New York governor Kathy Hochul thinks AI should be “less evil"

Support for the show comes from ServiceNow. AI is moving fast across the enterprise, but without visibility, it's just chaos. Different tools, different models, different teams using AI in completely different ways. ServiceNow turns that chaos into control. With the AI Control Tower, you see all your AI across the business in one place: what it's doing, what it's done, and what it's about to do, so you stay in control. To put AI to work for people, visit servicenow.com. Support for the show comes from CrowdStrike. It's not a huge stretch to say that AI is the next major computing platform. Every platform shift changes the way we build software, and it changes security too. CrowdStrike is defining cybersecurity in the AI era with AI detection and response, or AIDR, a solution for seeing, monitoring, and securing AI across the enterprise. Learn more about how leading companies are turning to CrowdStrike to secure AI and secure their business at crowdstrike.com slash decoder. Social engineering attacks look trustworthy: a routine request, an internal email, a familiar face on a call. But a single click could put your company at a serious risk. Thankfully, Doppel sees through the disguise. Doppel's AI-native platform detects and disrupts attacks across every channel, trains employees to recognize deepfakes and deception, and investigates every phish to take down the campaign behind it. Doppel fights relentlessly to protect your business, brand, and people. Doppel, outpacing what's next in social engineering. Learn more at doppel.com, D-O-P-P-E-L dot com. Hello and welcome to Decoder. I'm Nilay Patel, editor-in-chief of The Verge, and Decoder is my show about big ideas and other problems. Today I'm talking with New York Governor Kathy Hochul, and I'm just going to warn you, this episode moves really fast. It's an election year, after all, with a shocking amount of tech policy at stake. And Governor Hochul has taken strong positions on almost every major tech issue there is. For example, Meta just reached a settlement with dozens of states, including New York, which will ultimately restrict how teens use platforms like Instagram in very specific ways. Governor Hochul is a strong supporter of those restrictions and more, as you'll hear. But restrictions like that come with a cost. Widespread age verification means that adults will also have to show ID to use the internet, which will essentially make it impossible to be anonymous online. So I asked about that, and if these new restrictions amount to Meta conceding in a lawsuit to the kinds of regulations on speech and when people can speak that might not pass First Amendment scrutiny if the governor were to try and impose them in a law. I had similar questions about New York's restrictions on ghost guns, which prevent 3D printers from printing gun parts. That law is already being challenged, but not in the courts. Instead, it's by activists like Cody Wilson, who runs the largest database of 3D printable gun files and who has started altering those files in a process he calls hoculization in order to show that the ban is technically toothless. I asked the governor about this, and well, you're going to hear her challenge Cody right back. There's more. We also talked about surveillance and flock cameras and, of course, the politics of AI in data centers in an election year. Governor Hochul signed a one-year moratorium on data center construction in July, and I wanted to know what she's looking for when that expires to make data centers a workable proposition. We also talked a little bit about Mayor Mamdani in New York City and, of course, her org chart for the state government. This one is a lot. I think you're going to like it. Okay, New York Governor Kathy Hochul. Here we go. Governor Kathy Hochul, you're the governor of New York. Welcome to Decoder. Thank you. Happy to be on. I have so much to talk to you about. We don't have a ton of time, so we're going to move fast. Are you up for it? I'm up. All right. I want to start with what I call the Decoder questions, lightning round style. I think the operation of your office and state government is really opaque to most people. So I ask everybody this question: How is the governor's office structured? How did you make decisions about how to structure that office? How did you organize it? Governor at the top. Then there's a leadership team, senior leadership team. There's a secretary to the governor who is the top advisor. It sounds like the person taking notes at meetings, but the secretary of the governor is the most powerful non-elected position in the state. What I did when I first became governor five years ago last week, I said, I want the smartest, the best, the brightest people I could surround myself. I didn't know a lot of these individuals, but they were highly recommended from having either business experience, government experience, technological experience. I said, Bring me the smartest. So there's a layer of senior team members. There's one individual oversees all the agencies. So there's 45 different agencies for everything from Department of Transportation to the environment to our Housing Development Agency, Economic Development. So then it all trickles down to a pretty large bureaucracy. But I'm the decision maker, but I take input from a lot of different levels of government before I make a final decision. But I'm very quick. I am a fairly quick decision maker. Show me the facts, I can make a decision instantaneously. You took over in kind of a complicated way from your predecessor, and then you won reelection. Did you sit down and make an org chart of how you wanted your office to work? Yes. Yes, I did. Yes, I did. How long did that take? I inherited one in a sense, but also early on, I didn't have a lot of tools. In fact, we had a hurricane in my first week. I didn't know how to declare a disaster. I didn't know how to go—I hadn't hired that person yet, the head of emergency services. So we were caught off guard a little bit. I mean, I think the state still functioned, but I knew I needed to do more. And so I'm always on the— On the search for talent, smart people, trying to rotate people in. Sometimes I start commissions, like the Future Works Commission I started, is to bring in experts not just from my administration, but around the country who understand the displacement of jobs because of AI, who's most vulnerable, how we deal with that, and how do we train people to be able to overcome those obstacles or to embrace AI as a possible career. So I'm always finding ways to, like, supplement my team with experts in this, you know, I'd say. Industry-specific or issue-specific experts. All right, this question is going to sound ridiculous, but I've asked a lot of people a variation of this question. Almost no one ever is going to sit down and say, I need to write a new org chart for the governor's office of New York. Did you do that on a whiteboard? Did you open PowerPoint? Was it just you alone with a laptop? What was it actually like? Can I tell you something that I'm kind of embarrassed of since you phrased it that way? I did it on a legal pad. Nice. Old school. Yeah, pen and paper. No, that's great. Very few people—you would be surprised at some of the answers you've gotten to questions. No, I just laid it out. Yeah, laid it out. This is what I need. This is the team I need. Now, that was five years ago. I've gotten a little better. I'd probably ask Claude or ChatGPT for some recommendations. Oh boy. We're going to come to that. Don't worry about it. You started answering this question, but this is the other decoder question: How do you make decisions? What's your framework? Bringing all the information as quickly as possible, pressure test it, and then go with my gut. One of the more unique parts about structure in New York government is the relationship between the state and the city. We're talking here in person, New York City. Mayor Zoran Mamdani has been pretty aggressive about going after billionaires and tech companies. He most recently went after Amazon for its labor practices. Do you think that's been effective here? I need to make sure that New York City and the state overall continue to be a place where we support innovation. New jobs, technology is leading the forefront right now, and I'm really proud that we now have been named the number one job creator for tech jobs in the country, surpassing California, which has always dominated in this space. So that says something about our ecosystem, and I want to foster that. I want people who have just an idea, who can use technology to create something that no one else had ever conceived of and be successful in marketing it. So that is what I'm leaning hard into. The mayor has his own approach, but I think overall we both want New York City to succeed, and to me, success also means creating more opportunity for jobs because the spinoff effect—I mean, five guys in an office right in this building could lead to 500 jobs in a couple of years. Those opportunities help lift— People have their circumstances and achieve what I'm hoping for is more opportunity for more people. There's a WeWork just above us. We got to go find those five guys. I'm asking specifically about the more aggressive approach the mayor has taken. He's taken a very aggressive approach, and like you said, the numbers are the billionaires didn't run. They're actually investing. The tech companies didn't run. They're actually hiring at a rate that surpasses San Francisco. Is that emboldening you to take a harsher regulatory approach to tech companies? I don't just take a regulatory approach for the sake of doing it. I don't raise taxes for the sake of doing it. I do things in a smart way when it's necessary. For example, we have regulations on tech companies when it comes to social media for young people under the age of 18. My job is to protect the young people of our state because they have been spiraling with mental health challenges and exacerbated by the pandemic, yes, but many of them have not overcome that sense of doom and anxiety. It is pervasive in our teenagers, particularly. So I look at my role to regulate tech companies in that space. Before the Meta settlement, we had innovated and come up with probably three years' worth of reforms to force the companies to do things that they otherwise are not doing on their own, and one would wish they would, but that's probably being too optimistic, that we have in place, for example, no notifications to someone under the age of 18 between midnight and 6 a.m. These kids need to sleep. Saying addictive algorithms can no longer bombard young people. Having automatic—this is a big deal—automatic... Privacy controls that are already set, so parents aren't expected to go in and be the ones who are supposed to understand where every platform where their kids may go or any gaming site and have to get ahead of them, that it's automatic. And age verification is really important. Limiting access to AI chatbots for young people, making sure there's disclaimers so they understand this is not a real person that you think you're having a relationship with. So that's an area where, an example where I think tech needs to be regulated because it went out of control, and now government has to perform a function to protect our residents and basically our young people, the most vulnerable. But I don't just regulate to stifle their growth. I want them to grow. So it's a smart, strategic, more surgical approach to regulations. I'm glad you brought up the Meta settlement. That's obviously the big news this week. Meta settled with 47 states, including New York. I look at that settlement, I look at the list of controls that Meta has agreed to, and my initial reaction was this is a bunch of stuff that if you passed as a law would run into the teeth of the First Amendment. They are effectively speech restrictions, right? We're going to prevent young people from using these platforms to speak at certain hours of the day. And maybe there's some argument that overcomes the First Amendment objection, right? The teen health risk is so high that this is actually a narrowly crafted, strict scrutiny-abiding restriction. But we don't know that. That actually hasn't been challenged in court. Meta just gave that to you. Then there's age verification to prove that you're over 18. Even if you're an adult, you still have to show the internet your ID, which is a big ask for people who are not covered by the restrictions. That's a big swirl. Do you think you got concessions from Meta that you otherwise would not have been able to get if you had just passed the law? No, we actually have laws that are more restrictive in New York than some of what Meta has agreed to. Are you worried about the First Amendment implications of some of those laws? No, no, I'm not. No, I'm not. And here's why: that we have an opportunity and the responsibility to protect our residents. First Amendment is when government is saying that we're limiting your speech. You know, access to information, that having not having notifications keep you awake all night when you're a 13-year-old is not restricting your First Amendment right to free speech. There is a difference. Sometimes the First Amendment is used as any kind of government, Oh my God, you're violating the First Amendment or any of the other amendments. And I'm an attorney. I look at it closely. I don't do things to violate amendments or any laws. It's not my practice. So we're smart about how we structure these and make sure that we're protecting First Amendment rights, as well as protecting young people from having their mental health monetized by companies who have a profit motive to ensure that young people—it's almost like cigarette smoking. The earlier you get them, the longer you're going to keep them hooked. Young people should not be bombarded with addictive algorithms or be subjected to the bullying that goes on, or someone who's thinking about suicide puts in suicide and is now told different ways to commit suicide. That is terrifying for parents. So parents actually appreciate the fact that they have a government, and maybe it's because I'm the first mom governor in New York, that I understand this. You know, I've raised kids. I know what the pressures they're under. And also something else we did. I'm really proud of the fact that we're the biggest state in the nation to have come up with a full ban on cell phones in schools. Now, you can say it's violating their First Amendment rights. I'm saying I'm protecting them from a lifetime of addiction to a device where they no longer have human relationships. When I did roundtables around the state of New York for about a solid year to get information—you ask how I make decisions—sometimes I go with gut. Sometimes I want confirmation from the real world, and I go out there and talk to people in schools and in cafeterias and did a lot of conversations with young people. They are so anxious about missing the notification that the girls are meeting in the restroom to plan. Activities for Friday night, and I just got excluded. And I'm also getting mocked out because of what I'm wearing. And now they've got a picture of me in an inappropriate way being sent around the school. These kids are paralyzed. So one young person said to me, she's probably a sixth grader, said, You've got to save us from ourselves. We can't put these down. We'll be ostracized. And that's when I took it to heart and I said, I will protect you. I'll protect these kids. We literally instituted this in September. The results in May, just this past May, the surveys show anywhere from 75 to 80 percent of the school surveyed said the results have been overwhelmingly positive. The kids who resisted it first are now making friends in person. There's more communication. They're learning the interpersonal skills that you'd want your future workforce to have. And they're playing games at lunchtime. They're playing cards. They have baseball cards they're trading. They're playing chess, bingo. It's almost silly, but they're just being kids again. And so they've got plenty of time for the stresses of the real world. They can become hooked on social media later on in life. They can get hooked on their device. They can do all this later. But why do we rob their childhood from them? I've got kids in New York public schools. I'm reasonably happy about the bans. I'm not excited about my daughter ever getting a phone. But if you were to do this straightforwardly in a legislative way, particularly the restrictions that Meta has agreed to, you would have to build out some record and you would have to do some balance of harms analysis. And here, Meta agreeing to age verification means that I, an adult, have to tell them how old I am with some tool, probably by showing them my ID. That is a big burden on me, an adult, that has nothing to do with the safety of the kids. And that, to me, feels like it might not pass the scrutiny that the courts would provide if Meta was like, Actually, this is too much of a burden. How do you address that? Because that is the big concern here, is that you've actually, instead of saying age verification for teens, you've de-anonymized the internet. I think the proof is the fact that Meta agreed to this in a settlement. Well, Meta is looking out for its corporate interests. I'm looking out for my interests as a citizen. Well, they're looking out for their ability to get more citizens like you to be engaged with them so they can make more money off of you and sell you more product, right? So it's in their interest to have you engaged. The fact that they're willing to step back— They don't care if I have to de-anonymize myself to look at Instagram ads for things I don't need to buy. I'm saying I would like to be anonymous on the internet, and if we put age verification everywhere, which is one of the consequences, I think, of this agreement, that every platform is going to have to start doing age verification at scale, I won't be able to use the internet. Constantly identifying myself to prove my age. I'm sure there's a path forward that doesn't require you to do this constantly. I don't think you'd have to—I'm not aware that you'd have to do it every single time you, you know, you participate, every time you go to a site. I'm not aware that you'd have to do it that way. Let me find that out. I'm not going to say something without knowing that answer. But it's an interesting point you raise. It really is. But I'm focused on the fact that we did gather data around the country, and to find out what is happening to our young people today. And I cannot rely on parents to know how to stop this from happening, because the parents are the ones telling me, Please do something. I don't know how to stop this. My kid is spiraling. You know, one mom told me that she has her husband leave work every day at three to make sure our son, when he gets home, who's being bullied in school and harassed and going to dark sites, doesn't commit suicide. Who wants to live with that specter? That was not the case when I was a kid, or my kids were kids. So the world has changed, and it is not a no to progress or innovation. Again, I have thousands of examples of me inviting tech companies here, and even Micron, landing Micron, the largest private sector investment in American history. 50,000 jobs is happening up in Syracuse because I went after them aggressively. They'll be open in two years. I mean, this is extraordinary, building the memory chips that are necessary to power AI in New York State. So my credentials are impeccable when it comes to inviting innovation in. But when there are areas where we need guardrails to protect individuals, I'm going to step in and do this, and I feel good about this. This is a decision that we've made, and I think it's overwhelmingly supported by many parents. Young people someday will appreciate the fact that they were spared from this, and other people who adapt to this, this is the way it is. Support for the show comes from ElevenLabs. Life is pain. At least, that's what you might think when you're in a lengthy customer service call that just won't end. ElevenLabs say they have the solution. It's called Eleven Agents. Eleven Agents is a platform for AI voice and chat agents that can actually listen, understand, and resolve customer issues. For instance, they can look up your account, process requests, and hand off to a person when needed. Eleven Agents helps create better experiences for customers while letting call centers and support teams focus on the issues that need that personal touch. If you run a business or handle customer operations across support, sales, or marketing, you can start with a demo at elevenlabs.io/decoder. See how Eleven Agents can fit into your workflows and help build experiences that your customers will actually love. elevenlabs.io/decoder. E-L-E-V-E-N-L-A-B-S dot io slash decoder. Support for the show comes from Superhuman. The conversation around burnout is getting louder these days. The thing is, it's not that we just don't have enough hours in the day. It's that a lot of us have our time eaten by tedious, busy work. That's where Superhuman might be able to help. This isn't about clearing tasks off your to-do list faster. It's about finding a tool that lets you take on more ambitious work. Superhuman's suite of proactive AI products are built for people who take their work seriously and expect the same from their tools. Grammarly by Superhuman is a writing agent that supports you from blank page to hitting send. Superhuman Mail is like an email inbox that automatically filters the noise and lets you focus on what matters most. And Superhuman Go is an AI assistant that can work anywhere you do. No need to get it up to speed because it's already there. You can try many of Superhuman's AI features for free so you can see for yourself if it'll give you the kind of support you're looking for. Start streamlining your workflows with Superhuman. Try today at superhuman.com. Support for the show comes from CrowdStrike. AI is already fundamentally changing how companies build products and run their businesses. If you listen to the show, you probably already know this. But while AI drives innovation, every new model and agent also creates new cybersecurity vulnerabilities. That's why CrowdStrike built AI Detection and Response, or AIDR. AIDR helps organizations discover where AI is being used, monitors AI activity at runtime, and helps teams detect, investigate, and respond to threats involving AI systems. As companies adopt AI, security has to be built in from the start. More than 70% of the Fortune 100 trust CrowdStrike to protect their businesses. Now CrowdStrike is helping secure the AI era. You can learn more about AI Detection and Response at crowdstrike.com slash decoder. So much attack regulation, particularly for the last decade, has run into the First Amendment. And again, my view of it is we've avoided the First Amendment conversation by talking about Section 230 or other red herrings that allow us to not talk about the fact that a lot of this looks like speech regulation and expression regulation in important ways. Another good example of this, which I think will be developed, is the restriction on ghost guns in New York State, right? The idea that you should not be able to print a ghost gun or 3D print gun parts in New York State. We have a story just this week. Cody Wilson, who printed the first 3D gun, put out a tool to defeat the way that the law is designed to work, right? He calls it hoculization, where he's going to add—he's going to defingerprint the hashes of 3D gun files so that whatever tool is scanning at the 3D printer level will not see that it's a gun and print it anyway. That's a cat-and-mouse game, right? You can tell Cody will get ahead of him next. Okay? I can't always be on the forefront, but when I see someone intentionally thwarting a law— There is the law that you cannot have 3D-printed guns in the state of New York, and if you think it's okay to have someone in their kitchen who may have severe mental health problems who wants to, you know, shoot up kids in your school, make a ghost gun at their kitchen table or create a munitions factory where there was none, with no regulations, no background checks, no nothing. If someone thinks that's okay and people broadcast that as if it's a proper thing to do, is challenge me on that, then I say go for it, because you're trampling in the wrong space. Right. The question I'm asking is about implementation. I understand the desire to prevent 3D guns from being printed, and I understand that probably a lot of people would prefer that not happen. Yeah, it's bad. It sucks. But implementing that means at some point the printer itself has to know this thing is a gun, and I'm not allowed to do this. That's right. That is a kind of regulation on expression. We have a case for an open-source e-reader that looks like a gun that people have made just to see if it will trip the software detector. Even though it's not a gun, it looks like a gun. And there's some line in there that is very complicated for a government regulation to address. How do you view that? Do you want the printers to literally look at things that look like guns, or do you want it to be more technical, more like a database or a registry? I want to make sure that we're getting the objective I'm looking for, and I'll figure it out. As I said, I assemble the smartest people when I make decisions, especially in the area of technology where the typical government employee is not proficient in this. So I'm going to use the foundation I have, but then go out there and say, tell me how to make sure that no one can thwart what I'm trying to do here, and I'll get it done. And if we miss the first time, I'll do it the second time, and I'll do it the third time, because I'm not going to allow this to happen. And yes, there are other restrictions that occur. I get that. It's not ideal, but I also didn't think it was a smart idea for people to manufacture weapons of mass destruction at their kitchen table and kill kids. So I'm going to be the one who says no. I'd rather have the regulation that protects and prevents it. Use 3D printers for any kind of good. You can make all kinds of things with 3D printers. It's not a ban on 3D printing. It is a use that is illegal because you cannot have a gun in the state of New York without having had a background check, having regulation, having it registered. We have all kinds of rules, which is one of the reasons why we are one of the safest states in America, lowest homicide deaths in America by gun. It's extraordinary because the rules are working. Not everyone loves rules. I get it. This is not the Wild West. This is New York. We're going to do it right. If there's a theme emerging in this conversation, if you're picking up on it, it's how much can the government watch what happens on my computer, can tell me what I can do with my computer, which is maybe a 40-year-old conversation, but it's more and more over time, right? We're saying we're going to restrict how teenagers can use their phones. We're going to restrict what you can print on a 3D printer. The flip side of that is, I would say the backlash to surveillance is bipartisan. The backlash to Flock cameras is deeply bipartisan. It's scrambling party lines. You've allocated budget for police departments to modernize, to install Flock cameras. How are you viewing that backlash to surveillance? No, I understand the anxiety around this. I truly do. But you see how it's all the same, right? But there's—I'm not looking at—I'm not having complete regulation of someone's use of their computer. I mean, that's an overstatement. It just is. We have a very narrow, specific purpose and a government objective to protect young people because the companies have gone too far. If they had put these controls in place when the data was starting to show them that this is harmful to kids, and they stopped letting their own kids use this, but let everybody else be subjected to this, knowing the harms, that's when government has to step in and regulate business. We don't do it as a first position. My view is more hands-off, okay? Innovate, do good things, sell your product. Great. This is called capitalism in America. But when you go too far, or a 3D printer that I said, those are great, until I find out they're making guns that can kill people from them or be able to, you know, make a—convert a Glock. Maybe it's a legal Glock that you have registered to. That's great. But you can get this little piece of plastic that's the size of a Lego and insert that, and all of a sudden it becomes an ability to fire countless rounds per minute. Now it's a weapon of mass destruction. Government has to be watching to the extent that—watch for excesses, but not to stifle personal use, not to stifle innovation, not to stifle the companies. But when they go too far or they don't self-regulate using data that they know internally and ignore it and think they can get away with it, that's where we are today. Sure. I'm just connecting the dot between I want to use my printer in some way, and there's a connection to the government that says yes or no, and how people feel about technology like Flock, where I want to drive my car too fast on the highway and an automated license plate reader is going to track that and send me a ticket in the mail, right? Or cops are going to use this in ways good and bad, and sometimes they're going to go over the line, and there's not enough regulation. Or I don't want these cameras at all, which is what we hear from so many people in so many communities across party lines. Actually, let me read you a quote. To the extent that they're being abused, that has to stop. The CEO of Flock, he recently said to a lot of people, including The Verge, that he was wrong to assume that the regulatory process would provide protections for civil liberties. He assumed that state and local governments would— Provide controls for Flock to prevent things like cops oversearching the database or tracking people, tracking a lot of ex-girlfriends, for example, is a thing that we hear about people using Flock, cops using Flock for. I think that's a pretty stunning indictment, right? Where the state is rolling out cameras to track people without the necessary controls, and the company providing the camera is saying, Well, actually, you're wrong about this. The state is not rolling these out. I give money for all kinds of technology. The localities are the ones that decide how they want that spent. I do not have a contract with Flock. I do not say go buy. That is a mischaracterization. But the money provided does not come with controls. I use the money for overtime for police. Computers in police vehicles is primarily the main focus of this. And to the extent that there's license plate readers, that's different than the Glock cameras, which are automatically transmitting information without human intervention, which is what I object to. If there's a police officer that says this person, yes, they're wanted for murder, let's go get them, you'd be happy if we went after them. But this is not just to have AI or a machine be making an automatic referral of information to other agencies, whether it's ICE or anybody else. That's not what we're talking about here in the state of New York. That's not what we want to happen. And if I need to tighten up regulations in that space, I will. I have no trouble looking— Can you connect that to the money that you're allocating for this technology, and so you have to use it this way? We can look at it, yeah, absolutely. And that's an observation. That's new information to me, that we should be having restrictions on how they're using it. Absolutely. What would you ask of the CEO of Flock in order to make that job easier? Tell them to make sure that the information, it can be amassed a certain way, but has to be reviewed with human eyes to make a decision on whether or not this has to be forwarded to another law enforcement agency, the FBI or something, someone's wanted. That's basically the purpose we want it for. I don't want Big Brother. I don't want unfettered surveillance of Americans that makes them anxious, right? It kind of goes against the sense of liberty that we all have and deserve to have. Living in this country, this is not a country where the government should be monitoring everything you do. But to the extent that we have to stop crime and thwart the criminals who are always trying to take steps ahead of us, I have to get ahead of that as well and try to manage that, or else we have a lawless society, people are getting harmed, and then it's a failure of government to intercede. Do you see how the surveillance piece, and we'll come to data centers as well, but I think data centers are doing this as well, there is some kind of realignment happening, right? These are not right-left coded issues. They're not Democratic or Republican issues. They are scrambling that traditional very, very strong party tie that has existed for almost a decade in this country. Surveillance is one, data centers the other. Do you see that, that there's a scrambling here that you can— There's nothing wrong with that. I mean, I welcome that. I have been waiting a long time for there to be more issues that people, all Americans, can galvanize behind and find some commonality. So when I'm doing roundtables around the state, and I've done many, I don't know if I'm talking to Democrats or Republicans. All I know is these are people worried about what's happening in their communities with hyperscale data centers being built, making the noise, the disruption, the consumption of energy, and is that driving up their own utility bills? They're anxious about this. So, no, I think this is important. It's an important time in our history to find that there's common interests, and maybe that's a breakthrough. If you can have elected officials sort of remind people, like, listen, you're agreeing with your Republican neighbor and you're a Democrat, or vice versa. I think that's good. I mean, the fact that Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, followed our leadership on the moratorium on data centers, hyperscale data centers, not the smaller ones for university research or educational institutions or healthcare institutions. We are very specific in it. These are the large scale. But to have the state of Texas follow our lead. That says something. That says something, that Americans overall are saying enough is enough. Okay, the rudest version of this question is, doesn't it just say that it's an election year? No. You don't think so? No. This only became an issue fairly recently in the state of New York. We've had, we had recently been bombarded with 30 applications. That was the aha moment for me, to say, wait a minute, 30. If we powered all of these requests for approvals, how much power would I have left for everybody else in the state? Give one example. Upstate New York, there's a county, St. Lawrence County. Five applications are pending right now. I said, how much power would all those... Equivalent of everything I would generate with the nuclear reactor, one nuclear reactor. So I'm trying to build more nuclear. I want to get ahead of the game, trying to reduce the cost of power, make sure we never have shortages. And all the work to get one nuclear reactor would be consumed by five data centers in one of my 62 counties. You expect your government to say, Wait a minute. So if this had come up to me five years ago, I would have done it five years ago. This has nothing to do with electoral politics at all. And in fact, my opponent embraces data centers. The president embraces data centers. They're the ones on the wrong side of history on this one. If they were smart, they'd say, You know what? The governor's right. Let's just stand down on this issue because our constituents are not with us on this. This is what I mean by it's a realignment issue. The president does embrace data centers. He calls them money printing machines, which I think is very funny. Unclear if he knows what actually happens in a data center. But then you have, right, in Texas, you have a similar moratorium. We just ran a story about Republican voters in Florida, hardcore MAGA voters, people who organized Stop the Steal rally, saying they would not vote for Byron Donalds if he won the primary. If he won the primary, he's going to run on data centers. We'll see if he adjusts his position. But that's a realignment. And I'm wondering if the answer is just in a year's time, when your moratorium expires, it'll be over and we'll start building again. Or if there's something specific you're looking for as a solution to bring construction back online. A couple of points. In one year from now, the communities in the state of New York that want to host hyperscale data centers will have far more tools at their disposal than they do today, which is what I'm trying to give them. I want them to have what I call my community investments framework. I have studied what data centers have done for communities all over America. I have a list. I know that in South Bend, Indiana, the community received $143 million of benefits. Other areas have had bonuses for teachers and supporting roads and infrastructure, energy infrastructure. I want our residents to know that their local elected officials have gotten the best deal they possibly can. Because right now, think about the negotiation that goes on between a small town, maybe a part-time mayor, a small economic development staff, and they're supposed to negotiate against a tech giant. It's not going well. So I want to help them out. Also, why are there tax breaks in the state of New York for a data center? They have more money than God. They don't need tax breaks that hurts my small farmers and my small towns. And this is where they're going. They're not coming to New York City. These are going to rural areas, generally Republican areas, which is very interesting. Also, the water consumption. Are they all using the hyperloop? Are they doing something else? Do they need to make the noise they do? Do they need to be the size? I've asked this question. In fact, I posed a challenge to the data companies. You have created a powerful force that is changing civilization as we know it, the way we communicate, the way we work, the way we live with AI. Why don't you ask AI how to create power that uses less energy, uses less space? Can you go vertical? Maybe you can go vertical, take up less farmland, less space, but it costs more. Well, then pay more. They're trying to go vertical. They're trying to go all the way up to space. Well, maybe the whole thing should go up to space, right? And that's the other question. What happens when huge swaths of land—out west, we're talking one that's seven miles large, seven miles. I can't even conceive of that. We have some already that I've looked at in the East Coast, and it's huge. What happens when the technology changes and they do this underwater or in space, or they figure out a way to make it much smaller? Like nuclear reactors can be now small modular reactors. I mean, things change. And what happens to the community when they're left with this monstrosity? Yeah. So you have to be thinking about this in advance. I asked some of the people who work at the Big AI labs. I told them I was talking to you, and I said, What do you want to know? I will concede they all think AI is a net good. They all think it's going to be great. We have some people in our audience who do not agree with them, but speaking for them, they all think AI will be a net good. It will improve humanity. And the question was, what do you want the hyperscalers to give? If you believe that AI progress will be net good and inevitable, what is the ask that enables that development to happen? I will restate my challenge. Yeah. I understand you need the power. I have harnessed AI in the state of New York, in state government, in a way no other governor has. I have used AI to look at every single rule, regulation, policy, board, commission. Is that effective? Is that just you alone with Claude? How does that work? I don't do it myself. I have a team. I have smarter people than me that do it. But literally, I said, What would it take for us to look at every rule in the books? And are they smart? Are they obsolete? Are they too expensive? Are they too burdensome? Let's ask those questions, because I like to rethink. I'm always challenging the status quo. It's how I'm hardwired. Sure. So let's look at state government. People think it's intractable. I say we can make it leaner, smarter, more efficient. And in literally a month, what would have taken five to ten years, humans doing it. In a month, I had a list of thousands of recommendations. I announced the first 50 already. The first 50, we saved over a million and a half hours for New York businesses and individuals when it comes to filling out redundant forms. A million and a half. My first 50 out of thousands, saving millions of dollars in other areas. Cutting—there was a $25 fee to take your dog hunting with you. You had to spend—it was a $25,000 bond to move a mobile home on a highway. Why? Get rid of that. Why does someone have to do that? A woman could not work after midnight if she was pregnant. You had to have a special permission to do that. Sending information by telegraph and telegram. I just looked at this, said, This is the name, and I used AI as a force of good to rethink state government. So I'm not opposed, but I'm saying to them, you already know what next generation data center looks like. It does not have to be this big. It does not have to use this much power. Figure it out now before there's even more hostility toward you. Your public relations are dreadful, by the way. No one understands what you're trying to do, and you come in like big bullies, and you think you can run, you know, all over our little community. Maybe you did in the early years. I think they're getting a little smarter now. They're starting to give more community benefits, but figure it out. Support for the show comes from Outshift, Cisco's incubation engine. Today's AI agents operate in silos, which can limit their true potential. When it comes to AI advancement, companies out there have been focused on building bigger and smarter models. But scaling up is just one approach. To reach superintelligence together, Cisco says we need to do more. We need to scale out. To do this, they're going back to the blueprint from 70,000 years ago. Humans just didn't get smarter individually. Rather, the cognitive revolution transformed society because we began sharing knowledge, goals, and innovation. And Cisco says that AI agents are now at that exact same inflection point. They can connect, but they can't think together. That's why Outshift by Cisco is building the Internet of Cognition. Its goal is to transform AI from isolated systems into orchestrated superintelligence by creating an open, interoperable infrastructure. Cisco says Outshift is enabling agents and humans to share intent, context, and reasoning. The cognitive evolution for agents is here. Explore the Internet of Cognition at outshift.com. That's Outshift.com. Support for the show comes from Even Realities. It's been a long time coming, but functional AI smart glasses that you'll actually want to wear have finally arrived. Even G2 are productivity smart glasses designed to keep real-time support right in view, with teleprompting, conversation support, real-time translation, AI assistance, and more. They help you stay on top of work and daily life. And unlike most smart glasses, they're designed to look and feel like premium eyewear, with no camera and a lightweight 36-gram design you can wear all day. The more context you give them, the smarter they get, adapting to how you work and what you need. To learn more about Even G2, go to evenrealities.com and see how everyday smart glasses keep helpful information in sight so you can stay productive and hands-free throughout the day. And for our listeners, use promo code DECODER at evenrealities.com to get 10% off Even Ring 1 and/or Even Clip when you add them to your Even G2 order. That's evenrealities.com, promo code DECODER. Support for the show comes from Odoo. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odoo. It's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that makes your work easier: CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, and more. And the best part? Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. You're a politician and campaigner. I hear so much from the AI labs that what they have is a marketing problem, that if people could only understand the benefits, if they communicated them more broadly, they would win far more hearts and minds, and people would be all behind this buildout. I personally disagree with that. I think everybody sees AI overviews in Google all day long. I think a billion people have used ChatGPT. The products are known to people and the capabilities are known to people. And maybe there's some set of very advanced capabilities, like the things you've described you've done in government, that would unlock even more. But I don't think they have a marketing problem. I think they have, like, an attitude problem. I think they, to some extent, they have a product problem. I don't think the products are good enough to support the asks, and these are enormous asks, as you've been describing. How would you handle that for them? How would you say, look, these are big buildouts. The potential benefits to humanity are high. And from the government side, here's what you actually need to say and promise to people in order to work on this productively. It's not that. People know the benefits. You know, your kid gets a bite, you're going to take a picture and ask Claude, is this a tick bite or a mosquito bite? Do I need to worry about this? I mean, the way that medicine has even been integrated into people's lives, asking questions. So it's already being employed in a positive way for the people who want to use it in a positive way, as you've said. I think that the data centers, the hyperscalers, have become the physical manifestation of people's anxiety about the future. Think about all the young people that I literally spent years myself, go into STEM careers, kids, learn science and math, you'll have a job forever. Oh yeah, study coding and computer science. The jobs are going to be there. Guess what? Those are the jobs that are going first. People are anxious about displacement. They're worried about they're not opposed to— Advancement in technology in the future, but where do they fit into it? And government has to be addressing that anxiety. And I think that when people see the data centers, they're thinking, Oh geez, that's my job that could be gone. And they have to do a better job addressing the concerns that people have. Don't make a big show about laying off 10,000 people in your company that you said—you literally told them because of AI. I had people who were displaced sitting in my office. They're told they're gone because of AI. I think that was more of a shareholders' play, to show your shareholders you're streamlining and saving money. But that's a lot of people's lives you just ruined. And so that's what's going on. That's the conversations that I'm hearing in places where they'll never see a data center here in New York City. And so their challenge is to help people see that this is not—and if they can't prove this proposition, then they're probably going to lose the battle for the hearts and minds. But show us the jobs that can be created. What other jobs people be going to? When I'm told that 81% of the jobs likely to be displaced are held by women, women just—wait, we took this long to finally make it into the workplace and in significant positions or positions where, you know, where it's administrative or legal secretaries or legal assistants, even new lawyers, or, you know, all the jobs that you can think of are held by women. Women might be the primary breadwinner. If she thinks her job is going to be gone from AI, she's not going to love an AI company. She's going to say, Wait a minute, what about me? So they need to figure out what the AI future looks like. Tell us right now the skills that are required. What should I be teaching in schools? What should we say State Education Department should be teaching? What courses should be taken in college to prepare people, the next generation of workers, so they will not be in that displaced? But we have a whole lot of people who are already in that vulnerable spot. You know, the individuals just getting out of college, those who are mid-career, what are they supposed to do? And I saw this personally. I'm from Buffalo, Buffalo Bills fan. I'll put that right out here now. We haven't talked about the stadium, but we can get there. We'll get to the stadium. We saved the Bills. That's all you need to know. They're not in another state. They are the Buffalo Bills, and they weren't going to be. But right not far from there, my parents used to live in a trailer park near the steel mill. Everybody worked at the steel plant, Bethlehem Steel. It was the best job you could get. My dad worked there. My grandpa worked there. My uncles worked there. 1982, they pick up and leave town. No one thought about the workers, the 20,000 workers in my town that now lost their lives. I mean, they had livelihood. They left. They left. Can I connect two dots here? My point is on that, I lived through that. I will not let that happen now. Sure. And that's what people are anxious about, losing their livelihoods. I just want to connect two dots here right at the end, because I'm really happy you brought up the idea that it's the physical manifestation of anxiety. This is a trope, I think, in the tech industry, and it's true. They're big, they're noisy. You can look at them and you can say stop. But we started out talking about all the things you might want to keep people from doing on computers, or keep computers from doing to people, maybe more importantly. Again, it's been a decade of attempts to do this. We don't have a privacy law in this country. All these things that we don't have because of the First Amendment, right? We were unable to overcome the First Amendment to regulate social media in some very big, important ways. Well, you can stop a data center. Like, the power of NIMBYism is strong in America, and the tools exist to just stop it. Is this the wrong tool for the job, to just say we're going to do land use and NIMBYism instead of regulating labor and employment and the future of young people more directly? There's two different dynamics here, big difference. One is the application of AI and how it's being utilized. But I'm asking about the mechanism, right? I understand the goals, but it's the mechanism that I'm really thinking about here. The mechanism of the data centers, of what the power they're creating? Sure, like, we might want to regulate AI to make sure there are more and better jobs or protect women in the workplace. And the mechanism that we're using to get to that outcome is we're going to stop the data centers until they make better promises. Yeah, I don't see it as one or the other. Sure. I think both are occurring right now. But stopping the data centers is not my objective here. It is to make sure that they do it right for the communities that want it. Yeah, there's a big difference. The communities that see benefits, or maybe the companies will negotiate in a way, or they might say, I guess we didn't need that much space, or, yeah, we figured out a way to make it not noisy at all. You won't even know we're there. Or we're going to do a better job shielding this. Everyone talks about Loudoun County, Virginia, right? This is the big story about Loudoun County. Okay, Loudoun County. You know why I know Loudoun County? Because when I said my family had to leave Buffalo because there were no jobs, guess where they went to? I'm out of six kids, five of my siblings, four of my siblings landed in Walla Walla County many years ago when it was all farmland, right? Now they have in the backyard of their homes these massive data centers. And for a while it was like, wow, look at this. Our taxes can go down. We're benefiting from this. But you know what? After a while, the tax abatements stop, or the benefits stop, the length of time. Now they're starting to see their utility bills go up, their property taxes going up. So what they were sold years ago when they were sort of the test case of a community that had lots of data centers, believe me, there's buyer's remorse. Not just from my siblings, but from many people are saying, you know what? We didn't get the best deal after all. What are we doing here? So I learn from other examples around the state, around the country, around the world. And I want to make sure that what we do in New York is based on the soundest, smartest practices. We embrace AI. Do there have to be data centers? If they have to be there, are they doing it in the best way? I'm going to challenge them. Can I have time for one more example? Yeah. Okay. The reason I know I'm going to keep pushing them to do better, when I first became an elected official in my small town, that's when all the telecoms came and they all wanted their own cell tower. Everybody's going to want their own cell phone. We have to have our own freestanding tower. I said, those are ugly. I don't want these giant cell towers in neighborhoods and everywhere. They're horrific. So I said to them, why don't you co-locate? Can't you all go on one tower, you and your five competitors? No, that's not possible. It's not possible, not possible. Okay. Can you go on top of a water tower? Can you go on top of a tall building? No, no, no, we have to. So I passed the toughest law regulating cell towers in the entire state in my small town. And I forced them to pay me the ability. I said, I'm going to challenge you. I'm going to get outside experts. When you tell me you can't do something, and you're going to pay for the cost of that consultant. They did. Guess what? They co-locate. They're on top of water towers. My town does not have cell towers everywhere, but we were told it had to be that way because I presume it was the cheapest, the best for them, the easiest for them to just throw these up. And someday when the technology—I said, what happens when the technology changes and you're bouncing this off of satellites? This is a long time ago I said that. I don't want to be looking at any kind of towers here. So I made them put in a bond. They have to pay money for us to be able to dismantle this and take it down even if it's 50 years from now. So I know how to do this. I've done it before. And that's what I'm trying to do for New York, is use my experiences on how to manage this. We didn't say no to cell phones. We said yes to cell phones. We say yes to AI, but in a way that the companies have to be challenged by government to do it better because their own profit motives will let them do it whatever's cheapest and fastest for them. That's not necessarily serving the public good. That's what I have to protect. Governor, you've given us a ton of time. You've answered a lot of questions here. We did go fast. It's an election year. I am very curious about this big realignment scramble. Give people your view of what to expect in this election year as surveillance, data centers, AI scrambles our traditional party lines. How do you think that's going to play out? I think what is top of mind is very much the data centers nationally, and it's fascinating to me to see that in races for Congress and in governor in other states, that they're using this as a political— I could not have foreseen that six months ago. And the public opinion has shifted so quickly. But again, regardless of what happens in the election, I do think Democrats will prevail for many, many reasons. There's so much going on, and we can get to other topics on trade wars with Canada and how it's having an effect. You brought up the Bills. I want to talk about the NFL's antitrust exemption, but that's another time. Can we just talk about the fact that the Buffalo Bills stayed in Buffalo? I fought hard. Look, I'm a Packers fan. What do you think the Bears should do? We got another hour on that. I actually like small-town markets. I like the Packers. I used to follow them closely. Way before you were born, I was a big AFC fan. The Bills used to play the Packers all the time. So we can talk sports anytime, but I just want to leave people with this sense. I believe that Democrats will take back the House and the Senate and position ourselves to take back the White House. But we have to do it in a smart way that shows that we are attuned to the anxieties of Americans. And I know that people are very anxious about their future, their jobs, how they're going to take care of their families in a world where AI seems to be so ever-present. And it is that data center that scares them. We can do more to shape that, make sure that people understand, you know, that's in one sense a necessary evil, but that evil doesn't have to be as evil as it is. Make it less evil, and people will adapt and adjust and understand this. And the companies are complicit in this sense of, we can do what we want because we're so big. And Americans, when they go to vote, want people who are going to stand up and not just roll over. They have a president and Republicans in Congress, my Republican opponent, who are rolling over, trying to cancel—no, this is good, when in fact you have people like me and some others who are saying, let's do this smart. Let's be thoughtful about this. I'm not going to roll over. I don't roll over for anybody. That's the impact on the elections. Democrats are going to win. Well, Governor, thank you so much for your time. Thank you for implying that I'm young. That was very nice of you. I really appreciate it. It's all relative, right? I'd like to thank the governor for taking time to speak with me, and thank you for listening. I hope you enjoyed it. Particularly, let us know what you thought about this episode, or really anything else at all. Drop us a line. You can email us at decoder@theverge.com. We really do read all the emails. Or you can hit up directly on Threads or Bluesky. We're also on YouTube. You can watch full episodes at @decoderpod. We also have a TikTok and an Instagram. They're also @decoderpod, and they're a lot of fun. If you like Decoder, please share it with your friends and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Decoder is a production of The Verge and part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. The show's producers are Greg Ott, Kate Cox, and Nick Statt. This episode was edited by Ursa Wright. Our editorial director is Kevin McShane. The Decoder music is by Breakmaster Cylinder. We'll see you next time. Excuses are easy. An epic movie night? We don't have enough snacks. Dinner party with the girls? We'd have to decorate. Surprise date night? Nothing to wear. But Amazon's Prime Same-Day Delivery lets you say yes before the moment slips away. Try that new popcorn maker. Order those cheeky drink glasses. Get that new perfume and turn that I wish we could into an I'm so glad we did. Visit amazon.com/prime to find millions of items delivered fast. Same-day delivery. It's on Prime. Available in select areas. Terms apply. Joe Budden here. Football is finally back, and PrizePicks is going crazy with the deals to start the season, giving out promos every day in September. On PrizePicks, you can make all the picks you want, all in the same app. And now, PrizePicks is available nationwide. So what are you waiting for? Lock in for kickoff, because everyone and everything is on PrizePicks. What you want. Download the app today and use code SPOTIFY to get $150 instantly in lineups if you win your first $5 lineup. PrizePicks. Run your game. Hi, I'm Tom Shane, third-generation owner at Shane Company. As a family jeweler for almost 100 years, we're known for doing right by our customers. Our legacy of integrity depends on it. We stand behind our engagement rings with our all-inclusive, free lifetime warranty. We handpick the most beautiful diamonds, then negotiate for the best price. At Shane Company, we put you first because a friend always has your back. Shane Company, your friend and jeweler.