If you work in AI, you probably think it’s going to boost productivity, create wealth, advance science, and improve your life. If you’re a member of the American public, you probably strongly disagree.

In three major reports released over the last year, the Pew Research Center surveyed over 5,000 US adults and 1,000 AI experts. They found that the general public holds many beliefs about AI that are virtually nonexistent in Silicon Valley, and that the tech industry’s pitch about the likely benefits of their work has thus far failed to convince many people at all. AI is, in fact, a rare topic that mostly unites Americans — regardless of politics, race, age, or gender.

Links to learn more, video, and full transcript: https://80k.info/ey

Today’s guest, Eileen Yam, director of science and society research at Pew, walks us through some of the eye-watering gaps in perception:

• Jobs: 73% of AI experts see a positive impact on how people do their jobs. Only 23% of the public agrees.
• Productivity: 74% of experts say AI is very likely to make humans more productive. Just 17% of the public agrees.
• Personal benefit: 76% of experts expect AI to benefit them personally. Only 24% of the public expects the same (while 43% expect it to harm them).
• Happiness: 22% of experts think AI is very likely to make humans happier, which is already surprisingly low — but a mere 6% of the public expects the same.

For the experts building these systems, the vision is one of human empowerment and efficiency. But outside the Silicon Valley bubble, the mood is more one of anxiety — not only about Terminator scenarios, but about AI denying their children “curiosity, problem-solving skills, critical thinking skills and creativity,” while they themselves are replaced and devalued:

• 53% of Americans say AI will worsen people’s ability to think creatively.
• 50% believe it will hurt our ability to form meaningful relationships.
• 38% think it will worsen our ability to solve problems.

Open-ended responses to the surveys reveal a poignant fear: that by offloading cognitive work to algorithms we are changing childhood to a point we no longer know what adults will result. As one teacher quoted in the study noted, we risk raising a generation that relies on AI so much it never “grows its own curiosity, problem-solving skills, critical thinking skills and creativity.”

If the people building the future are this out of sync with the people living in it, the impending “techlash” might be more severe than industry anticipates.

In this episode, Eileen and host Rob Wiblin break down the data on where these groups disagree, where they actually align (nobody trusts the government or companies to regulate this), and why the “digital natives” might actually be the most worried of all.

This episode was recorded on September 25, 2025.

Chapters:

• Cold open (00:00:00)
• Who’s Eileen Yam? (00:01:30)
• Is it premature to care what the public says about AI? (00:02:26)
• The top few feelings the US public has about AI (00:06:34)
• The public and AI insiders disagree enormously on some things (00:16:25)
• Fear #1: Erosion of human abilities and connections (00:20:03)
• Fear #2: Loss of control of AI (00:28:50)
• Americans don't want AI in their personal lives (00:33:13)
• AI at work and job loss (00:40:56)
• Does the public always feel this way about new things? (00:44:52)
• The public doesn't think AI is overhyped (00:51:49)
• The AI industry seems on a collision course with the public (00:58:16)
• Is the survey methodology good? (01:05:26)
• Where people are positive about AI: saving time, policing, and science (01:12:51)
• Biggest gaps between experts and the general public, and where they agree (01:18:44)
• Demographic groups agree to a surprising degree (01:28:58)
• Eileen’s favourite bits of the survey and what Pew will ask next (01:37:29)

Video and audio editing: Dominic Armstrong, Milo McGuire, Luke Monsour, and Simon Monsour
Music: CORBIT
Coordination, transcripts, and web: Katy Moore

Last December, the OpenAI business put forward a plan to completely sideline its nonprofit board. But two state attorneys general have now blocked that effort and kept that board very much alive and kicking.

The for-profit’s trouble was that the entire operation was founded on the premise of — and legally pledged to — the purpose of ensuring that “artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.” So to get its restructure past regulators, the business entity has had to agree to 20 serious requirements designed to ensure it continues to serve that goal.

Attorney Tyler Whitmer, as part of his work with Legal Advocates for Safe Science and Technology, has been a vocal critic of OpenAI’s original restructure plan. In today’s conversation, he lays out all the changes and whether they will ultimately matter.

Full transcript, video, and links to learn more: https://80k.info/tw2

After months of public pressure and scrutiny from the attorneys general (AGs) of California and Delaware, the December proposal itself was sidelined — and what replaced it is far more complex and goes a fair way towards protecting the original mission:

• The nonprofit’s charitable purpose — “ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity” — now legally controls all safety and security decisions at the company. The four people appointed to the new Safety and Security Committee can block model releases worth tens of billions.
• The AGs retain ongoing oversight, meeting quarterly with staff and requiring advance notice of any changes that might undermine their authority.
• OpenAI’s original charter, including the remarkable “stop and assist” commitment, remains binding.

But significant concessions were made. The nonprofit lost exclusive control of AGI once developed — Microsoft can commercialise it through 2032. And transforming from complete control to this hybrid model represents, as Tyler puts it, “a bad deal compared to what OpenAI should have been.”

The real question now: will the Safety and Security Committee use its powers? It currently has four part-time volunteer members and no permanent staff, yet they’re expected to oversee a company racing to build AGI while managing commercial pressures in the hundreds of billions.

Tyler calls on OpenAI to prove they’re serious about following the agreement:

• Hire management for the SSC.
• Add more independent directors with AI safety expertise.
• Maximise transparency about mission compliance.

"There’s a real opportunity for this to go well. A lot … depends on the boards, so I really hope that they … step into this role … and do a great job. … I will hope for the best and prepare for the worst, and stay vigilant throughout."

Chapters:

• We’re hiring (00:00:00)
• Cold open (00:00:40)
• Tyler Whitmer is back to explain the latest OpenAI developments (00:01:46)
• The original radical plan (00:02:39)
• What the AGs forced on the for-profit (00:05:47)
• Scrappy resistance probably worked (00:37:24)
• The Safety and Security Committee has teeth — will it use them? (00:41:48)
• Overall, is this a good deal or a bad deal? (00:52:06)
• The nonprofit and PBC boards are almost the same. Is that good or bad or what? (01:13:29)
• Board members’ “independence” (01:19:40)
• Could the deal still be challenged? (01:25:32)
• Will the deal satisfy OpenAI investors? (01:31:41)
• The SSC and philanthropy need serious staff (01:33:13)
• Outside advocacy on this issue, and the impact of LASST (01:38:09)
• What to track to tell if it's working out (01:44:28)

This episode was recorded on November 4, 2025.

Video editing: Milo McGuire, Dominic Armstrong, and Simon Monsour
Audio engineering: Milo McGuire, Simon Monsour, and Dominic Armstrong
Music: CORBIT
Coordination, transcriptions, and web: Katy Moore