Kevin Roose Didn’t Use AI to Write His Book About AI

For most people, the AI Era we’re now living in started sometime around the end of 2022, when OpenAI released the first consumer version of ChatGPT to much fanfare—and, ultimately, over 100 million downloads within a few short months.

In reality, as WIRED readers know, the story of artificial intelligence stretches back decades. And the work informing today’s generative AI products, from chatbots to agents and beyond, has been more than a decade—of blood, sweat, tears, and furious rivalries—in the making.

It’s that recent history, told through the interweaving stories of three generative AI leaders—OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google—that’s chronicled in Kevin Roose’s compelling new book, The AGI Chronicles. Roose, a longtime tech journalist who most recently served as a columnist and podcast host for The New York Times, conducted more than 150 interviews with AI insiders to compile what he hopes becomes something of a historical document, an accurate, in-depth retelling of the people and the institutions, the bloodbath and the drama, that brought Silicon Valley to where it is to today.

I spoke to Roose in late September, a few days after he and Casey Newton—with whom Roose previously cohosted the New York Times’ Hard Fork podcast—announced the creation of their new media company Machine Gods Media, alongside a podcast distribution deal with NPR. We talked about what Roose and Newton hope to accomplish with the new show, why traditional media companies have a talent problem, and, of course, all things artificial intelligence.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

KATIE DRUMMOND: You and Casey Newton recently announced that you were launching a new media company, called Machine Gods Media. And your podcast is also called Machine Gods, correct?

KEVIN ROOSE: Yeah, a name so nice we used it twice.

When you first announced that you’d be leaving The New York Times, you described your vision for what you wanted to do as one that, quote, “takes AI progress seriously, is clear-eyed about the capabilities and risks of powerful AI systems, and tries to empower and entertain people in the face of radical uncertainty.”

As you look at the landscape of tech coverage and AI coverage, what’s missing from the reporting and commentary that you and Casey want to address with the new show?

We just feel like it was high time that two men had a place to talk about AI.

I've been saying this for years. I want more men talking about tech.

Look, there is obviously no shortage of podcasts and YouTube shows and mainstream media coverage of AI. It’s the biggest story in the world right now. But when Casey and I looked out at the media landscape, we saw some issues. One was there are people who just are getting very famous and having a lot of success saying that all this AI stuff that’s going on is fake, it’s hype, it’s a giant financial bubble, no one is using these tools, they’re not going to have any impact on the economy. You know, OpenAI is going to go bankrupt. Anthropic’s going to go bankrupt.

This is sort of a genre of popular criticism, and it’s not just a few people. I hear this from friends of mine who don’t pay close attention to tech news and just assume that what’s going on is just fleeting and trivial and that it will all go back to normal soon.

There’s another genre of AI coverage that is purely hype. It’s look at the 17 amazing ways that Claude can supercharge your enterprise SaaS business. You can go on LinkedIn and see example after example of people who are purely excited about this technology and don’t really care to talk about the risks.

We both thought there’s a large gap in the middle for what Casey calls AI realism, which is basically this idea that you can take AI seriously, acknowledge that the tools are powerful and impressive and in many cases dangerous, and that you can help people understand that and demystify this area without slipping into boosterism, and that you can also have a good time while you do it.

The show you announced recently is being published in partnership with NPR. Why was that the right partner?

A bunch of reasons. Both Casey and I are big fans of NPR. We like the fact that they have a broad independent reach and mandate. We like the fact that they’re going to let us own the show and make the creative decisions, and it will be a distribution partnership rather than a full acquisition, so we will still have some operating distance.

We think this is a really critical time and a really important story, and we like the idea that people might be in their cars just listening to their local NPR member station and happen on our podcast.

Maybe that’s going to be someone who works in policy, or maybe that’s going to be someone who is involved in local government. Maybe that’s going to be someone who has a very different point of view on AI. We don’t just want to have the opt-in, self-selected tech audience listen to us.

I am going to ask you a crass question. A Bloomberg report recently said you both were fielding offers of up to $5 million for the show. It’s a startling sum of money. Kevin, how much are you making?

It's not $5 million.

Is it more than $5 million?

So much more, Katie. No, look, they have made us a good offer. We could have gotten more money elsewhere.

When I heard NPR, I thought to myself, “There’s no way NPR’s giving those guys $5 million,” with all due respect to NPR.

Public radio is not traditionally where people go to get rich in media. We loved their new chief content officer, Nadine Zylstra. She’s just a total force of nature, and we’re very excited to work with her.

We thought they had a lot of things to offer us beyond money, like their distribution on radio. People don’t realize how big radio still is. The reach of radio, and especially public radio, is still quite large. We’ve had this show, Hard Fork, for the last four years. We built up a pretty good-size audience, but the Times owns that show and owns the feed.

We are looking to grow our show as quickly as possible, and we just thought that the combination of commitment to journalistic excellence, their wide distribution, and their investment in helping us grow the show was the right combination of factors.

This brings me to another thing I’m curious about: The idea that a great reporter, a great commentator, can spend time somewhere “traditional” like The New York Times. They can build a brand, and then they realize that they can just go do it themselves, and they don’t actually need that institution anymore to exist in the world as talent, and often to make a lot more money than they would in traditional media. What’s your take on that?

Look, I don't have anything bad to say about The New York Times. I had nine wonderful years there. It was my second stint at the Times. I’ve spent the vast majority of my career at The New York Times and inside these big media institutions.

I do think we are entering this moment where at least for some portion of the audience, they want to connect with individuals more than institutions. We’ve just seen this in wave after wave. I don't know. I am not doing this for ideological reasons. I’m doing this because I thought it was a really exciting opportunity. But I do think that organizations that want to retain and attract very talented people will just need to be more flexible about these kinds of arrangements.

Some people aren’t going to wanna give up their Substacks and go inside a media institution. Some people aren’t going to want to have all of their work published by one publication. I think there are some media organizations that are starting to experiment with different, more flexible ways of bringing people in part way or having them maintain their independent operation but also contribute on an ongoing basis.

I think there are a lot of ways this can work, but I think it all has to start from a recognition that the journalistic career path where you go in the mail room and you work your way up and you spend 25 years at the same employer and you eventually become an editor and then a manager of editors, that has broken down. That is regrettable. I don’t think that’s a good thing that it’s broken down, but it has broken down.

I think institutions should grapple with the fact that there’s now a generation of media entrepreneurs who just don’t find what they have to offer all that appealing.

When you think about the talent piece of that, when you think about AI, are you optimistic about journalism and the industry of journalism?

I am very optimistic about the application of AI to journalism. That is one place where I have wanted to do more experiments, not with having AI write for me or do all my reporting, but like ways of extending journalism using AI.

What's an example of an experiment you would love to do?

I have former colleagues at the Times who have done incredible document analysis on a scale that wouldn’t have been possible before, using satellite imagery to determine whether a munitions factory has moved or something like that.

That’s the kind of thing that I don’t do much in my own life but that I would like to see other organizations trying, because I think that’s really cool. I have used AI to research and edit and improve my own work for months now. I have found that very helpful. I think the caliber of my work is better, and I would love to see more institutions in the media experimenting with these tools to improve the output of their journalists. Not just like, you know, filling their websites with slop but actually helping these be tools to make journalists better.

I want to talk about your book, The AGI Chronicles. When did you decide “I’m going to commit years of my life and my career because there's a book here.” What was that moment for you when you realized that this was a big deal?

I know exactly when it was. It was early last year, 2025, and I was in the car on the Bay Bridge stuck in traffic, and it just kind of hit me, like an epiphany. It was like I have been following this story in all the incremental detail for years now.

I’ve interviewed all the major AI researchers and CEOs. I’ve spent time with the papers. I’ve gone to all of the companies and reported on what they’re doing. But there was this larger story that I was missing. I hadn’t really zoomed out and tried to take a more panoramic view of something that was just weird.

I felt living in the Bay Area, being immersed in San Francisco tech culture, I had kind of gotten acclimated to that, and it no longer seemed as strange to me that there were these companies racing to build the machine superintelligence that could either save or destroy humanity.

Right.

I sometimes feel like I am in Los Alamos, New Mexico, in 1943 when the Manhattan Project rolls into town, and I’ve just kinda got my lawn chair and I’m looking at trucks rolling in and trying to make sense of what’s happening.

I believe that this technology is important and that the people and the companies who built it will be important historically. So when I thought about who is actually doing the work of writing all of this down, it was nobody. Nobody was doing it.

I just felt like it would be a tragedy if all this just disappeared in a bunch of Signal messages and Slacks that auto-delete, and if we just end up with no durable historical record of this really strange decade in AI when things went from not working at all to threatening the future of humanity.

I spent about a year reporting and writing. I talked to more than 150 people. I should have probably taken more time, because it was very hard and intense. But I think what came out of it was an artifact that people and future AI systems can look back at to say, “Here is how this happened. Here’s who made it happen. Here were the key decisions and moments along the way.”

The book follows three key companies, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google, in their pursuit of this technology. What were your big-picture learnings about those companies and the key differences between them that you think is important for people to know?

The companies are very different from one another, both in the makeup of their personnel and also in their ambitions.

Let’s start with Google, because they’re the oldest. They have had for decades now an advanced AI research effort. They were pioneers in AI. They developed the transformer, which is the T in ChatGPT, the sort of foundational technology that all of this other stuff rests on, and then there were these two guys, Elon Musk and Sam Altman, who got very worried about how well they were doing, about Google racing ahead, and they decided to start OpenAI …

To imagine that now …

Yeah, it’s wild, and we have the emails. It's all there in the record where they're basically like, “We have to start a lab that’s going to beat them or at least challenge them so that they don’t run away with the whole game.” So they start OpenAI, and they do a couple years of that, and then this guy at OpenAI, Dario Amodei, he takes six of his colleagues, and they leave and start Anthropic basically to make sure that OpenAI doesn’t get to this critical threshold of AGI first. So the whole industry spawned out of itself. These people all used to work together, and now they run these companies that are mortal enemies. Like, I was shocked. This was actually my biggest surprise. I thought this was more like Coke and Pepsi, but this is not a buddy-buddy industry. This is like a blood feud.

From all of the reporting that you did, who do you trust? Who do you trust with our future in the context of artificial intelligence?

I don’t trust any single person.

None of them.

What I learned through reporting this book is these are people, they are flawed, they are fallible, they have moments of weakness. Their motives are never 100 percent pure. Some of these people are quite nice. Some of them are very thoughtful. I think we have in some ways gotten very lucky with the people who are running these AI companies, who I think are, on the whole, much better suited to build powerful technology and release it into the world than the social media barons were.

So there is a marked difference between the Facebook era and this AI era?

Oh, yeah. For one, they are just way less naive. You know, the social media guys came in and they said, “We’re going to change the world. We’re going to free communication from the bottlenecks that hold it back. We’re going to distribute the benefits of technology to everyone.”

And they really didn't start thinking about the problems until they were being questioned in front of Congress.

I will say some of these AI guys talk a lot about saving the world. They talk a lot about how great this will be for humanity.

If you go back and look at the founding emails of OpenAI, they have been very consistent that they think this is a potentially very dangerous technology.

Now, they’re racing toward it, so maybe their words don’t