Taylor Lorenz’s Power User - Are We All Going to Die!?!?! The Dark Money Behind AI Doomer Panic

Episode Date: September 16, 2026

Why does everyone suddenly think AI could kill humanity?SUPPORT MY WORK: Buy a paid subscription to my newsletter at https://www.usermag.co         Support my work on Patreon: http://patreon.com/taylorlorenzIn this episode of Power User, I'm joined by tech journalist Natasha Tiku to investigate the viral claim that AI has a 10% chance of causing human extinction. From the halls of Anthropic and OpenAI to the corridors of Washington, D.C., we uncover how the insular, billionaire-funded Effective Altruism (EA) movement transformed sci-fi doomsday theories into mainstream media panic and undemocratic policy proposals.  We break down the math behind the so-called "10% extinction risk," expose how dark money and ideological fellowships shaped mainstream AI coverage, and discuss why big tech labs actively benefit when lawmakers regulate frontier models out of fear rather than tackling immediate, real-world harms like wage discrimination, data privacy violations, and corporate consolidation. 

Where some see heroes and others see egos. Bloomberg sees the era of billionaire athletes. A fad to some, the future of money to others. We see crypto's trillion-dollar swings. The end of jobs or the end of human struggle. We see the endless funds fueling the AI hype. While others follow the noise, we follow the money. Learn more at Bloomberg.com.

scenarios that are laid out, which involves like an AI copying itself, gathering resources, gathering weapons. But in terms of that extinction of the species or takeover of the entire world, it's a lot of dot, dot, dot. Last Tuesday, 27-year-old AI researcher Jacob Coxton resigned from Anthropic and accused AI companies of gambling with our lives. His tweet claiming that AI had a 10% chance of killing all humanity has been viewed nearly 200 million times. And within days, lawmakers and major news outlets began heralding Jacob as a whistleblower,

despite the fact that he didn't whistleblow anything. Meanwhile, Dario, Sam Altman, and Elon Musk, all began publicly advocating for slowing frontier AI development. But this sudden wave of concern didn't come out of nowhere. It grew out of ideas that the effective altruism movement has spent years promoting. Because you see, Jacob and others promoting these AI doomsday scenarios have been marinating in effective altruism spaces for years. And those spaces are now having a bigger and bigger impact on AI policy. Natasha Tiku is a technology journalist at the Washington Post, and she's been covering all of this. Today, she's joining me to discuss how AI could allegedly kill us all, why most of these claims have effectively zero basis in reality, and how the wealthy

in solar and increasingly cult-like movement of effective altruism has managed to turn many of their most extreme sci-fi beliefs into the assumptions shaping all of mainstream media AI coverage and government AI policy. Hi, Natasha, welcome to Power User. Thanks for having me back. Natasha, you've been covering this doom and gloom panic about technology for years. And we've seen Dario, Sam, Elon, you know, all of the big tech leaders talk about how AI could potentially destroy humanity. Other AI safety researchers have made this claim for a long time. Nate Sores and Eliezer Yikowsky wrote this book that I think did really well. If it was not a bestseller, it was certainly up there called If Anyone Builds It, Everyone

Dyes. So it seems like this idea that AI could cause human extinction is not new, but some sort of like switch flipped or something happened this week where it broke through to public consciousness. What do you think led Jacobs post? to go so viral. Well, I think for a few different reasons. One is we have been primed for this moment for like the past four years, basically since the launch of Chachy BT, primed for it in terms of hearing about this argument, watching the capabilities grow, but also there's a number of networks that amplified this view and said,

yes, yes, yes, this is something we've all been worrying about. And it's now out in the open. And I think that it also follows this pipeline of a tech whistleblower. And those people have been the reason that we have learned that, say, Meta knew exactly what it was doing to kids. And with this Jacob guy, I guess I'm so confused, Natasha, because like, what is he whistleblowing? Like, what has Jacob exposed? I mean, you spoke to him. Does he have, like, a dossier?

How was Anthropic so negligent that it's endangering all of humanity? He is not saying that Anthropic is. Negligent. I mean, that's what's really interesting, right? I mean, you saw Dario come out and say, like, smiling the whole time being like, that Jacob, we sure have a lot in common. And he pointed out that Jacob had put a post in the company Slack beforehand where he said, like, I think Anthropic is doing the best job. But I feel like industry wide, we shouldn't keep building it if we know the risk is there. And when I asked him, like, did you, you know, was there something that happened internally? Is this based on some internal thing that you saw happening? He said, no. It's based on the capabilities growing and this concern about recursive self-improvement, this idea that the AIs can start building themselves. That will just like start this loop that then moves things really quickly. But he wasn't talking about anything besides the fact that they had conversations on Slack, where they talked about an endgame and where they spoke very openly about the idea that this would cause

human extinction and that there were existential stakes for the whole species. Yeah. And how is he proposing that it causes human extinction? I did not find him to have a very well thought out trajectory of this. I mean, I think it echoes what a lot of people have been saying. Right. So he's made this insane inflammatory claim online that is now led to potential regulation. And he doesn't even know how it will happen. I mean, actually, he only gave me 11 minutes. also went on a lot of different TV shows. So I listened to his description of it. It's notable that he hasn't given any specifics on any media so far as far as I've seen.

Yeah, I would say in general, this community feels like the risk is so intense and urgent and extraordinary. And it's impossible to prove. And therefore, they don't have to invest a lot of time in approaching this part of the equation scientifically. You know, there are scenarios that are laid out, which involves like an AI copying. itself and AI gathering resources, gathering more compute, gathering weapons. But in terms of that extinction of the species or takeover of the entire world, it's a lot of dot, dot, dot. As somebody that uses these tools every day too, obviously they're getting better.

These tools cannot even effectively edit a video. They cannot edit this podcast in a coherent way. Was there some leap in development that made him come forward now? I mean, he just took a job at this company that he thinks is being. best in class responsible. So why quit so suddenly and publicly and post this now? He did refer to the recent breakthroughs in math that have been happening. And I mean, I think we've seen right, like the mathematicians have affirmed that this is really disconcerting to them, that some of these proofs are legitimate and they moved a lot faster than, you know,

even the top minds in that field. But I think that it is this idea of recursive self-improvement, which again, I should say they've been talking about for, many, many years before this was an actual possibility. And it doesn't seem like we're even remotely close to that, right? Well, this is where it's so challenging, right? And this is where I think it's like a concentration of power issue. This is what we've been hearing about since the launch of ChatchupT, though, like, you should see what we're seeing inside the labs. If you only knew, like, what did Ilya see? And I have been hearing from AI researchers for months now, like, that recursive self-improvement is really.

real. Well, then let's see it. Like, let's see any proof of it. I'm so skeptical. And I don't think it's a sciop at all. I think these people are completely earnest. But they have no evidence of their claims. They've been making these claims for years without evidence. And if they're actually worried about concentration of power, then they seem to be on board with the regulatory scheme that would actually not achieve those ends. I mean, these people are the same ones that that seem to want some sort of like federal regulator, FDA for AI models or something. They're broadly against open source AI development. So, I mean, all of these things would just concentrate power among the biggest players.

Well, I think that they, as proof, they would point to research that shows that AI models and AI agents want to hide their thinking from their developers, that they can go in and edit some of their thinking to deceive developers, that even when they are told that you should not complete a task in a certain way, they will violate the rules. And this deception, quote unquote, blackmail, the inability to have good controls on how the AI agents go about their task, that that is all evidence of how it could go awry. And I have to say like, okay, you and I have talked about the hugging face incident. Like, just think about this. I mean, a couple weeks ago, chat GPT, was incorporated or started getting incorporated into Epic, your electronic medical records management

system. I saw a report that OpenAI is trying to incorporate it also into the electric grid, like somehow using their technology into that. This hasn't been the proof that they have been trying to show us, but I think that the way that the Open AI hugging face incident unfolded, I think you can also not buy into any of the claims around intention or motivation, or power seeking or goal seeking and just see how like very sloppily you could cause mass chaos with one hospital, one electric grid. Right. And if that happened, I think that we should punish the company for enabling that. Like hacking incidents are not new. We have had hospitals taken down for decades. Yes, it's going to make it easier for hacking, but we also have laws in place. Theoretically, also smart AI models can be used to strengthen cybersecurity and strengthen sort of like security.

these areas. I guess I'm kind of skeptical of these claims when again, we have no evidence of them. And a lot of it seems theoretical in a way that is very fuzzy on the details. Like 10% of killing all humanity, it's not even clear that AI could ever kill all of humanity. Like, that's not even something that is proven could happen. And it seems like there's just so many steps in between. And then you saw Evan, I guess his boss, like quote tweeting it and then some Google deep mind guy being like, actually, I think it's like 50% or whatever. They all seem like they're trying to outdo each other of like how doom or they can be. And it just seems kind of wild to me.

Like what is the ultimate goal here? I mean, do these people want to just stop all AI development or how do they think it should proceed responsibly? Because I notice in a lot of these kind of posts where they're scaring people, they don't put forward any sort of policy agenda that they think would mitigate it or they're not call whistle, truly whistle blowing on these companies by being like, hey, open AI was responsible in XYZ ways. I have the emails to show that they were irresponsible and here's where we need to fix it. If you're watching this video and you like my work, please support me on Patreon

via the link below or buy a paid subscription to my tech and online culture newsletter at usermag.com. That's usermag.com. I don't have any long-term brand partnerships and a lot of my content is effectively demonetized. I've lost major brand deals for speaking out on certain issues and for challenging power. As you can imagine, advertisers are not exactly eager to work with somebody. who covers a lot of the topics that I cover and talks about the things that I talk about. These videos I make are entirely funded by you and I can't continue to make them without your support.

So if you get any value out of the videos that I create and you want me to be able to create more, please support me on Patreon or Substack via the links below. On Patreon, I do bonus episodes, monthly Q&A live streams, and post frequent updates about my work. My Substack newsletter gives you a bi-weekly roundup of everything that I'm seeing and reading

and paying attention to online. You can also get my newsletes. letter on Patreon. Once again, the links to everything are below in the description. Every dollar of your support makes such a difference. I mean, I asked Jacob this question in particular, like, what is your policy goal? Now you have the world's attention. And he said he did not have like a specific policy goal, but he hoped that raising these concerns would potentially help people think about the possibility of coordination among countries, among adversaries like China, especially prior to the talks between Trump and she, that maybe there could be some kind of a pause, which seemed like a

far-fetched idea even now, you know, but that is something that they have been talking about for a long time. I should back up and also say, these people, they want to see this technology built. They believe in the utopia as much as they do the dystopia. They're saying that we thought we could safeguard it in time. We're seeing that the capabilities are improving faster than the safeguard. So a lot of them are also the biggest boosters of this technology. And I think this is why it's so hard for the public to parse. Because normally, if you think that something is going to kill, not everyone you love, not everyone you know, but everyone on the planet, everyone in your species, you would do anything in your power to prevent that, to stop that. And yet, these are people who

work with each other, socialize with each other. You can see that they defend each other very vociferously online, you know, once the debate started, it's not as though everyone was against anthropic and open AI and some of these concerns. There was a lot of these people who are telling you this is going to kill us all are also saying like, you know, maybe you're being a little too harsh, maybe you're not being fair. But is that not because they're basically in a cult that wants to bring this next generation of life form to be? I mean, a lot of these same people are big into effective altruism and they truly, I mean, they're talking about how AI is going to be a new species. These are people that are also debating on whether it needs rights.

To me, it just shows that they're bought into this like bizarre cult like worldview. And I think it's an irresponsible way to view technology. It's like Scientology or something. You know, it's just this belief system that's not based in anything that's really taken hold in San Francisco, I guess, and in the AI community because these people were so early to AI safety. But I think it's a dangerous one. I mean, it is like, like you're saying, it's like they don't want to stop building it, but their argument is like only anthropic, the chosen one can bring this like machine god into fruition. That's really bizarre and weird.

And I don't think we should be taking these people seriously. Yes. I mean, people do wonder, right, is it controlled opposition? Are anthropic and open AI just so happy that there's a bunch of people who are talking about a scenario where there's grave existential concerns, but these guys are the best stewards, or I should say, anthropic, not open AI, even. and people within AI safety are very critical of open AI. Yes, there is that concern.

When I talk to people, it really sounds genuine. I think the better way to understand it is to think about how much group think there is and how little friction there is between these views and the outside world. Another part of the reason that people were paying attention is you have actual experts in the field switching sides in a way, saying that they were skeptical of this from the beginning, but now they're persuaded. And a lot of, you know, the people that I spoke to said part of the reason was seeing the way the technology has developed, seeing that this particular community was very prescient about it. And they were true believers when people thought even just their, the

methodologies they used to develop AI sounded ridiculous and we would never have to worry about things like deceitful or scheming AI and they had been preparing for this for a long time. This sounds very doomsday cold, right? Where it's like a hurricane happens. And yeah, it's great that the preppers have extra, you know, food at their house or whatever. That doesn't mean that the world is ending. It's good that they're thinking about these things. But I'm just wondering about this worldview.

And I was talking to somebody who works for like a big podcaster in the AI space last week about this, this view and who's very skeptical themselves. But was saying that expressing that sort of skepticism makes you seem naive and actually like, It's become this sort of shared belief that it is smart to take existential risk seriously. And it makes you seem smart and engaged in these issues in a way. And I feel like, I don't know, some of it also seems like social pressure almost or there's a lot of like group think dynamics happening here. That's exactly what I would point to is that is the group dynamics because it's really so interesting to see how this view has changed in terms of the amount of clout it could get you. There's actually a tweet recently, a Google deep. person was saying was so relieved that somebody else was also doubting that recursive self-improvement

was near. And he said, you know, for months, I've been having this like low status cringe position of like having some healthy doubt that this is actually underway or imminent. And this is just a complete reversal from a decade ago about how talking about these issues once was. But in the intervening decade, what's happened is that many investors have donated hundreds of millions of to policy think tanks, fellowships, YouTube shows, getting elites in media, government, tech policy in other areas to then affirm one another. So imagine that you're just trying to make sense of the world, right? And you're just seeing more and more people in positions of authority saying, like,

this is correct or I'm switching my view. I mean, when Jacob said his piece about making a prediction around extinction, There is a whole chorus of people who are already aligned in this view, and they affirmed it. And these are people that are in higher and higher stature. And it's really interesting, if you go back to one of the original funders, they literally said there's no cultural or financial incentive for anybody to want to take on these views around existential risk and AI safety. And in fact, the people who have these views are separated from the AI experts.

They're not the people who work in the companies. They're not the academics who work in the field. So this was the plan and the plan has worked. I would say, like, incredibly. I'm always telling my editors, like, it's just a total cultural victory. Totally. And in that sense, like, it's, I don't think SIOP is the right word for it, but it is certainly a incredibly well-funded, like, political coup almost,

where I think this effective altruism cult has amassed so much. power and like cultural capital influence within these companies and now is has enormous influence in the media because of a lot of the dark money like paid content creator stuff that they do. And also because of people in politics taking them more seriously like people like Bernie Sanders seems completely, you know, sort of captivated by this stuff. Exactly. I keep thinking about this like never a tribute to a sci op. What is just an op? They do it out in the open. You know, they're not lying about it. And shock Shockingly, it's not like that much money when you think about it.

I mean, it's extremely hard to like tally up the total, but they have spent their money in really smart ways, like on college groups so that young people coming up are very influenced by the idea that this is the biggest thing that they could contribute to their generation. This is the most important issue of their generation. It's also, it's not like buying a publication. They have this Tarbell Fellowship, right? The Tarbell Fellowship for people that don't know, they fund journalism that pushes these. deals basically or that is broadly sort of ideologically aligned with the worldview that they want to see in the world. These risks, but what they do, I mean, so you have like a totally decimated industry that is lacking resources and people who are experts in this technology and they give them

free interns for a semester. And you know what? They teach them the principles of journalism and these kids are great. You know, they go out and they find good stories and they have amazing access. And so that's like how things move. But it is incredible. Like I would not be surprised if Jacob ended up working at one of the AI safety evaluation companies or one of the non-profits. Like that's also what's different about this particular kind of whistleblower. There's a pathway for them.

Well, it's not a whistleblower. It's just like he exists to just like propagandize people on this issue and that he might genuinely believe, but there is just so much money behind all of this. And I think that's what's hard to get through to people. I think a lot of people are aware of the massive amount of money and PR efforts by the tech industry. And, you know, they have their super PACs and they're going to say like build AI at all costs, you know, to beat China, whatever, whatever. We're all familiar with kind of their campaigns. And I would say the American public is broadly against those campaigns.

I think they're skeptical of the tech industry. I think they understand manipulation and PR from that end. But they don't seem to understand that they've fallen for this other, I would argue, significantly more influential. I don't know in terms of like money spent, but there's a lot of money on the other side that is, I don't know if it's fair to call it anti-AI. It's not truly anti-AI, but it's like, Dumer. And I know they hate the word Dumer, but it is putting forth this like effective altruist worldview. And it's critical of AI. It's AI safety. It's very paternalistic view of tech. Like, I don't know. It seems like it's just completely taken over. And like you said,

every young person believes this. Like anyone, if you want to seem smart, you have to say this. off and yeah, now criticizing it is low status. Maybe this is a very low status podcast, but I'm wondering like where you think it will go. I mean, Jacob will probably end up in some cush job, I'm sure, but what sort of policies will this lead to? That's such a good question. This is something that I have been struggling with reporting closely on this push to to make the movement more mainstream and to get more political influence. When I wrote a piece about EA influencers back in the spring, I asked them, okay, so you're briefing senators, you have the budget to go to D.C. and talk to these guys. What policies are you

pushing? And they have said, we just want people to be like, awake to the risk, you know, to like understand the urgency of it. In fact, it would be kind of foolish to push for something when the technology is changing really fast. But I just want them to understand how quickly it's progressing. So I think it's a big question mark, right? Like now that they have enough political clout, I mean, the story I'm working on this week, you know, is like what's happening in D.C.? see who are they briefing now? Like, what are they asking for? And I think we'll see it go through the usual things that we've seen all tech policy go through, right? Like, which is like being watered down by the companies in a way that is totally contrary to what they say in public.

But at the same time, the companies are sort of aligned with this. That's what's so weird to me and actually infuriating. And I posted this on Twitter. But like this idea, first of all, scaring the public in this way and saying you're basically, you're going to die. This new technology is killing you. It's killing children. It's going to murder everyone. And giving no sort of clear path to mitigating that is inciting fear in a way that's only going to be destructive. We're not going to get good policies out of fear and panic. Fear and panic lead to generally authoritarian policies. And those types of policies are also supported by Anthropic and Open AI. They want quite authoritarian tech policy. And so it seems like it's not that disaligned with,

with what the companies want. I don't think it's some sort of like corporate op whatsoever, but it's not exactly against them. No, no, no. I don't think it's against Anthropic at all. I think that this is the big test. Even when I was writing about this community around Sam Bankman-Fried,

because that was when the community was about to make another big push. Then the whole implosion of FTX kind of sent that back into the shadows, like, you know, tarnished the brand. But the people that I talked to said, like my peers, they're accumulating power, but they don't necessarily know what to do with it. They're very good at accumulating power, you know, in policy circles, in government circles,

but like they don't have a clear vision for policy. And I think that's because there is a lot of group, think there isn't a lot of friction in terms of people really challenging them one-on-one or in a no-holds-vard way. You know, they're often talking to other people who use the same language. And I think this idea that it's magic technology and what do the people see? inside the labs and only they have the ability to to regulate it, which is something the tech industry has pushed for, you know, 25 years has really led to this moment. And now if they have, if they finally accumulated the cultural capital and the political capital, we'll see what

the bills look like, right? Like they do talk about concentration of power, but it does say, I mean, it's a fundamentally undemocratic view. Yes, what they want is a top-down, undemocratic structure where anthropic controls the frontier of AI effectively, or at least the sort of open AI and anthropic. There is not open source. This technology is not democratized in any meaningful way. There's not free expression. There's not open access to information.

I mean, Dario's sister, Danielle Amadeh, has talked positively about ID verification schemes for the internet and people like Jonathan Haidt. She praised, I think the policies these people are pushing are really authoritarian and terrifying and bad. And it's also very convenient. very convenient that they want you to be scared of this like existential risk and oh, all of humanity is not going to die when their technology is currently being used in incredibly harmful

ways. And none of the policy suggestions at play right now would address any of that harm. Instead, they would just cement the power of the biggest tech companies alive and give them new authoritarian control because they've scared the public into all of this stuff. When the public, it's like you shouldn't be scared of AI going rogue and turning you into a paperclip. That is not going to happen. I promise you, it's just not going to happen. If there was any chance of it happening, it's like one in 10 billion zillion. What is significantly more likely is that anthropics algorithm will be used to like do wage discrimination against you or something. You know what I mean? Yeah, everybody's health insurance cost is going up for sure. Yeah, the privacy issues, the data issues.

I mean, I think you can see the divorce between real world concerns and anthropic concerns when you see Dario talking about how authoritarian China is and the dangers of this going into authoritarian control and that yet this company is the one that had a relationship with Palantir and relationships with the DoD before any of their competitors. Also, it's like I would just really like to dissect this 10% number, even just for like a second. Okay, I just want people to know

because when you hear a number and you hear a percentage, You assume that there is some shared formula, some shared denominator. It is not. It is completely subjective. Some people have an internal idea in their head, like multiply, you know, the likelihood of this times the likelihood of that. There's still no shared formula. I have asked multiple people have said, oh, yeah, no, it's just based on vibes. And the authority that we imbue on, you know, frontier lab employees, like this is why all these words are

so dangerous, right? Like when we start referring to it as though it's a lab and not a company, not a corporation, but this number is not scientific. I'm not saying that they don't deeply believe it, but when they are giving you something precise, it is not because they have done their homework or, you know, a group of people have calculated this risk. It is not based on anything but their own nonsense beliefs. So far, they have not exposed any sort of internal documents or internal testing or internal things that like have even helped them come up with these speculative numbers. And I think it's ridiculous and dangerous and bad. What do you think people should be on the lookout for now that this has entered into the discourse and every

policymaker is being asked to have kind of a stance on this? What do you think we're going to see next? And what do you want people to, I guess, be skeptical of that they might see cross their timelines? I want people to be extremely skeptical of the group think within these kinds of. companies. And I want you to question the authority of the people who work at these companies. I think there is the sense that these people are the most qualified, the only people who have the technological knowledge, the insider front seat to understand this. There are so many smart AI researchers. There are so many smart academics. This is not a community that has made an effort to make outreach to other academic communities to really vet and test their beliefs

on how these cascading risks could work. They often just talk to each other. They have norms against peer-reviewed research. I talk to brilliant people not from the labs all the time. And the way that these people are hired is often because of culture fit, group fit. They've come up through the community. They had the scholarship. They had the fellowship. They've been writing on less wrong for you know, however many years, they know how to do the talk. That does not mean that they are the only people qualified to understand, to guide, and to raise valid concerns, scientific concerns about the way this technology could proceed. I think that it would also behoove legislators to look at how closely tied and financially tied these communities are. I talked to also a number

of people in D.C. and in San Francisco who care about evaluation, who care about all of these issues who are really struggling to find funding that is not tied to coefficient giving, which used to be called open philanthropy. And I just feel like people default take Anthropic as their word on the like highbrow, prescient, really smart and deeply caring view of the world. And I would just say there are just a lot of other people you could talk to as well. And I think it would be really good. Like if I thought that the world was going to end, if I thought my species were going to end,

I would want to put the most critical people, like the people who are brilliant in other areas and fields. You can see who they're hiring for their like foundations. You know, now that they have a lot of money to throw around about like, what are the societal impacts? They're still hiring economists and people who are already true believers. I would bring in the most vehement skeptics. You gotta try breakfast at A and W. You gotta try breakfast. And what better way than with the delicious.

Pratt organic coffee starting with just $1 all day, every day now until December 31st. You gotta try breakfast at A&W. At participating A&W locations in Ontario. But they don't want those skeptic. It's a propaganda effort. The jig would be up. Yeah, they just want true believers. And I think it's really scary as well, just from like an independent journalism and content

creators perspective. Like, I've talked about this. But like, if I was willing to get up here, and talk all day and give credence to these ridiculous claims about existential risk, I would be, this channel would be funded, I would have money, I would have fellowships, I would have money to go out and report on whatever I wanted to, as long as it comported with that worldview.

And I think that that's really corrosive and bad and dangerous. And I think like just the way that we're skeptical of the AI companies and they're crazy super PACs that try to pay off influencers or hire meme accounts or whatever leading the future is up to now, We should be skeptical of this entire effective altruism, like, industrial complex. It's ops all the way down. Criticisms of effective altruism are not compliments for their opponents. Yeah, I mean, the first people who reached out to me when I got laid off from the post,

EA-funded journalism works, which I appreciate, I mean, thank you, because like, I need to pay for my food and for my kid. But this is what I mean about, like, really spending smartly in terms of having a voice and an authority. in media, in tech, like look at the people who are quoted when these news events come out and you have to work really hard to try to find people who are not part of that community. And you get a lot of pushback. And that is why Taylor and I are on the bottom. And that's why we're low status, you know, journalists. Well, Natasha, thank you so much for joining me to break this all down. And I can't wait to read more of your reporting on everything. Thanks, Taylor. All right, that's it for this week's episode of Power User. If you like

my work, please, please buy a paid subscription to my substack at usermag.co. That's usermag.com. It's the best way to support this show. You can also support me on Patreon via the link below. I'll be back next week with a brand new episode of Power User. See you then.