's a biweekly subscription-exclusive podcast. that is basically Pod Save America, but behind a paywall. So it's a little bit looser and more fun, and it's Love It, and Favreau, and me and Fifer, and then other Cricot host, we go deeper on the news and cover more stories. You also get Open Taps, which is a weekly behind-the-scenes newsletter from the show.

Plus, you get ad-free episodes of your favorite crooked podcasts and all kinds of other stuff. Dan will come to your house and clean it once every quarter. Yeah, clothes. Dan is very busy, clothes only. But along with just getting great content, becoming a friend of the pod, joining our subscription community, is the number one thing you can do to help us grow to help independent progressive media. So if you're ever thought about doing it, if you ever wanted more Pod Save America, consider going to cricket.com slash friends and becoming a friend of the pod.