Pivot - EV Declines, Net Neutrality, and an AI Executive Order

Episode Date: October 31, 2023

Kara and Scott are making the TV rounds: Kara was on The Simpsons, and Scott was on Bill Maher! They’re also on their way to The White House as President Biden launches a new approach to AI. Then, the FCC is ready to restore net neutrality. And auto executives are pumping the breaks on electric vehicles. Follow us on Instagram and Threads at @pivotpodcastofficial. Follow us on TikTok at @pivotpodcast. Send us your questions by calling us at 855-51-PIVOT, or at nymag.com/pivot. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for Pivot comes from Virgin Atlantic. Too many of us are so focused on getting to our destination that we forgot to embrace the journey. Well, when you fly Virgin Atlantic, that memorable trip begins right from the moment you check in. On board, you'll find everything you need to relax, recharge, or carry on working. Buy flat, private suites, fast Wi-Fi, hours of entertainment, delicious dining, and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. delicious dining and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. Check out virginatlantic.com for your next trip to London data, and a matching engine that helps you find quality candidates fast. Listeners of this show can get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash podcast.

Just go to Indeed.com slash podcast right now and say you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need to hire? You need Indeed. Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher.

And I'm Scott Galloway. All right, Scott, what is with your costume? I don't know what to say. Come on! I was triggered. I was triggered. I literally opened threads up, and there you were. And then there you were with Bill Maher.

It was very disturbing in the entire, and everyone was like, find out what happened, Cara. So what happened, Scott Galloway? Well, the costume was genius. I went as Deadpool. Yeah. And I mean, Halloween's by far my favorite holiday. And because I'm friends with Kara Swisher, I get invited to fancy, cool parties.

Okay. And so... Which I did not get invited to, but please go on. So I went to this great party in LA after Bill Maher. And then Bill Maher showed up, which meant I must be at the right place. Okay. Or maybe not, but go ahead. That was great. I had a ton of fun. So you dressed up as Deadpool. Why? And where did you get this costume? And how long did you wear it? Well, I'm still wearing it. I'm taking it off. I'm like a four-year-old that just loves this princess, little princess outfit. Yes,

because Claire's been in her outfit quite a bit. But go ahead. No, the reality is I can't take any credit for it. I have the most wonderful, thoughtful assistant who literally said, you're going to be in LA for Halloween weekend. We need to get you a great outfit. And she did.

And she had a makeup artist come over and make me, I went as Deadpool after the fire. So I had a makeup artist come over. And the very sad part was I said, I need to look like someone who's been totally mutilated. And she looked at me and she's like, no problem. It's going to be easy. But she put all these scars on my face.

And it was a time. God, it was great. I had a ton of fun. I'm really blessed. You had a good time. You had a good time. Was it very Hollywood-y? Was it like all Hollywood people?

There were. I think I'm kind of their diversity invite. Like, oh, yeah, I'm like the professor. That's kind of funny. Yeah, yeah. It was a bunch of fabulous, good looking young people. And I'm none of those things. But yeah, I had a great time. Great time. What'd you do? and she had a great time. She watched the whole thing through. She's only four, but she managed to do it. A lot of little girls dancing in the aisles.

And it was a great film, I have to say. Another flawless effort by Taylor Swift, totally classy. Everything that you might indulge yourself doing, like behind the scenes, she didn't do. It was just the concert, beautifully photographed. Beautiful. Even, like, at the end, the end credits were beautiful. It was really well done. And then I decorated Halloween all weekend. I did an excellent job

as dad, dad Swisher, decorating the house. Can we make a deal? If I stop with the dick chokes, will you never bring up Taylor Swift again? No, no, no. Because you're not going to stop with the dick jokes. Fair enough. Fair enough. Big Ed and the twins are still with us. All right. But let me just say, dick jokes are not the engine of our economy and keeping us out of recession. But let's not go into that. And she's a billionaire now, by the way. Anyway, Scott, we were all over the airwaves this weekend. I was on The Simpsons. They did a mockumentary episode about Elizabeth Holmes-type character.

Let's listen to a clip. So Lifeboat was just following the tech industry playbook. Fake it till you make it. Or as I call it, lie-PO until you I-PO. But the employees were already dreaming of cashing out. And you were on Real Time

with Bill Maher. Let's hear a clip where you're talking about the new Speaker of the House. We are normalizing climate change. We are normalizing anti-Semitism, and we are normalizing a kicking out of the legs of the stool of democracy. Central to our democracy, regardless of what you think about our country, it's the best of its kind so far, hands down. Democracy, the pillars of that are, one, the peaceful transfer of power. And this guy was an architect of trying

to arrest that in a society that is secular. And when a guy gets this nod and says that God ordained it, I'm like, well, boss, whose God is that? Because this is the whole point here is that we separate church and state, that we believe in the peaceful transfer of power. How did your show go? peaceful transfer of power. How did your show go? Thanks for asking. It was the least enjoyable Bill Maher experience I've had, not through any fault of their own. But I know them well enough now that I can kind of feel, not their stress, but I know that the two producers are these like Friday Night Lights people. They're like the people you'd want as parents. They're these impossibly good looking and cool parent,

parental people. And I've become fond of them, for lack of a better term. And they had Governor Cuomo on, and it was just very, I don't want to say tense, but they realized they had a very difficult, near-impossible job of threading the needle, of trying to be, not being seen as an apologist for him, but at the same time, afford him some respect. And the panel, sorry, the interview was with him and his top aide. And it went 17 minutes instead of 12. So we had very little time on the panel. So me and Jessica Torlov, who is the other panelist, who by the way is wonderful, and she did a great job. We didn't get much time to talk. And then the panel afterwards,

the overtime was Jessica had to leave because Fox won't let her do anything that has to do with CNN. And they put overtime on CNN. So it was me, the governor, and his assistant. And so the topics were genocide and people dying in nursing homes. And at one point, I'm literally like, I'm a marketing professor. Can we talk about TikTok or something? And I wanted to be airlifted out of there. It just got so serious so fast. I was out over my skis so much. I did not know really how to, it just, I'm there with the governor

and his aide on Bill Maher. And I remember thinking like, you know, Calgon, take me away. How did I get here? Anyways, I always love going on the show. I'm always flattered. I also, and I've told you this, I get very nervous on that show. I don't get nervous. I also, and I've told you this, I get very nervous on that show.

I don't get nervous anywhere else. Yeah, you do. Why is that? You've done really well. I appreciate you saying that. You haven't seen the show. But, Scott, the most important thing that we're doing, first of all, let's begin because it is on the news, is we're going to the White House. Good. More about us. I know. More about us.

But we're going to the White House. We're going for lunch. We're going for a tour. But we're going to the White House because President Biden is launching a new approach on AI on Monday, and we're going to be there to hear about it. We may speak to some people on Thursday about it who are in the middle of it. The executive order will create standards and rules around AI, taking on algorithmic housing discrimination, cybersecurity, data privacy. It will require developers to follow new safety guidelines and create government standards to discern AI-generated content. So, it's going to be interesting. My issue, as always, is why hasn't Congress acted here? Why is this an executive order? But we'll listen to see what they have. Some of the stuff is leaked out of what's in it. You have been deemed an AI influencer by the White House, Scott. Are you going to behave? I'm being very serious. I'm very excited and a little bit nervous about it. So I'm excited to be here with you. I feel as if I have sort of an insider. I've never really felt, I haven't spent that much time in D.C. I definitely feel

like a fish out of water here. But I'm just super excited. It took me, you know, 58 years to get to the White House. So here I am, or here we are, I should say. Yeah. So from the AI rules, do you know anything about them? Or are you just going to show up and look pretty and I'm going to do all the talking? Is that what's happening? I'm literally just going to listen and try and keep an open mind and be very supportive of what I... Look, you can sort of heckle from the cheap seats about an absence of regulation, and then they try to get out in front of this, which I think is the right thing to do. And I'm going to try and be very supportive. And should they want feedback on it, I think this is a big issue.

And I respect the fact that rather than trying to let it grind through the gears of Congress or not, they're trying to get out in front of it. I think it speaks well to the administration that they're at least thinking about it. My guess is they won't get it right. They won't get it perfect. But for God's sakes, at least they're starting, right? Is there one area you think they really need to focus in on from your perspective? They're doing a lot of things here. This is sort of a broad thing of how agencies should act and all kinds of, you know, they're focused on algorithmic discrimination. Obviously, it's important to someone like me, but I think also standards about where AI-generated

content come from. It's going to affect every industry, especially media, which we're in. So these are the kind of things they have to be thinking about. I'm worried they're going to spend, and this is going to come off as get off my lawn privilege like I've been. I'm worried they're going to spend a ton of time, you know, trying to figure out the biases. The problem is this thing is going to have a bias because historically we are a biased nation. So every piece of content that's fed into this thing will reflect our biases to date. And I think that's an issue.

But I think there are much more important fish to fry here, specifically ensuring that foreign bad actors don't use AI-tested misinformation to pervert the elections to further divide us. I think the biggest threat to America right now is not Putin. It's not jihadists. It's the fact that we're being divided internally by these platforms. And then when you have an amoral management team of platforms willing to cash anyone's check and someone can AI-test information to try and get Trump elected such that they overnight win the war in Ukraine. I think this is a defense issue. I think it's a propaganda issue. So yeah, let's make sure that it uses the right pronouns, but I don't think

that's our biggest problem. Okay. All right. I want you to say that to President Biden. He's going to be there, you know. Yeah, I'm excited. Do we get to take a picture with him or anything like that? I don't even know. How does this all work? We'll see if we can get you a picture. That's literally how I'm doing. I'm such a tourist. I'm such a tourist. Do we get a picture with him? Mom.

Two things before we go. One is you are not to wear that outfit. You are not to wear that outfit to the White House. One. No, I've been hauling a suit. I've been hauling a Deadpool costume and swords and a suit around America. You're not wearing any of that to the White House. Number two, do not touch anything when we're there.

I want you to keep your hands. Why would I not touch anything? Don't, like, touch vases. Don't touch buttons. Don't set off a nuclear situation. I'm very well behaved. I don't go, don't wander around like you're in, like, National Treasure. I just want you to just stick with me, okay? And we'll be good. You got it? All right? You should behave.

I'm both a little bit insulted and flattered that you're worried about me. Yeah, I thought you might wear the outfit. You know, I have been to this stuff before. Okay, all right. But it's the White House. This is the White House. You know, I've been to like bar mitzvahs and stuff. Okay, this is the White House. You'll see. You're going to be awed. I have to say, I'm awed every time I go into the White House. You still do. As cynical as I can be, I'm always awed by the White House. We're right near it. So we're going to walk over, we're going to wander over and go over there. I'm going to give you a little historical facts as we walk over. You're going to be irritated. It's going to be great. Matthew Perry, who died this weekend at age 54. He's best remembered for playing Chandler Bing,

of course, on Friends, but had a number of other roles in TV shows and movies. But really, he was Chandler Bing. He was very candid about his issues with substance abuse and addiction over the years. That book was something else. I know a lot of people like to drag on Friends, but I liked it. I watched so many episodes. He was obviously a very gifted comic actor, seemed to be a very kind person suffering from, you know, people kept calling him sad clown this weekend, which was sad. And he, of course, died in a very sad way. I don't know if you have any thoughts on this, but he was very candid about an inability to beat his substance abuse issues. Look, I think one of the ways you grow and mature as a person, and maybe unless you're more evolved, when I was younger, my attitude towards addiction

was quite frankly a little bit like get your shit together, as if it was something that was more controllable. And then as you get older and if you get exposed to people, I remember, Cara, because I was someone's boss, being invited to an intervention of a kid who had an addiction to heroin, and quite frankly was a high-functioning person. I had no

idea. And they all went around the room and told him how much they loved the kid and how fucked up his life was. And I'm not exaggerating. He said, I love you all. I get it. I choose heroin. I mean, it was just so like, oh my God, did he just say that? And you just see the kind of grip that substance abuse has on people and how they know it's ruining them. I mean, I love, I saw this meme that said, addiction is choosing one thing over everything else. And recovery is an attempt to choose everything else over one thing. And some people just don't have that choice. Their brain makes that connection and it just takes over their life. And it's sad because you get the sense. I mean, I didn't know the guy. Maybe you know him. He just seemed like a nice guy who was really struggling. And so you feel for him and his family. Yeah. So you need to watch all the reaction

because every single person, there's not one negative thing. There was one comic that was obnoxious about how he died, but it seems like every single person has written a lovely thing about him. You know, like that lovely guy struggling. I thought that book was, I thought it was quite a gripping book. I thought it was very honest. You know, he'd spent, I think he said he spent $7 million trying to get clean and just couldn't. Now he was apparently in a clean period, but he was very honest about his struggles of depression and mixed with opiate addiction in his case. And he, you know, he had one thing where he said, you could tell where I was in my addictions by what I look like on the show. If I was heavy, it was alcohol.

If I was skinny, it was pills. And if it was skinny with a goatee, it was lots of pills. I mean, which is funny, but not really. I just thought he did a really good job at what he did. And it's sad that he... It is sad. It is sad. Anyway, Matthew Perry, Godspeed, Matthew Perry. You give a lot of enjoyment to a lot of people. Perry. Godspeed, Matthew Perry. You give a lot of enjoyment to a lot of people. And really, again, just a very lovely, seems like a lovely person who had a very troubled life. Anyway, let's get to our first big story.

The FCC is ready to restore net neutrality. At a recent meeting, the commission voted to move forward on a proposal to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, making it subject to oversight and regulation. The FCC chair says the move will, quote, protect Internet openness and consumers, defend national security and advance public safety. The final vote on the proposal is likely to happen next year. Federal authority over broadband would likely include regulation of blocking, throttling, and paid traffic prioritization. Reminder, the FCC under President Obama moved to reclassify broadband in 2015. The FCC under President Trump reversed that in 2017. This has been a real volleyball match, net neutrality, and not an interesting one. Thoughts? Any at all? You know, Cara, you're going to forget more about this than I'm ever going to know. I just don't really, I understand the basics here, but I don't get the nuance. What are your thoughts

here? Well, you know, I think of the internet as a utility, but it's also, look, these are for-profit. I don't know why we don't consider it a utility. I never understood that. And if you call the net neutrality, it's a confusing debate, right? And in a lot of ways, when I hear from, say, the cable companies or the internet service providers or various things, they have a point. You know, they built these things, they've made them possible. And at the same time, prices are crazy all over the place. You know what I mean? Like, it's not, it doesn't make any sense. And so I think this has been sort of a capitalism versus communism, I guess, or cook hot with commons argument for a very, very long time. I do not see why it is not regulated

like telecommunications. I've never understood that. And that it's one of these things like with telephones, but even more so that internet openness and consumer access to this seems like both not just national security and public safety, but a priority for education. I just have never understood how it became so capitalistic and not thinking of it as a commons. I've always thought there should be a federal, you know, and that companies get to decide the blocking, the throttling, you know, which, as you recall, from many years ago, that was the, you know, that you could pay to be faster at these things. And I think you should be able just like, kind of reminds me of medicine or access to medical things. Like this is kind of a, I don't know, it seems like table stakes for a society

to have, you know, the U.S. has always been way behind in this when you look at all the statistics and the highest in price and the least connectivity. And it seems, I just can't believe we're still arguing for this decades later. But to be fair, I do remember when they did away with kind of net neutrality or the FCC did away with another Trump administration. And there was a lot of the sky is going to fall and poor people won't be able to get broadband and they'll start throttling different things to price gouge. And I haven't, at least as a consumer, seen that. Where I do think it makes sense, I think the better argument around regulation is that when this very important channel is controlled by for-profit entities, similar to social media, they're not going to have the same incentives around defense issues, around whether or not, you know, they'll just go to the lowest cost bidder. And if it's Huawei,

and there's a defense risk there, you know, Meta or Netflix, whoever it is, quite frankly, doesn't care. And I do think there are defense issues around operating the backbone that kind of delivers oxygen and all information to Americans. And I like the idea of a bureaucrat or a regulator saying, okay, this could pose a defense risk when you're inserting Chinese hardware technology, or could someone potentially just shut this thing off? So I look at it more through a defense lens because I don't see the same kind of monopoly abuse here. Maybe it's because I'm privileged and I don't look at my bill. Well, I think, I don't know. This is, there's an interesting Washington Post editorial, which I kind of liked, and they noted that. They

said, dismayed advocates warn the world that without protection in place, the internet would break. You'll never guess what happened next. Nothing, or at least almost nothing. The internet did not break. The internet service providers, for the most part, did not block. They did not throttle. All the same, today's FCC under Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has moved to reclassify broadband. The interesting part is that her strongest argument doesn't have much to do with net neutrality, but with some other benefits the country could see from having a federal watchdog keeping an eye on the broadband business. That's really what I think is important. And this is the last part, asserting federal authority over broadband

would empower regulation of any throttling, blah, blah, blah. It could help ensure the safety and security of U.S. networks. The FCC has on national security grounds removed authorization for companies affiliated with adversary states such as China's Huawei from participating U.S. telecommunications market. The agency can do that for phone carriers, but it can't do it for broadband because it isn't allowed to. Same thing with public safety. I think those are more of the arguments. I think it sort of got sucked up into this somehow Comcast was going to fuck us, right? That was basically one side. And the other was, we're not going to fuck you, we're making it better kind of thing. And I just think, you know, the fact that the fact is, again, getting back to our White House visit and everything else is so much of this stuff has not been updated by Congress,

you know, because it's, it's the Telecommunications Act is, is, is archaic, like is the Washington Post calls it. And I think that's the, you need some sort of internet governance. And so what is that? And they resist governance, but they haven't written any new laws for the new era, right? And there's some very serious things, including around public safety, including around national security and cyber attacks, that other telecoms are policed in some fashion. And so that to me is the best. I mean, the word net neutrality, your eyes glaze over, right? Like, you just, your eyes glaze over and you can't understand it. And when it becomes a capitalist argument, it becomes a partisan fight. And that's why it degenerates. But when you think of it as an important common utility that we all need for both public safety, national security, and education, it's a much better argument to make for having some government oversight of this. So that's my argument. Thank you. I'd like to be FCC chairman. We'll see where it goes from here.

We should have the chairperson on from there talking about what's going on so she can explain it to us. And then someone who doesn't agree with it still. But not the same argument. We should start to think about it in a new, fresh way. All right, Scott, let's go on a quick break. We come back. Why the EV gamble isn't paying off. Fox Creative. This is advertiser content from Zelle. When you picture an online scammer, what do you see? For the longest time, we have these images of somebody sitting crouched over their computer with a hoodie on, just kind of typing away in the middle of the night. And honestly, that's not what it is anymore. That's Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter. These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates than individual con artists.

And they're making bank. Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion. It's mind-blowing to see the kind of infrastructure that's been built to facilitate scamming at scale. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scam centers all around the world. These are very savvy business people. These are organized criminal rings. And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem, we can protect people better.

One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed to discuss what happened to them. But Ian says one of our best defenses is simple. We need to talk to each other. We need to have those awkward conversations around what do you do if you have text messages you don't recognize? What do you do if you start getting asked to send information that's more sensitive? Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness, a smaller dollar scam, but he fell victim. And we have these conversations all the time. So we are all at risk and we all need to work together to protect each other. Learn more about how to protect yourself at vox.com slash Zelle. And when using digital payment platforms, remember to only send

money to people you know and trust. Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home. Out. Uncertainty. Self-doubt. Stressing about not knowing where to start. In. Pl plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done. Out, word art. Sorry, live laugh lovers. In, knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today. Scott, we're back with auto execs pumping the brakes on the electric vehicle expansion due to slowing sales and growing inventory. GM and Honda announced last week they're ditching a partnership aimed at developing lower priced EVs, with GM also abandoning a target to build 400,000 EVs by mid 20242024. Ford just announced on a third quarter earnings call that it's postponing $12 billion in planned spending on EV production. Toyota's chairman

was recently asked about this downtrend in U.S. EV demand and said people are finally seeing reality, although they were deep into it. What do you make of this slowdown? Toyota's been more investing in hybrids, where people are just, they're still in hybrids. They like electric, but they don't want to go fully electric. How do you look at this? So I think that everybody was so intoxicated and getting so shamed about not being Tesla. You know, when Tesla became worth more than the entire auto market, correctly, every board said, well, what's the difference between us and Tesla? And they thought, well, it's EV production.

And you can understand that. But it was a lot more than that. Musk had done a great job leveraging the media, got people very excited about this future, dominated what was supposed to be the next thing. And that conference I was at with you, there was someone from the oil and gas industry. And he said that effectively, if you asked auto companies to just figure out a way to buy carbon credits or invest in reforestation and go carbon neutral with all the cars they're producing, that that would be a more economical way of helping the environment and giving people transportation needs because EVs are still very expensive and they have their own environmental issues. Now, whether you believe that or not, it's clear that the automobile manufacturers, I mean, you could argue strategically that this was a bit of a dumb move. You got to skate to where the puck is, but you also got to realize we're really good at building internal combustion engines. And we're really good at building cars with consumers who still, for the most part, when they look at the value trade tradeoff, like internal combustion engines.

I mean, they're voting with their pocketbook. It's still kind of the dominant technology platform out there. But these companies are now thinking, okay, did we make investments that were just too aggressive and they're scaling back a bit? What are your thoughts, Kara? Here's the thing. I do think people will eventually, I think everyone who wants an EV has bought an EV, right? Or they're in it. I like mine. I love mine. I think it's great. And those who can afford to put electric chargers in their homes, they're coming down in price, obviously. And it's still not built out, so people are still

nervous about it. And then the price point is not, I think at one point when I interviewed Bill Gates, he called it the green premium has to come down to equality, right? That it's just as cheap kind of thing. And they tend to make choices if that's the case, economic choices. What's interesting is Toyota, there's this new Toyota CEO that's sort of lecturing everyone, but the company itself had an in-house startup that was supposed to take the company into the future. This is a great story in the Wall Street Journal. They did a great job on it. The unit's plans included a multibillion-dollar city where people could test out self-driving cars and live in smart homes, also a new operating system for Toyota cars that's been delayed. They hired a very prominent Google car person. a very prominent Google car person. I do think everyone did get ahead of themselves where the consumer wasn't yet. At the same time,

and I think you're right about sort of the Tesla envy that sort of pushed, it reminds you of streaming, right? Everybody rushed into streaming after Netflix in some ways, and then there was only Netflix left to make money at this. Yeah, so Ford said it's postponing $12 billion in planned spending. They've already abandoned their targets. The bottom line is they all thought they would get the same sort of Tesla bump, and they haven't. What they did was the worst of both worlds. They don't get credit for

forward-leaning investments in EVs. At the same time, their profits are going down because people still want to buy Escalates. And the most profitable part of the U.S. auto industry is trucks, you know, kind of the desire to be strong or caveman instincts. But the majority of people, including myself, still like the feel of an internal combustion engine. And... Yeah, I don't know. I think they would switch pretty quickly. I mean, you know, I think everyone liked landlines, I guess, and then they didn't. Like, they liked mobiles. I was driving the Ford 150. It's a great car, I have to say, the Lightning. It's a very powerful car. It was a terrific car. It's just expensive. And I think people are nervous, right? And it's not that they did being able to charge it, et cetera, et cetera. And it's just the consumers haven't shifted over yet. So do you imagine there being like the same thing with streaming, which is these people are all in for this, but they're going to lose a lot of money and then sort of Tesla cleans up? Because I don't know if this will help Tesla necessarily,

but maybe it will. Well, I mean, already 50% of U.S. adults have said they don't see themselves as likely EV buyers. And what's the scariest thing about that number is that it's risen, and that is more people now see themselves as less likely to own an EV. And most of it is they blame a lack of EV infrastructure. something weird about so um there is something weird about going on a trip and being feeling vulnerable you know that you go to disney like it's not a gas station there's always a gas station i remember i checked in and i went to you know orlando and i checked in and i said can you charge our car and they said oh the thing we have is broken not working you feel just you you feel Not working. You feel vulnerable. And then you have GM and Ford have both shed, once shed 19%, Ford's off 14% year to date. And this is an environment where their stocks look cheap and the S&P is up. Now, granted, that's largely been driven by just a small number of stocks that are inspired by AI. So they're saying they could be a quarter of new sales by 2035. But at that point, only 13% of vehicles on the road would be electric.

I was really fascinated at this conference talking to this oil and gas guy. And granted, he's talking in his own book. But he's like, if the goal is to grow the economy and the goal is to decarbonize the world or get in the way of climate change, there are cheaper, more efficient ways to do it. Yeah, you know, he talked about what I thought was really fascinating, and I didn't know this. He said the cheapest way to take carbon out of the air is reforestation.

You know, it all comes to, what is it? Although Bill Gates isn't for that, but go ahead. There's lots of arguments, but go ahead. Yeah, but it just sort of fascinated me. Like, if the goal is just to get carbon out of the air, okay, one means is to spend money to, like, I've always, I've been, I'm really excited about the idea of sustainable aviation fuels that are just put less shit into the air. And he kind of walked me through the math and said, you'd be much better off planting trees. And I think the answer at the end of the

day is we need to do all of it. We need to do all of it, you know, just really, really go after it. But anyways. Yeah, that's interesting. I do think people would pick an EV if that green premium came down. Like, they start to pick those things, right? They start to move in that direction. Because, I mean, I think not everybody likes to go vroom, vroom. But it is a different sound.

There's a lot in my, you know, neighborhood. There are a mix of electric cars and a lot of electric cars and high a lot of hybrids a lot of hybrids people are seem to like feel safer in a hybrid um but it but the cars the the electric cars have that when they come down the street right they when they can't barely hear them i can hear them you know i have that sound and i kind of like it i find it rather soothing um rather than a vroom vroom vroom and it's because there's a guy who comes every night in front of our house and parks and vroom, vroom, vrooms for some reason plays music. It's kind of this weird, we don't know what to do about it. And it's really irritating because he vrooms and he plays really bad music. And then the other person has an EV and it goes,

as it comes in. So it's, I don't know. We'll see where it goes. One of the stories that actually got a lot of attention to is self-driving cars. You know, I love self-driving cars. I do not drive in cruises because I'm more worried about them. I thought the Waymos are doing a better job in San Francisco, but there was a terrible accident in San Francisco where a driver car hit someone, was tossed into the road, and a GM cruise ran over the person and wouldn't get off because they didn't know what to do. The car didn't know what to do. It was initially caused by a human, which is, the whole thing is a mess.

It's a real mess. But GM's subsidiary cruise announced this week is proactively pausing driverless operations nationwide. It's been operating lots of places, including San Francisco. The California DMV suspended its license to operate, calling the vehicles not safe for public after the incident. Waymo did not. Again, I ride in Waymos and I do not ride in Cruzes because I know a little bit about what they're doing at Waymo versus Cruise. And I felt less safe in those. You know,

this driverless thing is also still going to be problematic largely because of the interaction between cars and people, like drivers, human drivers, human pedestrians, people getting used to these things. Again, a very problematic, you know problematic transition that's going to be happening. I still do think eventually everyone's going to be in driverless cars, and I'm a proponent of them, but it's definitely a setback. The thing I don't get about it, and I wonder if some of it is political or being sponsored, the backlash that's being sponsored by varying lobbying groups who have a vested interest in the status quo, because it strikes me that we're holding algorithms and machines to a much higher standard than people, because there's something kind of scary about the idea of a machine running over someone. But there are a lot of people

hit people and run over people. And I'd just love to see the data because my gut, and we should validate this, but my hypothesis would be that these things are actually less dangerous. What I have heard about EVs is that it's like your 16-year-old paranoid, very careful new driver, and that is they are so slow as to be painful and slow. They are. I told you that. I think I told you that. They used to be like your grandmother driving, not a good driver and too slow. And now you're like your good aunt driver who's too slow. I think what it is, is the intersection of drivers who are human and drivers who are driverless is, if it was all driverless, I think we'd be a lot safer with some incidents.

And there's always going to be incidents, no matter how you slice it. But this one was really, it was a human who hit someone, and then they fell into the street. Anyway, it just was terrible, isn't it? Yeah, no, it is terrible. It's like, I mean, the real tragedy for me is, you know, when I drive an electric car and I've been on a long trip, it's like, you know, it's like when I have diarrhea. I'm just hoping I make it home, Kara. I'm just hoping I make it home. Sorry. Oh, God. You usually do. I have a vision of like all gas stations being turned into electric charging stations. I was like, why can't we just turn a bunch of gas stations into it so that you drive up? That's the correct point. I mean, I don't

think Tesla disrupted the auto industry. I think Tesla disrupted gas stations. The reason I loved my Tesla, and I'm waiting for the new Range Rover EV, is that I think the worst retail in America is TSA, grocery stores, and gas stations. Gas stations definitely feel like this is where I will somehow get cancer that emerges 20 years later or I'm going to get shot here. Gas stations just is the worst retail in the world. And the opportunity to avoid gas stations, I mean, if you look at it this way, EVs are now, I think, like 52 grand and regular cars average like, I don't know, 48 or something, whatever it is. But the thing I love about an EV is that if you have to go to the gas station once every week and it takes you, say, a total of 15

minutes to pull in, do your thing, the credit card doesn't work, you go in, you're talking about 13 hours of time in a gas station per year. And I would say, what would someone need to pay you to wake up at 6 a.m., get to a gas station at 7 a.m., and drive around the block to the same gas station all day long and fill up until 8 p.m. that night? People would pay a lot of money to avoid that. I think it's the gas station, worst retail that has really driven EV sales. Yeah, we'll see. We'll see where it goes.

All right, Scott, one more quick break. We'll be back for wins and fails. As a Fizz member, you can look forward to free data, big savings on plans and having your unused data roll over to the following month. Every month at Fizz, you always get more for your money. Terms and conditions for our different programs and policies apply. Details at fizz.ca. Okay, Scott, let's hear some wins and fails. My win is being in our nation's capital. I'm always very inspired to be here. I feel very fortunate. I think the, you know, I've said to you many times, and I think you appreciate this too,

that we're talented people and we work hard, but we live these extraordinary lives because of, quite frankly, just how badass America is, how wealthy we are, and how beautiful the buildings are here. In New York, we make the money. In D.C., they spend it, but I think they spend it really well. It's just nice to be here. I'm also very appreciative that you got me involved in this and you're going to take me on a tour of the White House. It's fun to know important, influential people. So my win is being in our great nation's capital. My loss is, and I'm going to harp on about this, and I realize I have a tinfoil hat here,

but I saw that boomers, 70% of boomers support Israel or say they support Israel. And among, I guess it's Gen Z, it's 20%. And that 50% gap can be explained at least partially by a few things. One, young people have a very healthy skepticism of anything that their parents believe. And that's part, anthropologically, of making it easier to leave the pack. And it's also part of innovation and experimentation and evolution that young people want to do things differently. And I get that. I think there's also an incorrect, in my view, conflation of civil rights and some of the obstacles that non-whites have faced in the US.

But I don't think young people really understand the historical context here. But more than that, I still don't think that explains the 50% gap. I think that we frame our lives and our view of the world through the media we consume. And I still don't think we have come to grips and realized the impact of one frame that is dominating all media amongst young people, and that's TikTok. And just as we have weaponized media and propaganda around the world to our advantage, I think the same thing is happening here. And I think we're going to find out in the fullness of time that the CCP is doing what we have done in the Middle East, all over the world, when we were able to drop leaflets, whatever it is, we are used to an American hegemony

where we control media outlets and get to control the narrative. And they would be stupid not to be doing this. This is what we would be doing. But I wonder if the frame through which young people get their information, I also think people my age, and especially in Washington, just don't realize, just don't realize the scope, the penetration, and the dominance that a CCP-controlled media outlet has over an entire generation because we're not on it. And the lack of diversity of media through which young people are getting their information, because I got to be honest, and I'm curious to get your thoughts. I'm not only disturbed by what I'm seeing on campuses, I'm actually really surprised. And I'm thinking, where are they getting their information? And the other thing that's really interesting here that we're going to have to think through is that when we firebombed Dresden, if they'd had live TikToks running of a family, I mean, this is just sort of changing everything.

People forget that the Bush administration— Well, there was an America First movement back then. Actually, Rachel Maddow has a book called Prequel about this, but go ahead. The difference, though, is that, for example, the Iraq War, the Bush administration said, we're going to have immediate blackout because we don't need to see people being killed because there's no elegant way to kill people. They just don't float away. And when you go on TikTok, and maybe this is what we need. Maybe people need to have the horrors of war thrown in their face on both sides.

But when you see this beautiful mother and father and this gorgeous child, and you hear missiles in the background and their gazans, it just brings war home in a way. We're not used to this. We're not used to war being live streamed like this. We're used to being in charge. And we're no longer in charge of the media that young people consume. And that might be a good thing. But I wonder if they're doing to us what we have done all through the 20th century, and that is try and frame the narrative to their advantage. Yeah, I think it's interesting. I would push people to a really very good piece in the have done all through the 20th century, and that is try and frame the narrative to their advantage. Yeah, I think it's interesting. I would push people to a really very good piece in the Atlantic. I think, I'm not going to pronounce this right, Simon Sebag Montefiore, and it's called The Decolonization Narrative is Dangerous and False, and the subhead is it does not actually describe

either the foundation of Israel or the tragedy of the Palestinians. And I think that's what's really hard. And what happens is these medias reduce things to these, you know, and it does remind you of sort of, as it says, I've always wondered about the leftist intellectuals who supported Stalin and those aristocratic sympathizers and peace activists who excused Hitler. You know what I mean? Like, you do see those kind of things. And so, I think it's important to really understand things with a little more depth. And also understand within Israel, there's also a split, and especially around Netanyahu. I don't think, you know, before this, he did not have as, you know, it happened in this country after 9-11, you know, with George Bush, who was sort of on the bad side, and then everybody rallies around him. If you recall, maybe you don't recall, but I do think

it's a much more complex thing. And I would suggest you read that Atlantic article, everybody. I think it's really quite, it is existential for both the Palestinians and the Israelis, and Hamas is a terrorist organization. It's full stop. Well, to that point, and it's so hard for me not to get boomerish here, but I see these protests, campuses, including mine, NYU, and it's so striking because it's people who you would generally categorize as being very progressive and very liberal. And I'm like, I think you should try and find a representative of Hamas and discuss your preferred pronouns with them. I mean, it just seems so counter to everything they stand for 23 and a

half hours a day. And yet, this has evoked enormous empathy. I'm having trouble squaring the circle here. I really am because I imagine the Israeli government taking, for some reason, having power, taking over the White House, taking over our military. I think it's sort of business as usual in America. I think they appreciate democracy, women's rights, reproductive rights, civil rights, prosperity, capitalism. And then I imagine what would happen to gay people, women, and Christians or non-Muslims if Hamas took over the White House and the U.S. military. And I see a fairly big distinction there. And I don't understand how these progressive forces on campus fail to see that. But I've got a lot to learn here. Israeli civilians, just as we deplore the killing of Palestinian civilians. We reject Hamas, evil and unfit to govern, but we not mistake Hamas for the Palestinian people whose losses we mourn as we mourn the death of all innocents.

I thought that was, I think that was very well said. Anyway, it's a very difficult issue. We know we're going to get flack. Bring it on, I guess. I'm going to go to something totally different because we need to pull this out. If you want to- Oh, God. Are you going to talk about Taylor Swift? No, I'm not. I'm going to talk about another fantastic woman, Brie Larson.

Oh, okay. She is a series. She's executive produced and she stars in, based on a novel by Bonnie Garmis called Lessons in Chemistry. And it's an adaptation of that. It's on Apple TV. I got to say, it's delightful in every single way. I've just started watching it. And it's about a woman, let me read the description, whose dream of being a, this is from a Harper Spurs story, whose dream of being a scientist is obstructed by the patriarchal society in which she lives. When Elizabeth finds herself pregnant alone and fired from a job in a lab, she accepts a job as a host on a TV cooking show, all while craving to return to

her true love science. It's shockingly fantastic, I just think. And Brie Larson is just so terrific. I just, I was so happy after watching it. I just don't know what else to say. I was just totally happy after watching it. I think you should. And fail is this speaker, the more that comes out about speaking of people who love living in the 18th century and said it was better then, apparently. All this stuff is surfacing about the new speaker, Mike Johnson, and his wife, which is a pair. I think they're a pair, is what they are. Their podcast, I've been listening to it, is disturbing. They have an obsession with gays and the end of gays, essentially. Gay marriages, gay everything.

They think having sex between a man and a woman only in a straight marriage is everything else is sinful. Linking everybody else with bestiality and accept all kinds of things that we shouldn't be linked with. I find more and more that comes out about what this guy has said, the more disturbing it is that he's second in line for the president. It's really a very handmade tale, this pair, it reminds me of. And I tend not to like to demonize people, but boy, these videos are like... I just had a flashback to the 1980s when I was coming out, or 70s, I mean, the 80s, really. And just a flashback of that kind of language that I haven't heard in a long, long time. And there they are. The most senior Republican in our government right now is someone who said, I mean, a couple things. One, that school shootings are a function of the fact that they're teaching evolution in

schools. He believes that. And then last week when asked for his worldview, when people said, we barely know you, he said, pick up a Bible. And in my view, that used to be disqualified. If you look at the mullahs, if you look at governments that really have an ability to levy enormous cruelty on their populaces, it's usually driven by one thing, and that is religious fanaticism. Yeah. And we always perceive that danger and said, okay, it's important.

You have the right to worship whatever God you want, but when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, you need to recognize that many of us worship a different God or no God at all. And that this religion first, framing the Constitution or American exceptionalism through the context of one God's viewpoint, it leads to very ugly places. And we used to say that was disqualifying. And even if people felt that way, they kept it to themselves. And now we have a guy that's two heartbeats away from the presidency who's just openly saying it's about the Bible. And we never used to go there.

Yeah. Just so you're aware, I'm going to read this. New elected House Speaker Mike Johnson defended his extremist anti-LGBTQ views on Thursday, telling Fox News, I'm a Bible-believing Christian, adding, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That's my worldview. He's had a long campaign, not just against gay rights, abortion, everything. He thinks biblical beliefs are inseparable from public affairs. I know a lot of people think this, but that's not our constitution. So, CNN uncovered editorials written by Johnson from 2003 to 2005, which he argued for the criminalization of gay sex, calling homosexuality inherently unnatural, dangerous lifestyles, and marriage equality poses a threat for our entire democratic system. Warning that polygamists, polyamorous, pedophiles, and others would next in line to claim equal protection.

An old trope, but boy, that's 2003 is not that far away. Anyway, it's disturbing, I have to say. He's not moderate. He's just smiley. He's just a smiley Christian nationalist. I'm sorry. That's what he is. That's what's going on here.

Anyway, that's my fail. Oh, we ended up on not a good month. Let's go back to Brie Larson and dressing up like Deadpool. Oh, by the way, a fantastic movie of Brie Larson. Did you ever see Room? Yes. Oh, I can't watch that. It's so upsetting.

I can't. Oh, that's not a good one. She's amazing. That's where she got all her notice. That's where she got a lot. It is disturbing and outstanding. I can't. Oh, now you went bad places.

Let's go to the Marvels. The Marvels is coming out. We did see that at the Taylor Swift preview. There's so many good previews of movies coming, including the new Hunger Games, which looks really good. That's also negative. All right, let's go back to Brie Larson. Anyway, let's get to the White House, Scott. We got things to do. Let's go be influencers. Let's go talk about AI. That's why we're invited. We're influencers. And we're so excited. White House, are you ready for us? Anyway, we want to hear from you, our listeners. Send us your questions about business, tech, or whatever's on your mind. Go to nymag.com

slash pivot to submit a question for the show or call 855-51-PIVOT. Scott, that is the show. We'll be back on Friday for more with a report from the White House and maybe some more chitty chat with some White House people. Maybe, who knows? Who knows what friends we'll make? Maybe we'll be hanging in the Oval for a while. I don't know. Read us out and let's hustle over there. Today's show was produced by Lara Naiman, Zoe Marcus, and Taylor Griffin. Ernie Entretat engineered this episode. Thanks also to Drew Burrows, Milsa Vario, and Gaddy McBang.

Make sure you subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts. Thank you for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. We'll be back later this week for another breakdown of all things tech and business. Who is at the center of the most important, greatest experiment ever? That's right. That's right. The jungle cat and the dog

in our nation's capital.