It’s hard to believe Bernie Sanders.
Not because the longtime Vermont senator bears the hallmarks of a liar. Yes, he’s a career politician, but the 84-year-old progressive torchbearer counts more viral memes than scandals to his name. Rather, it’s hard to believe Bernie Sanders because, for decades, he’s told Americans that this country can radically change, while championing ideas too far afield from the status quo to really have a chance. He wants to bring billionaires to heel, for one. And implement universal, government-run health care. College tuition? If Sanders had his way, it wouldn’t even exist.
Things can change. I believe it, and WIRED champions it. But change that much? In this country? Really, Bernie?
Sanders, though, is now hard at work adding one more big, improbable change to the pile: Since 2023, he’s been advocating for firm and decisive regulation of the AI industry. In March of this year, Sanders and his frequent collaborator, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, proposed legislation that would halt data center construction until a series of safeguards are implemented. In June, Sanders announced the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, which would essentially tax AI’s richest companies and result in direct payments to American citizens.
I wanted to talk to Sanders about those bills, and his perspective on AI more broadly. On a deeper level, though, I was curious about how Sanders sees the barriers to regulation—from tech oligarchs and deep-pocketed super PACs, to a federal administration happier to enrich itself via technology than actually govern it—and whether he thinks those seemingly intractable obstacles can be overcome. After a few months of haranguing, Sanders agreed to sit down, which is how I found myself in his modest DC campaign office watching the senator—thoughtful, genuine, vociferous as ever—grapple in real time with what he describes as “the most consequential, transformational technology in the history of humanity.”
Sanders and I spoke on Tuesday, June 23, as the New York Democratic primary was underway. I woke up the next day, our conversation echoing in my head, to find that a coalition of democratic socialists had swept their respective elections and sent party stalwarts into an existential tailspin. A few hours later, New Jersey representative Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, became the most mainstream member of the party to publicly support an AI data center moratorium.
The uber-wealthy elites aren’t going away anytime soon. Neither is the president or his band of barely competent cronies. In this country, the tangled roots of power—become a trillionaire, buy an election, build that damn data center—run deep. But the anger of an American majority, across party lines, might soon run deeper. They’re fighting data centers at town halls across the country. Turning out by the millions at nationwide protests. And in New York and across the country, they’re spurning establishment candidates at the polls.
Something, it seems, is breaking. Something has to break. Believe Bernie Sanders? I just might.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
KATIE DRUMMOND: Senator Sanders, thank you so much for your time.
BERNIE SANDERS: My pleasure.
Wonderful. I want to start by talking about the sovereign wealth fund that you’ve proposed in the context of AI. Tell us how it would work.
All right. I’m gonna get to that.
Get to it.
One second. I wanna back it up. What drove me to push for a moratorium on data centers and the sovereign wealth fund is the fact that, and I think most people know, AI is being pushed by the wealthiest people in the world, people like [Elon] Musk, and [Jeff] Bezos, and [Mark] Zuckerberg and those type of guys, and they could care less about the needs of ordinary people.
AI is the most consequential, transformational technology in the history of humanity, and it’s being pushed by guys who could care less, just wanna get richer and more powerful. That has got to stop.
What has distressed me very much is, I looked all around me in Congress. You would think that with such a transformational technology that’s going to impact every aspect of their life, there’d be massive debates, right? This committee would be doing, “Oh my God, we got this legislation. What are we gonna … ?” Zero. Nothing. As of this date, as of today, there’s not been one significant piece of legislation dealing with AI.
So what did we do? We did two things. Number one, we said, Wait a minute. You’re building these data centers all over the country, and in fact, all over the world. They’re having a very negative impact on local environments, on electric costs, et cetera. Slow it down. Let’s make a moratorium, unless we start getting guidelines and legislation to protect ordinary people.
Second of all, we proposed an AI sovereign wealth fund. It does two things. First of all, most importantly, it says that on an issue of such transformational impact, you can’t let a handful of billionaires determine the future of humanity. The public has got to own half of these industries, meaning that half of the members of the board will be representatives of the public. What’s important is if there are ideas and proposals, or technology, that will lead to massive unemployment or endanger the well-being of kids or privacy rights, you are going to have half of that board say, “Sorry, bad idea. You can’t do it.”
And as AI, as I expect, becomes more and more lucrative, these guys make more and more money, that money should not just go to a handful of very wealthy people.
What is the foundation of AI? What is it based on? It’s based on human knowledge, human work. You’ve written a book, they got it. You’ve written a poem, you’ve done some scientific work.
You’ve written for WIRED, they have that too.
That’s right. Exactly. And what compensation did you get for that?
Our writers and our company and our publication received zero dollars.
Zero dollars.
But the point is, that is the foundation of AI, so the public should benefit from that financially as well. So what we are saying is that half of the increase in revenue, in wealth that is created by AI, should go to the people as well.
These are public companies paying into this sovereign wealth fund?
Right.
The Microsofts, the Googles.
Any company of $200 million or more. The larger ones.
Now, you talked a few minutes ago about members of Congress. The absence of urgency that you’ve seen there. I would argue there has been a consistent absence of urgency among politicians around technology for many decades, and I want to ask …
It’s not only technology. It’s a lot of other things as well.
A lot of other things, but I’m very focused on technology. What kind of buy-in do you think exists now for the idea of a sovereign wealth fund, and what needs to happen for it to become a reality in this country?
Look, everything is political.
You’re a member of Congress and you say, “You know, I want to talk to some constituents. I’m worried about the impact on children’s mental health, and I’m worried about jobs. You know what? I think we should do something.” You know what happens when you’re running for office? You know what happens the next day? You got millions of dollars in 30-second ads coming out against you.
Right.
So when you talk about lack of urgency, it’s not that members of Congress are stupid. They are not, by and large. It is that they are frightened. You want to be in politics, you want to get reelected. In fact, there was a member that went out, I think on the Democratic side, and said “It might be a good idea to stay away from that issue. Don’t think about it.” Because you start talking about it, you come up with logical ideas as to how we go forward, the AI industry’s gonna go after you. They’re gonna spend, in this midterm election, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. They got all the money in the world.
That is why there is no sense of urgency, and that is why we need fundamental campaign finance reform, get rid of Citizens United, get rid of super PACs.
A lot needs to happen to get us there. I interviewed Alex Bores, who has a big day today. We’re talking on the day of the New York primaries. You know, there were millions and millions and millions of dollars spent to target his candidacy for exactly the reason that you’re citing.
In the context of technology, though, and lawmakers, I don’t think they’re stupid—at least most of them. I think most of them are smart. Do you think they understand the technology that they ought to be overseeing, and ideally regulating in some way?
I mean, this is so big. I think members grasp onto certain elements of it. For example, I would say that many members are worried about the impact on children. We have heard these horrible stories of kids committing suicide at the advice of bots and so forth. People emotionally respond to that. The idea that we have kids spending so much time with their, quote-unquote, “bot companions.”
Yeah.
I think people sense that. There is some discussion, but not a whole lot, on the impact that AI will have on jobs.
And, you know, some people are saying, “Well, you know, every technology … We don’t have too many blacksmiths anymore, too many elevator operators. The world changes, Bernie. You know, it’s gonna change again. We’re gonna lose jobs, but we’re gonna create a whole lot of new jobs.”
Right.
Well, I’m not so sure that that’s the case.
The truth is nobody knows exactly what is gonna happen. I mean, just to give you one example of it: There are 6, 7, 8 million people who drive trucks, cabs, Uber, Lyft, et cetera, right?
You have been, no doubt, in driverless vehicles.
I’ve been in three or four.
Yeah. I’ve been in one too.
What’d you think?
Ride ’em. They work very, very well.
They do.
And right now in Texas, you’ve got 18-wheelers that are driverless running down the road. So what happens? Let’s just say that the technology expands to cities and states all over the country. What happens to the 50-year-old guys who are now driving a truck? Where are they gonna go? What jobs are out there? You think they’re gonna go into computer coding? I don’t think so.
I doubt it.
Those jobs are gone. Has anyone taken a really hard look at that? I’ll tell you something, it’s even deeper than job loss. You are transforming our relationships with each other, who we are as human beings.
You know, Musk, who lies a lot and is a good salesman.
Who lies a lot.
Lies a lot.
On this, we agree. He lies a great deal.
And he’s a good salesman. You know, he does what he does. But, you know, Musk is the wealthiest, most powerful guy in the world. He says, “Oh, work will be obsolete. AI and robotics will do everything better than you can do it.”
Now, is that half true? Probably. I don’t know. What are you gonna do? What happens to your life? What’s your purpose in life? Your kids, what, are gonna be watching Musk videos all day, and you’re gonna be sitting home while getting a check from who?
We don’t quite know, because if you’re not working, you’re not paying taxes. If you’re not paying taxes, Social Security, Medicare doesn’t exist. Who’s gonna be giving you the check? Are you thinking many of my colleagues in Congress have asked that question? I don’t think so, no. Privacy issues? Every time you’re on the net, somebody’s gonna know something about you.
Go to the doctor, prescription drugs you use, your bank accounts, that will become accessible to somebody. And I’ll tell you something else, just as a politician. It’s happened to me. I don’t know if it’s happened to you. Deepfakes are getting very, very sophisticated. Somebody could put words into your mouth, take you right off this show, put different words in your mouth, and most people won’t know the difference.
I actually had a deepfake of myself created just to see what was possible, and then I presented it to the entire company, Condé Nast, which owns WIRED. It was uncanny. It was very funny, but terrifying.
Was it effective?
Everybody thought it was me, and then I walked out on stage. And it was me twice! But obviously, that taken to nefarious ends is a very scary prospect.
We’re seeing it already. It’s already beginning. This guy Massie, you remember, in Kentucky? They had a deepfake of him walking into a hotel room with two women. And it looked reasonably realistic. So how do you deal with that?
You are very much convinced that this is a transformational technology, and I agree with you. I’m curious, though, what has informed that point of view? Has your point of view on AI changed in recent years?
You know, my mind works in weird ways. What really got me going is what I mentioned a moment ago, is it’s like, Oh, there’s an elephant in the room. You don’t notice the elephant is in the room?!
Look, everyone can argue how transformative, what the timeline is, right? Nobody knows the answer to that. No one denies that it’s transformative. I’m a member of the United States Senate, so I’m going around, “Hey, anyone talking about it, thinking about it?” No discussion at all. That got me going. And then I started talking to people like [computer scientist] Geoffrey Hinton.
OK, sure.
You know Hinton?
Yeah.
He’s a Nobel Prize winner in physics.
We did a town meeting last year at Georgetown, and he says that as AI becomes smarter than human beings … I don’t [want to put] words into his mouth. But there is a strong possibility that it will become independent of human control with possible calamitous results. Now, you got a Nobel Prize winner who happens to be one of the godfathers of AI, and others talking about that. You might think that whether it’s a 5 percent likelihood or 3 percent, 8 percent, we are talking about the future of the entire human race, that somebody might stand up and say, “Excuse me, maybe we should do something.”
Not happening. All right. So I got into this thing because I, you know, talk to people, and [what] stunned me, is, to quote you, the lack of urgency that I was seeing.
And so here you are trying to create …
Here I am. Somebody who’s a total nerd. I shouldn’t say a nerd, an anti-nerd. I don’t know anything about this technology. I have a hard time dealing with the TV in the house. But somebody has got to.
I think one of the major frustrations among the American people—I don’t speak for all of them, but I speak to many of them, in our reporting—is the feeling that AI is being foisted on them. That it is being presented to them as an inevitability by the oligarchs, right? By the Musks, by the Sam Altmans, you name them. And that they don’t have agency and that they don’t have control in that. How do you respond to that?
I think you’re exactly right. We’re seeing the response in, I think, a couple of ways. Number one, I think a year ago, you and I would probably not have perceived the kind of grassroots opposition to data centers.
Yep.
And one way, the immediate concern is, “I don’t want my electric rates to go up. I hate the noise. I don’t like the way it’s looking. It’s, you know, destroying our local environment.” But I think in addition to that, people are saying, “My God, what are we building here? Is that monstrosity down the road gonna take the ability for my kid to have a job?”
Your point is exactly right, and as somebody who’s taken on the oligarchs more than maybe anybody else in the Congress, I see these guys with unbelievable wealth and power pushing these things through.
Somehow or another, we can’t guarantee health care to all people. We can’t get more doctors and nurses and do what every other major country does. It is impossible. But you can build hundreds of data centers and transform humanity in a question of a few years? That you can do. Why?
I mean, when you guarantee health care to all people, what does that mean? It means that all people have a better life. You have a better education. Should we have the best educational system? Can we do it? Yeah, we can do it. But that is not Mr. Musk’s goal. They have a whole different set of mentalities.
They are really smart, and they’re very aggressive, and they’re effective businesspeople, and they want to just push it through. This is their world that they’re creating, and the average person is sitting there and saying, “What is this world gonna do to me, and to my children, and to the environment?” But they’re not, because, getting back to the broader issue of a corrupt political system, their voices are not being heard, because money dominates what goes on here in Washington.
I would argue that data centers are a symbol of that to people. There’s the environmental piece, there’s the noise, there’s the community aspect. But in our observation and in our reporting, it is much more a symbol of that lack of agency. Does that resonate? Is that what you hear when you talk to Americans?
Absolutely. This is what happens. You have some of the wealthiest corporations, the most powerful corporations, with lawyers and politicians and everybody else coming into a small town, talking to the town board of selectmen, right? Five people who volunteer their time are taking on the most powerful institutions in the world, who have unbelievable amounts of money. Who get them to sign these nondisclosure agreements, so people don’t even know what’s going on in their own town. I think people see the contrast between wealth and power in their own little community, and they’re getting angry.
In your view, what does responsible data center rollout look like?
I think you need a moratorium. I know it sounds like a radical idea. How should AI be used to improve our life? What do you guys think? Does it do some good things in health care? Can it help doctors make better diagnoses, better prescriptions? Absolutely, guys, we can do that.
What about if we wipe out manufacturing jobs in America? You think that’s a good idea? No, Bernie, I don’t think that’s a good idea.
Should your kid get hooked up with an AI bot? No, Bernie, that’s dangerous. I’m scared about that.
What about having your privacy completely invaded? Is that a good idea? No. I treasure my privacy. All right.
How, in the face of AI, do we deal with all of those issues? If you say to people, “Guess what? You’re working 50 hours a week now, 40 hours a week. We’re gonna lower your work week to 20, 30 hours, and you’re gonna get the same pay. How’s that?”
“Hey, I’m in for that.”
I mean, I’m in for that.
Yeah. Well, so is everybody else.
I do really like working, but point taken.
We’ll allow you to work longer hours.
Thank you.
But if AI is going to create wealth, should that wealth benefit you and everybody else, and my grandchildren? Or just Mr. Musk and his friends? You know, I think 90 percent of the people are on our side in answering that question.
I know you don’t spend much time with the Musks of the world …
I don’t.
You don’t, but you did spend some time with Sam Altman recently. I think you spent an hour together talking, in particular, about the sovereign wealth fund proposal. You said Altman was, quote, “Not enthusiastic about the idea.” You also characterized him as a good politician.
Yeah.
What were your impressions of him when you met?
He’s a smart guy.
Smart guy?
Yeah, very smart guy, and he’s very personable, and I think he’s a good salesman, that’s what he does.
I think a good politician as well. These are smart guys. They were trying to tell us a couple of years ago, “Oh, AI is so great. It’s so wonderful. Everybody’s gonna benefit.” And now they’re seeing people increasingly do not believe that.
So you’re sitting there, you’re Sam, and some of these guys, “Well, what’s your response?”
“Well, what am I gonna … I gotta give the American people something. Guess what? We’re gonna give you 5 percent of the benefits of the thing. ’Cause we’re nice guys. Just out of the goodness of our own heart.”
So they’re gonna have to figure out how they can sell their product and their transformation to the American people, and that’s one way. Trump is the same way. You know, I don’t believe a word that Trump says. But after I made that [sovereign wealth fund] announcement, he came on, “Oh, it’s an interesting idea.”
Is there a world where the Altmans, the tech companies, get there before lawmakers, where they realize that they have such a serious optics problem that they need to do more than they’re doing to appease the American public?
I think you’ll see that happening. But the issue is not just, “OK, you forced me. I’m gonna give you a couple thousand dollars a year. You got it.” The issue is power.
And they want to keep that.
Money is one thing, power is another thing.
I wanted to ask you more about power. You have been, as you say, taking on the oligarchs for a very long time. WIRED, in this era, calls them oligarchs too. We are very concerned about the amount of power that these executives wield over the country, over the world, and the amount of money and leverage that they have over Washington.
How do you hold that amount of wealth to account? You recently described Elon Musk achieving trillionaire status as a, quote, “call to action.” Can any government hold a trillionaire to account?
Well, you’re asking a very profound question. I mean, essentially you’re saying, “Is the cat out of the bag already?”
Trillionaire. I mean, that is a stunning amount of wealth.
It is. Is Mr. Musk more powerful and more influential than the United States Congress? I don’t know. I haven’t studied it. He may well be single-handedly. Can these people be held accountable? I mean, just as one example, using Musk, and he’s certainly not the only one, he spent some $290 million, I think, to elect Trump.
He did.
And it’s not just him. We got all these zillionaires. I mentioned the AI super PACs. You mentioned Bores in New York City. But it’s not just there. It’s all over the country. Can we stop them? I think you can, but it almost calls up a revolutionary situation, to tell you the truth—not to get you too nervous.
You know, people say, “Bernie, you’re old. How do you get inspired? How do you keep going?” I have seen all over this country, in New York, in Vermont, in California, all over this country, beautiful, beautiful young people who really want to save this country, and they’re getting involved politically.
We’re seeing trade unionists. There’s a guy, just as an example, who came to a rally of mine in Montana. A trade union guy came to a rally. He spoke about problems the workers were having. He ended up running for Congress, and he won against an establishment opponent. We’re seeing that.
But it’s gonna take a lot of work. The answer to your question is a political answer. These guys have unbelievable wealth. They own much of the media. They own much of the political system. They own the economy. Can we mobilize people at the grassroots level by the millions to stand up to them?
I don’t know the answer to that, but I’m trying. That’s exactly what I’m trying.
What does that revolution look like? Is that organizing? Is it voting? Is it something else?
Voting is very, very important. But it is not just voting. I mean, you’re seeing, as one example, data centers being stopped by votes, by people mobilizing against them. I think the other thing that we really have got to do in this moment is—I mean, Trump and Musk and Zuckerberg and these guys, they have a vision for the country. They have their vision, but we have not come forward with an alternative vision.
With all of the power of AI and its potential to increase wealth, et cetera, what is our vision? What kind of world, what kind of nation do you wanna live in? Do we talk about it much? I mean, the easy stuff is: We should do what every other country does, have health care as a human right. Fine, that’s easy.
We should raise the minimum wage to a living wage. Fine, that’s easy, and blah, blah, blah, blah. But you know, these guys are—you know, you talk about a revolution, they are revolutionaries.
Trump happens not to believe in the Constitution of the United States. That’s pretty revolutionary.
It is a revolutionary way to be.
Many of us conservatives actually, you know, we think we should obey the law and listen to the Constitution. That’s not where Trump comes from. He’s an authoritarian.
Trump’s first visit when he was second term, where did he go? Did he go to Europe? No, he hates Europe. He went to Saudi Arabia. Right? Remember that?
I do.
Which happens to be [run by] the wealthiest family on Earth, [that] murdered a Washington Post journalist. But so what? Dictatorship. Do not separate oligarchy from authoritarianism. They’re twin brothers. Got me? You understand what I mean?
There is a reason why Trump gravitates to the UAE and to Qatar and to these guys. They have incredible wealth. They don’t believe in democracy, and they’re also very, very heavily into AI stuff.
I’m just deciding what to ask you last.
Now the really hard one.
While we’re talking about the international piece of this, one of the big flashpoints in the conversation around AI in recent years has been China. Much of the urgency around the development of AI and the absence of regulation around AI has been: We have to beat China. It has become gospel to some people in this country. Do you buy that?
No.
Tell me more about that.
We have to go to war against Iran. We had to go to war against Vietnam. That was my war that I saw as a kid. Domino effect. You remember that one? Gotta go to war against Iraq because you know why? Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons. Gotta go to war against Iran now. China, we gotta beat them. Look, there’s always the need for these guys to have an enemy, right?
You know, it’s difficult. They have to balance the fact that Musk makes massive investments in China, with China being our enemy, and Apple, it’s all over China and all that stuff, but they can figure it out.
I did something which got some of these guys in the administration nervous. We held a town meeting right here in the capital, and I had two leading American scientists who knew a lot about AI, with, guess what? Virtually, two guys from China.
You’d be shocked to know that the Chinese people are not all evil, horrible, terrible human beings.
They’ve got some really smart people there who have the same exact concerns as Americans do. And it was really a good discussion we had. And I have heard from fairly high sources that there may even be some discussions between the White House and the Chinese about how we can not destroy the world.
The point is that in the height of the Cold War, people like Gorbachev and Reagan were smart enough to know that a nuclear war was not gonna benefit anybody. And there are people in China who understand that as well. So no, I think that’s just the boogeyman as usual.
It’s a false construct to create urgency.
Yeah. “Hey, you gotta let us do everything we want. We gotta run all over you. Gotta destroy your communities ’cause we gotta beat China.” Well, I don’t think most Americans are buying that.
I want to end with some optimism.
Let’s be optimistic!
You talked a few minutes ago about the absence of vision for the United States, for what this could look like.
When you think about artificial intelligence, and it goes the way you want it to go, it goes in the right direction according to Senator Sanders, what does our future look like? What does life look like for our kids? My kids.
How many kids do you have?
I have one.
I got four.
I care about their future too.
We should care about each other’s kids.
For sure.
I don’t know the answer to that question. Maybe I’m kinda conservative on these things. I wanna see a world where poverty and economic stress doesn’t exist. I grew up in a working-class family, and I know a little bit about that. I know that today working-class people die six, seven years earlier than wealthy people. Because of the stress of everyday life. Can we create an economy in which people have the basic necessities of life, have the opportunity to get a good education, have great health care? We have new hospitals all over this country, state of the art. Can AI play a role in helping us in health care, et cetera? Yeah.
But I’ll tell you something, and I haven’t thought it through. Again, I’m talking off the top of my head here. You know, I worry very much. For better or for worse, it’s all we got as human beings. And I don’t wanna lose our ability to relate to each other.
For the Musks of the world, they believe in efficiency. If there’s a robot out there that can do better than you, what do I need you for? I don’t think that’s a good trade-off, to tell you the truth.
I think we have to be very careful about how we protect what is human and important in all of us. How we have a soul, and we have emotions, and we have feelings. Robots don’t, and AI doesn’t. You asked me a good question for which I don’t have a full answer, but those are the kinds of questions we’ve gotta be dealing with.
I think for so many people right now, they look at the absence of regulation. They look at the confluence of power in the tech industry with power in Washington, DC. They look at Donald Trump in the White House. It can feel very overwhelming, and it can feel very daunting, and it can feel impossible to imagine that things could be anything other than what they are. What should give people hope that things could be different?
Your description of how people feel is absolutely right. People are overwhelmed. Throw in climate change as well. Europe is now experiencing by far the worst heat wave it’s ever had. So people begin to live in despair.
All that I can say is, I want Americans to go through our own history as a nation. I don’t mean to be political or overly patriotic or romantic here. Think about it. Think about it in the 1770s. You know, we read about this stuff. These are really incredibly brave guys taking on the greatest military in the world because they really wanted a sense of freedom that the King of England was not giving them.
If you look at the odds, I don’t think they would’ve given Thomas Jefferson and Washington much of a shot. They did it. You think about the abomination of slavery, and the abolitionists fighting, not just in the South but in the North as well. You know, talking about the immorality of slavery and the struggles that they went through and the people who died, the John Browns of the world and all that stuff.
Then the Martin Luther Kings who had to take on the segregation that existed when I was a kid. And they did. They prevailed. You think about people during the Depression; 25 percent unemployment. Talk about people living in despair. People uprooted from their farms, going to cities. And then, they elected a president who began to transform the role of the federal government and began to provide for people.
You can even look at World War II, when our parents had to face Hitler and Japan. You know, in 1941, this country was not prepared in any way, shape, or form to fight a war on two fronts. In two years, essentially, the United States had won that war. By ’43, ’44, it was won because the country came together. They really did. Women were in the factories. Men getting killed in Europe, Japan.
I say to people, “This country has gone through dark times in the past, and this is a bad moment. No ifs, buts, and maybes.” But I have the privilege of going all over the country and seeing really great people, often women, young people, people of color coming up, and they want to make this country a better country.
I am not giving up on this country. I think we can turn it around, and I think our worst days are not ahead of us. They’re behind us.
So you’re sticking it out.
I am sticking it out.
How to Listen
You can always listen to this week’s podcast through the audio player on this page, but if you want to subscribe for free to get every episode, here’s how:
If you’re on an iPhone or iPad, open the app called Podcasts, or just tap this link. You can also download an app like Overcast or Pocket Casts and search for “Uncanny Valley.” We’re on Spotify too.
