Transcript [MUSIC]      [BOOK PASSAGE]   PETER LEE: “In ‘The Little Black Bag,’ a classic science fiction story, a high-tech doctor’s kit of the future is accidentally transported back to the 1950s, into the shaky hands of a washed-up, alcoholic doctor. The ultimate medical tool, it redeems the doctor wielding it, allowing him to practice gratifyingly heroic medicine. … The tale ends badly for the doctor and his treacherous assistant, but it offered a picture of how advanced technology could transform medicine—powerful when it was written nearly 75 years ago and still so today. What would be the Al equivalent of that little black bag? At this moment when new capabilities are emerging, how do we imagine them into medicine?”   [END OF BOOK PASSAGE]     [THEME MUSIC]     This is The AI Revolution in Medicine, Revisited. I’m your host, Peter Lee.    Shortly after OpenAI’s GPT-4 was publicly released, Carey Goldberg, Dr. Zak Kohane, and I published The AI Revolution in Medicine to help educate the world of healthcare and medical research about the transformative impact this new generative AI technology could have. But because we wrote the book when GPT-4 was still a secret, we had to speculate. Now, two years later, what did we get right, and what did we get wrong?     In this series, we’ll talk to clinicians, patients, hospital administrators, and others to understand the reality of AI in the field and where we go from here.   [THEME MUSIC FADES] The book passage I read at the top is from “Chapter 10: The Big Black Bag.”  In imagining AI in medicine, Carey, Zak, and I included in our book two fictional accounts. In the first, a medical resident consults GPT-4 on her personal phone as the patient in front of her crashes. Within seconds, it offers an alternate response based on recent literature. In the second account, a 90-year-old woman with several chronic conditions is living independently and receiving near-constant medical support from an AI aide.    In our conversations with the guests we’ve spoken to so far, we’ve caught a glimpse of these predicted futures, seeing how clinicians and patients are actually using AI today and how developers are leveraging the technology in the healthcare products and services they’re creating. In fact, that first fictional account isn’t so fictional after all, as most of the doctors in the real world actually appear to be using AI at least occasionally—and sometimes much more than occasionally—to help in their daily clinical work. And as for the second fictional account, which is more of a science fiction account, it seems we are indeed on the verge of a new way of delivering and receiving healthcare, though the future is still very much open.  As we continue to examine the current state of AI in healthcare and its potential to transform the field, I’m pleased to welcome Bill Gates and Sébastien Bubeck.   Bill may be best known as the co-founder of Microsoft, having created the company with his childhood friend Paul Allen in 1975. He’s now the founder of Breakthrough Energy, which aims to advance clean energy innovation, and TerraPower, a company developing groundbreaking nuclear energy and science technologies. He also chairs the world’s largest philanthropic organization, the Gates Foundation, and focuses on solving a variety of health challenges around the globe and here at home.  Sébastien is a research lead at OpenAI. He was previously a distinguished scientist, vice president of AI, and a colleague of mine here at Microsoft, where his work included spearheading the development of the family of small language models known as Phi. While at Microsoft, he also coauthored the discussion-provoking 2023 paper “Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence,” which presented the results of early experiments with GPT-4 conducted by a small team from Microsoft Research.    [TRANSITION MUSIC]   Here’s my conversation with Bill Gates and Sébastien Bubeck.  LEE: Bill, welcome.  BILL GATES: Thank you.  LEE: Seb …  SÉBASTIEN BUBECK: Yeah. Hi, hi, Peter. Nice to be here.  LEE: You know, one of the things that I’ve been doing just to get the conversation warmed up is to talk about origin stories, and what I mean about origin stories is, you know, what was the first contact that you had with large language models or the concept of generative AI that convinced you or made you think that something really important was happening?  And so, Bill, I think I’ve heard the story about, you know, the time when the OpenAI folks—Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and others—showed you something, but could we hear from you what those early encounters were like and what was going through your mind?   GATES: Well, I’d been visiting OpenAI soon after it was created to see things like GPT-2 and to see the little arm they had that was trying to match human manipulation and, you know, looking at their games like Dota that they were trying to get as good as human play. And honestly, I didn’t think the language model stuff they were doing, even when they got to GPT-3, would show the ability to learn, you know, in the same sense that a human reads a biology book and is able to take that knowledge and access it not only to pass a test but also to create new medicines.  And so my challenge to them was that if their LLM could get a five on the advanced placement biology test, then I would say, OK, it took biologic knowledge and encoded it in an accessible way and that I didn’t expect them to do that very quickly but it would be profound.   And it was only about six months after I challenged them to do that, that an early version of GPT-4 they brought up to a dinner at my house, and in fact, it answered most of the questions that night very well. The one it got totally wrong, we were … because it was so good, we kept thinking, Oh, we must be wrong. It turned out it was a math weakness [LAUGHTER] that, you know, we later understood that that was an area of, weirdly, of incredible weakness of those early models. But, you know, that was when I realized, OK, the age of cheap intelligence was at its beginning.  LEE: Yeah. So I guess it seems like you had something similar to me in that my first encounters, I actually harbored some skepticism. Is it fair to say you were skeptical before that?  GATES: Well, the idea that we’ve figured out how to encode and access knowledge in this very deep sense without even understanding the nature of the encoding, …  LEE: Right.   GATES: … that is a bit weird.   LEE: Yeah.  GATES: We have an algorithm that creates the computation, but even say, OK, where is the president’s birthday stored in there? Where is this fact stored in there? The fact that even now when we’re playing around, getting a little bit more sense of it, it’s opaque to us what the semantic encoding is, it’s, kind of, amazing to me. I thought the invention of knowledge storage would be an explicit way of encoding knowledge, not an implicit statistical training.  LEE: Yeah, yeah. All right. So, Seb, you know, on this same topic, you know, I got—as we say at Microsoft—I got pulled into the tent. [LAUGHS]  BUBECK: Yes.   LEE: Because this was a very secret project. And then, um, I had the opportunity to select a small number of researchers in MSR [Microsoft Research] to join and start investigating this thing seriously. And the first person I pulled in was you.  BUBECK: Yeah.  LEE: And so what were your first encounters? Because I actually don’t remember what happened then.  BUBECK: Oh, I remember it very well. [LAUGHS] My first encounter with GPT-4 was in a meeting with the two of you, actually. But my kind of first contact, the first moment where I realized that something was happening with generative AI, was before that. And I agree with Bill that I also wasn’t too impressed by GPT-3.  I though that it was kind of, you know, very naturally mimicking the web, sort of parroting what was written there in a nice way. Still in a way which seemed very impressive. But it wasn’t really intelligent in any way. But shortly after GPT-3, there was a model before GPT-4 that really shocked me, and this was the first image generation model, DALL-E 1.  So that was in 2021. And I will forever remember the press release of OpenAI where they had this prompt of an avocado chair and then you had this image of the avocado chair. [LAUGHTER] And what really shocked me is that clearly the model kind of “understood” what is a chair, what is an avocado, and was able to merge those concepts.  So this was really, to me, the first moment where I saw some understanding in those models.   LEE: So this was, just to get the timing right, that was before I pulled you into the tent.  BUBECK: That was before. That was like a year before.  LEE: Right.   BUBECK: And now I will tell you how, you know, we went from that moment to the meeting with the two of you and GPT-4.  So once I saw this kind of understanding, I thought, OK, fine. It understands concept, but it’s still not able to reason. It cannot—as, you know, Bill was saying—it cannot learn from your document. It cannot reason.   So I set out to try to prove that. You know, this is what I was in the business of at the time, trying to prove things in mathematics. So I was trying to prove that basically autoregressive transformers could never reason. So I was trying to prove this. And after a year of work, I had something reasonable to show. And so I had the meeting with the two of you, and I had this example where I wanted to say, there is no way that an LLM is going to be able to do x.  And then as soon as I … I don’t know if you remember, Bill. But as soon as I said that, you said, oh, but wait a second. I had, you know, the OpenAI crew at my house recently, and they showed me a new model. Why don’t we ask this new model this question?   LEE: Yeah. BUBECK: And we did, and it solved it on the spot. And that really, honestly, just changed my life. Like, you know, I had been working for a year trying to say that this was impossible. And just right there, it was shown to be possible.   LEE: [LAUGHS] One of the very first things I got interested in—because I was really thinking a lot about healthcare—was healthcare and medicine.  And I don’t know if the two of you remember, but I ended up doing a lot of tests. I ran through, you know, step one and step two of the US Medical Licensing Exam. Did a whole bunch of other things. I wrote this big report. It was, you know, I can’t remember … a couple hundred pages.   And I needed to share this with someone. I didn’t … there weren’t too many people I could share it with. So I sent, I think, a copy to you, Bill. Sent a copy to you, Seb.   I hardly slept for about a week putting that report together. And, yeah, and I kept working on it. But I was far from alone. I think everyone who was in the tent, so to speak, in those early days was going through something pretty similar. All right. So I think … of course, a lot of what I put in the report also ended up being examples that made it into the book.  But the main purpose of this conversation isn’t to reminisce about [LAUGHS] or indulge in those reminiscences but to talk about what’s happening in healthcare and medicine. And, you know, as I said, we wrote this book. We did it very, very quickly. Seb, you helped. Bill, you know, you provided a review and some endorsements.  But, you know, honestly, we didn’t know what we were talking about because no one had access to this thing. And so we just made a bunch of guesses. So really, the whole thing I wanted to probe with the two of you is, now with two years of experience out in the world, what, you know, what do we think is happening today?  You know, is AI actually having an impact, positive or negative, on healthcare and medicine? And what do we now think is going to happen in the next two years, five years, or 10 years? And so I realize it’s a little bit too abstract to just ask it that way. So let me just try to narrow the discussion and guide us a little bit.   Um, the kind of administrative and clerical work, paperwork, around healthcare—and we made a lot of guesses about that—that appears to be going well, but, you know, Bill, I know we’ve discussed that sometimes that you think there ought to be a lot more going on. Do you have a viewpoint on how AI is actually finding its way into reducing paperwork?  GATES: Well, I’m stunned … I don’t think there should be a patient-doctor meeting where the AI is not sitting in and both transcribing, offering to help with the paperwork, and even making suggestions, although the doctor will be the one, you know, who makes the final decision about the diagnosis and whatever prescription gets done.   It’s so helpful. You know, when that patient goes home and their, you know, son who wants to understand what happened has some questions, that AI should be available to continue that conversation. And the way you can improve that experience and streamline things and, you know, involve the people who advise you. I don’t understand why that’s not more adopted, because there you still have the human in the loop making that final decision.  But even for, like, follow-up calls to make sure the patient did things, to understand if they have concerns and knowing when to escalate back to the doctor, the benefit is incredible. And, you know, that thing is ready for prime time. That paradigm is ready for prime time, in my view.  LEE: Yeah, there are some good products, but it seems like the number one use right now—and we kind of got this from some of the previous guests in previous episodes—is the use of AI just to respond to emails from patients. [LAUGHTER] Does that make sense to you?  BUBECK: Yeah. So maybe I want to second what Bill was saying but maybe take a step back first. You know, two years ago, like, the concept of clinical scribes, which is one of the things that we’re talking about right now, it would have sounded, in fact, it sounded two years ago, borderline dangerous. Because everybody was worried about hallucinations. What happened if you have this AI listening in and then it transcribes, you know, something wrong?  Now, two years later, I think it’s mostly working. And in fact, it is not yet, you know, fully adopted. You’re right. But it is in production. It is used, you know, in many, many places. So this rate of progress is astounding because it wasn’t obvious that we would be able to overcome those obstacles of hallucination. It’s not to say that hallucinations are fully solved. In the case of the closed system, they are.   Now, I think more generally what’s going on in the background is that there is something that we, that certainly I, underestimated, which is this management overhead. So I think the reason why this is not adopted everywhere is really a training and teaching aspect. People need to be taught, like, those systems, how to interact with them.  And one example that I really like, a study that recently appeared where they tried to use ChatGPT for diagnosis and they were comparing doctors without and with ChatGPT (opens in new tab). And the amazing thing … so this was a set of cases where the accuracy of the doctors alone was around 75%. ChatGPT alone was 90%. So that’s already kind of mind blowing. But then the kicker is that doctors with ChatGPT was 80%.   Intelligence alone is not enough. It’s also how it’s presented, how you interact with it. And ChatGPT, it’s an amazing tool. Obviously, I absolutely love it. But it’s not … you don’t want a doctor to have to type in, you know, prompts and use it that way.  It should be, as Bill was saying, kind of running continuously in the background, sending you notifications. And you have to be really careful of the rate at which those notifications are being sent. Because if they are too frequent, then the doctor will learn to ignore them. So you have to … all of those things matter, in fact, at least as much as the level of intelligence of the machine.  LEE: One of the things I think about, Bill, in that scenario that you described, doctors do some thinking about the patient when they write the note. So, you know, I’m always a little uncertain whether it’s actually … you know, you wouldn’t necessarily want to fully automate this, I don’t think. Or at least there needs to be some prompt to the doctor to make sure that the doctor puts some thought into what happened in the encounter with the patient. Does that make sense to you at all?  GATES: At this stage, you know, I’d still put the onus on the doctor to write the conclusions and the summary and not delegate that.  The tradeoffs you make a little bit are somewhat dependent on the situation you’re in. If you’re in Africa, So, yes, the doctor’s still going to have to do a lot of work, but just the quality of letting the patient and the people around them interact and ask questions and have things explained, that alone is such a quality improvement. It’s mind blowing.   LEE: So since you mentioned, you know, Africa—and, of course, this touches on the mission and some of the priorities of the Gates Foundation and this idea of democratization of access to expert medical care—what’s the most interesting stuff going on right now? Are there people and organizations or technologies that are impressing you or that you’re tracking?  GATES: Yeah. So the Gates Foundation has given out a lot of grants to people in Africa doing education, agriculture but more healthcare examples than anything. And the way these things start off, they often start out either being patient-centric in a narrow situation, like, OK, I’m a pregnant woman; talk to me. Or, I have infectious disease symptoms; talk to me. Or they’re connected to a health worker where they’re helping that worker get their job done. And we have lots of pilots out, you know, in both of those cases.   The dream would be eventually to have the thing the patient consults be so broad that it’s like having a doctor available who understands the local things.   LEE: Right.   GATES: We’re not there yet. But over the next two or three years, you know, particularly given the worsening financial constraints against African health systems, where the withdrawal of money has been dramatic, you know, figuring out how to take this—what I sometimes call “free intelligence”—and build a quality health system around that, we will have to be more radical in low-income countries than any rich country is ever going to be.   LEE: Also, there’s maybe a different regulatory environment, so some of those things maybe are easier? Because right now, I think the world hasn’t figured out how to and whether to regulate, let’s say, an AI that might give a medical diagnosis or write a prescription for a medication.  BUBECK: Yeah. I think one issue with this, and it’s also slowing down the deployment of AI in healthcare more generally, is a lack of proper benchmark. Because, you know, you were mentioning the USMLE [United States Medical Licensing Examination], for example. That’s a great test to test human beings and their knowledge of healthcare and medicine. But it’s not a great test to give to an AI.  It’s not asking the right questions. So finding what are the right questions to test whether an AI system is ready to give diagnosis in a constrained setting, that’s a very, very important direction, which to my surprise, is not yet accelerating at the rate that I was hoping for.  LEE: OK, so that gives me an excuse to get more now into the core AI tech because something I’ve discussed with both of you is this issue of what are the right tests. And you both know the very first test I give to any new spin of an LLM is I present a patient, the results—a mythical patient—the results of my physical exam, my mythical physical exam. Maybe some results of some initial labs. And then I present or propose a differential diagnosis. And if you’re not in medicine, a differential diagnosis you can just think of as a prioritized list of the possible diagnoses that fit with all that data. And in that proposed differential, I always intentionally make two mistakes.  I make a textbook technical error in one of the possible elements of the differential diagnosis, and I have an error of omission. And, you know, I just want to know, does the LLM understand what I’m talking about? And all the good ones out there do now. But then I want to know, can it spot the errors? And then most importantly, is it willing to tell me I’m wrong, that I’ve made a mistake?   That last piece seems really hard for AI today. And so let me ask you first, Seb, because at the time of this taping, of course, there was a new spin of GPT-4o last week that became overly sycophantic. In other words, it was actually prone in that test of mine not only to not tell me I’m wrong, but it actually praised me for the creativity of my differential. [LAUGHTER] What’s up with that?  BUBECK: Yeah, I guess it’s a testament to the fact that training those models is still more of an art than a science. So it’s a difficult job. Just to be clear with the audience, we have rolled back that [LAUGHS] version of GPT-4o, so now we don’t have the sycophant version out there.  Yeah, no, it’s a really difficult question. It has to do … as you said, it’s very technical. It has to do with the post-training and how, like, where do you nudge the model? So, you know, there is this very classical by now technique called RLHF [reinforcement learning from human feedback], where you push the model in the direction of a certain reward model. So the reward model is just telling the model, you know, what behavior is good, what behavior is bad.  But this reward model is itself an LLM, and, you know, Bill was saying at the very beginning of the conversation that we don’t really understand how those LLMs deal with concepts like, you know, where is the capital of France located? Things like that. It is the same thing for this reward model. We don’t know why it says that it prefers one output to another, and whether this is correlated with some sycophancy is, you know, something that we discovered basically just now. That if you push too hard in optimization on this reward model, you will get a sycophant model.  So it’s kind of … what I’m trying to say is we became too good at what we were doing, and we ended up, in fact, in a trap of the reward model.  LEE: I mean, you do want … it’s a difficult balance because you do want models to follow your desires and …  BUBECK: It’s a very difficult, very difficult balance.  LEE: So this brings up then the following question for me, which is the extent to which we think we’ll need to have specially trained models for things. So let me start with you, Bill. Do you have a point of view on whether we will need to, you know, quote-unquote take AI models to med school? Have them specially trained? Like, if you were going to deploy something to give medical care in underserved parts of the world, do we need to do something special to create those models?  GATES: We certainly need to teach them the African languages and the unique dialects so that the multimedia interactions are very high quality. We certainly need to teach them the disease prevalence and unique disease patterns like, you know, neglected tropical diseases and malaria. So we need to gather a set of facts that somebody trying to go for a US customer base, you know, wouldn’t necessarily have that in there.  Those two things are actually very straightforward because the additional training time is small. I’d say for the next few years, we’ll also need to do reinforcement learning about the context of being a doctor and how important certain behaviors are. Humans learn over the course of their life to some degree that, I’m in a different context and the way I behave in terms of being willing to criticize or be nice, you know, how important is it? Who’s here? What’s my relationship to them?   Right now, these machines don’t have that broad social experience. And so if you know it’s going to be used for health things, a lot of reinforcement learning of the very best humans in that context would still be valuable. Eventually, the models will, having read all the literature of the world about good doctors, bad doctors, it’ll understand as soon as you say, “I want you to be a doctor diagnosing somebody.” All of the implicit reinforcement that fits that situation, you know, will be there. LEE: Yeah. GATES: And so I hope three years from now, we don’t have to do that reinforcement learning. But today, for any medical context, you would want a lot of data to reinforce tone, willingness to say things when, you know, there might be something significant at stake.  LEE: Yeah. So, you know, something Bill said, kind of, reminds me of another thing that I think we missed, which is, the context also … and the specialization also pertains to different, I guess, what we still call “modes,” although I don’t know if the idea of multimodal is the same as it was two years ago. But, you know, what do you make of all of the hubbub around—in fact, within Microsoft Research, this is a big deal, but I think we’re far from alone—you know, medical images and vision, video, proteins and molecules, cell, you know, cellular data and so on.  BUBECK: Yeah. OK. So there is a lot to say to everything … to the last, you know, couple of minutes. Maybe on the specialization aspect, you know, I think there is, hiding behind this, a really fundamental scientific question of whether eventually we have a singular AGI [artificial general intelligence] that kind of knows everything and you can just put, you know, explain your own context and it will just get it and understand everything.  That’s one vision. I have to say, I don’t particularly believe in this vision. In fact, we humans are not like that at all. I think, hopefully, we are general intelligences, yet we have to specialize a lot. And, you know, I did myself a lot of RL, reinforcement learning, on mathematics. Like, that’s what I did, you know, spent a lot of time doing that. And I didn’t improve on other aspects. You know, in fact, I probably degraded in other aspects. [LAUGHTER] So it’s … I think it’s an important example to have in mind.  LEE: I think I might disagree with you on that, though, because, like, doesn’t a model have to see both good science and bad science in order to be able to gain the ability to discern between the two?  BUBECK: Yeah, no, that absolutely. I think there is value in seeing the generality, in having a very broad base. But then you, kind of, specialize on verticals. And this is where also, you know, open-weights model, which we haven’t talked about yet, are really important because they allow you to provide this broad base to everyone. And then you can specialize on top of it.  LEE: So we have about three hours of stuff to talk about, but our time is actually running low. BUBECK: Yes, yes, yes.   LEE: So I think I want … there’s a more provocative question. It’s almost a silly question, but I need to ask it of the two of you, which is, is there a future, you know, where AI replaces doctors or replaces, you know, medical specialties that we have today? So what does the world look like, say, five years from now?  GATES: Well, it’s important to distinguish healthcare discovery activity from healthcare delivery activity. We focused mostly on delivery. I think it’s very much within the realm of possibility that the AI is not only accelerating healthcare discovery but substituting for a lot of the roles of, you know, I’m an organic chemist, or I run various types of assays. I can see those, which are, you know, testable-output-type jobs but with still very high value, I can see, you know, some replacement in those areas before the doctor.   The doctor, still understanding the human condition and long-term dialogues, you know, they’ve had a lifetime of reinforcement of that, particularly when you get into areas like mental health. So I wouldn’t say in five years, either people will choose to adopt it, but it will be profound that there’ll be this nearly free intelligence that can do follow-up, that can help you, you know, make sure you went through different possibilities.  And so I’d say, yes, we’ll have doctors, but I’d say healthcare will be massively transformed in its quality and in efficiency by AI in that time period.  LEE: Is there a comparison, useful comparison, say, between doctors and, say, programmers, computer programmers, or doctors and, I don’t know, lawyers?  GATES: Programming is another one that has, kind of, a mathematical correctness to it, you know, and so the objective function that you’re trying to reinforce to, as soon as you can understand the state machines, you can have something that’s “checkable”; that’s correct. So I think programming, you know, which is weird to say, that the machine will beat us at most programming tasks before we let it take over roles that have deep empathy, you know, physical presence and social understanding in them.  LEE: Yeah. By the way, you know, I fully expect in five years that AI will produce mathematical proofs that are checkable for validity, easily checkable, because they’ll be written in a proof-checking language like Lean or something but will be so complex that no human mathematician can understand them. I expect that to happen.   I can imagine in some fields, like cellular biology, we could have the same situation in the future because the molecular pathways, the chemistry, biochemistry of human cells or living cells is as complex as any mathematics, and so it seems possible that we may be in a state where in wet lab, we see, Oh yeah, this actually works, but no one can understand why.  BUBECK: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think I really agree with Bill’s distinction of the discovery and the delivery, and indeed, the discovery’s when you can check things, and at the end, there is an artifact that you can verify. You know, you can run the protocol in the wet lab and see [if you have] produced what you wanted. So I absolutely agree with that.   And in fact, you know, we don’t have to talk five years from now. I don’t know if you know, but just recently, there was a paper that was published on a scientific discovery using o3- mini (opens in new tab). So this is really amazing. And, you know, just very quickly, just so people know, it was about this statistical physics model, the frustrated Potts model, which has to do with coloring, and basically, the case of three colors, like, more than two colors was open for a long time, and o3 was able to reduce the case of three colors to two colors.   LEE: Yeah.  BUBECK: Which is just, like, astounding. And this is not … this is now. This is happening right now. So this is something that I personally didn’t expect it would happen so quickly, and it’s due to those reasoning models.   Now, on the delivery side, I would add something more to it for the reason why doctors and, in fact, lawyers and coders will remain for a long time, and it’s because we still don’t understand how those models generalize. Like, at the end of the day, we are not able to tell you when they are confronted with a really new, novel situation, whether they will work or not.  Nobody is able to give you that guarantee. And I think until we understand this generalization better, we’re not going to be willing to just let the system in the wild without human supervision.  LEE: But don’t human doctors, human specialists … so, for example, a cardiologist sees a patient in a certain way that a nephrologist …  BUBECK: Yeah. LEE: … or an endocrinologist might not. BUBECK: That’s right. But another cardiologist will understand and, kind of, expect a certain level of generalization from their peer. And this, we just don’t have it with AI models. Now, of course, you’re exactly right. That generalization is also hard for humans. Like, if you have a human trained for one task and you put them into another task, then you don’t … you often don’t know. LEE: OK. You know, the podcast is focused on what’s happened over the last two years. But now, I’d like one provocative prediction about what you think the world of AI and medicine is going to be at some point in the future. You pick your timeframe. I don’t care if it’s two years or 20 years from now, but, you know, what do you think will be different about AI in medicine in that future than today?  BUBECK: Yeah, I think the deployment is going to accelerate soon. Like, we’re really not missing very much. There is this enormous capability overhang. Like, even if progress completely stopped, with current systems, we can do a lot more than what we’re doing right now. So I think this will … this has to be realized, you know, sooner rather than later.  And I think it’s probably dependent on these benchmarks and proper evaluation and tying this with regulation. So these are things that take time in human society and for good reason. But now we already are at two years; you know, give it another two years and it should be really …   LEE: Will AI prescribe your medicines? Write your prescriptions?  BUBECK: I think yes. I think yes.  LEE: OK. Bill?  GATES: Well, I think the next two years, we’ll have massive pilots, and so the amount of use of the AI, still in a copilot-type mode, you know, we should get millions of patient visits, you know, both in general medicine and in the mental health side, as well. And I think that’s going to build up both the data and the confidence to give the AI some additional autonomy. You know, are you going to let it talk to you at night when you’re panicked about your mental health with some ability to escalate? And, you know, I’ve gone so far as to tell politicians with national health systems that if they deploy AI appropriately, that the quality of care, the overload of the doctors, the improvement in the economics will be enough that their voters will be stunned because they just don’t expect this, and, you know, they could be reelected [LAUGHTER] just on this one thing of fixing what is a very overloaded and economically challenged health system in these rich countries.  You know, my personal role is going to be to make sure that in the poorer countries, there isn’t some lag; in fact, in many cases, that we’ll be more aggressive because, you know, we’re comparing to having no access to doctors at all. And, you know, so I think whether it’s India or Africa, there’ll be lessons that are globally valuable because we need medical intelligence. And, you know, thank god AI is going to provide a lot of that.  LEE: Well, on that optimistic note, I think that’s a good way to end. Bill, Seb, really appreciate all of this.   I think the most fundamental prediction we made in the book is that AI would actually find its way into the practice of medicine, and I think that that at least has come true, maybe in different ways than we expected, but it’s come true, and I think it’ll only accelerate from here. So thanks again, both of you.  [TRANSITION MUSIC]  GATES: Yeah. Thanks, you guys.  BUBECK: Thank you, Peter. Thanks, Bill.  LEE: I just always feel such a sense of privilege to have a chance to interact and actually work with people like Bill and Sébastien.    With Bill, I’m always amazed at how practically minded he is. He’s really thinking about the nuts and bolts of what AI might be able to do for people, and his thoughts about underserved parts of the world, the idea that we might actually be able to empower people with access to expert medical knowledge, I think is both inspiring and amazing.   And then, Seb, Sébastien Bubeck, he’s just absolutely a brilliant mind. He has a really firm grip on the deep mathematics of artificial intelligence and brings that to bear in his research and development work. And where that mathematics takes him isn’t just into the nuts and bolts of algorithms but into philosophical questions about the nature of intelligence.   One of the things that Sébastien brought up was the state of evaluation of AI systems. And indeed, he was fairly critical in our conversation. But of course, the world of AI research and development is just moving so fast, and indeed, since we recorded our conversation, OpenAI, in fact, released a new evaluation metric that is directly relevant to medical applications, and that is something called HealthBench. And Microsoft Research also released a new evaluation approach or process called ADeLe.   HealthBench and ADeLe are examples of new approaches to evaluating AI models that are less about testing their knowledge and ability to pass multiple-choice exams and instead are evaluation approaches designed to assess how well AI models are able to complete tasks that actually arise every day in typical healthcare or biomedical research settings. These are examples of really important good work that speak to how well AI models work in the real world of healthcare and biomedical research and how well they can collaborate with human beings in those settings.  You know, I asked Bill and Seb to make some predictions about the future. You know, my own answer, I expect that we’re going to be able to use AI to change how we diagnose patients, change how we decide treatment options.   If you’re a doctor or a nurse and you encounter a patient, you’ll ask questions, do a physical exam, you know, call out for labs just like you do today, but then you’ll be able to engage with AI based on all of that data and just ask, you know, based on all the other people who have gone through the same experience, who have similar data, how were they diagnosed? How were they treated? What were their outcomes? And what does that mean for the patient I have right now? Some people call it the “patients like me” paradigm. And I think that’s going to become real because of AI within our lifetimes. That idea of really grounding the delivery in healthcare and medical practice through data and intelligence, I actually now don’t see any barriers to that future becoming real.  [THEME MUSIC]  I’d like to extend another big thank you to Bill and Sébastien for their time. And to our listeners, as always, it’s a pleasure to have you along for the ride. I hope you’ll join us for our remaining conversations, as well as a second coauthor roundtable with Carey and Zak.   Until next time.   [MUSIC FADES]

Google and OpenAI struck a cloud computing deal in May, according to a Reuters report. The deal surprised the industry as the two are seen as major AI rivals. Signs of friction between OpenAI and Microsoft may have also fueled the move. The partnership is a win-win.OpenAI gets more badly needed computing resources while Google profits from its $75B investment to boost its cloud computing capacity in 2025. In a surprise move, Google and OpenAI inked a deal that will see the AI rivals partnering to address OpenAI’s growing cloud computing needs. The story, reported by Reuters, cited anonymous sources saying that the deal had been discussed for months and finalized in May. Around this time, OpenAI has struggled to keep up with demand as its number of weekly active users and business users grew in Q1 2025. There’s also speculation of friction between OpenAI and its biggest investor Microsoft. Why the Deal Surprised the Tech Industry The rivalry between the two companies hardly needs an introduction. When OpenAI’s ChatGPT launched in November 2022, it posed a huge threat to Google that triggered a code red within the search giant and cloud services provider. Since then, Google has launched Bard (now known as Gemini) to compete with OpenAI head-on. However, it had to play catch up with OpenAI’s more advanced ChatGPT AI chatbot. This led to numerous issues with Bard, with critics referring to it as a half-baked product. A post on X in February 2023 showed the Bard AI chatbot erroneously stating that the James Webb Telescope took the first picture of an exoplanet. It was, in fact, the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope that did this in 2004. Google’s parent company Alphabet lost $100B off its market value within 24 hours as a result. Two years on, Gemini made significant strides in terms of accuracy, quoting sources, and depth of information, but is still prone to hallucinations from time to time. You can see examples of these posted on social media, like telling a user to make spicy spaghetti with gasoline or the AI thinking it’s still 2024.  And then there’s this gem: With the entire industry shifting towards more AI integrations, Google went ahead and integrated its AI suite into Search via AI Overviews. It then doubled down on this integration with AI Mode, an experimental feature that lets you perform AI-powered searches by typing in a question, uploading a photo, or using your voice. In the future, AI Mode from Google Search could be a viable competitor to ChatGPT—unless of course, Google decides to bin it along with many of its previous products. Given the scope of the investment, and Gemini’s significant improvement, we doubt AI + Search will be axed. It’s a Win-Win for Google and OpenAI—Not So Much for Microsoft? In the business world, money and the desire for expansion can break even the biggest rivalries. And the one between the two tech giants isn’t an exception. Partly, it could be attributed to OpenAI’s relationship with Microsoft. Although the Redmond, Washington-based company has invested billions in OpenAI and has the resources to meet the latter’s cloud computing needs, their partnership hasn’t always been rosy.  Some would say it began when OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was briefly ousted in November 2023, which put a strain on the ‘best bromance in tech’ between him and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. Then last year, Microsoft added OpenAI to its list of competitors in the AI space before eventually losing its status as OpenAI’s exclusive cloud provider in January 2025. If that wasn’t enough, there’s also the matter of the two companies’ goal of achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI). Defined as when OpenAI develops AI systems that generate $100B in profits, reaching AGI means Microsoft will lose access to the former’s technology. With the company behind ChatGPT expecting to triple its 2025 revenue to $12.7 from $3.7B the previous year, this could happen sooner rather than later. While OpenAI already has deals with Microsoft, Oracle, and CoreWeave to provide it with cloud services and access to infrastructure, it needs more and soon as the company has seen massive growth in the past few months. In February, OpenAI announced that it had over 400M weekly active users, up from 300M in December 2024. Meanwhile, the number of its business users who use ChatGPT Enterprise, ChatGPT Team, and ChatGPT Edu products also jumped from 2M in February to 3M in March. The good news is Google is more than ready to deliver. Its parent company has earmarked $75B towards its investments in AI this year, which includes boosting its cloud computing capacity. In April, Google launched its 7th generation tensor processing unit (TPU) called Ironwood, which has been designed specifically for inference. According to the company, the new TPU will help power AI models that will ‘proactively retrieve and generate data to collaboratively deliver insights and answers, not just data.’The deal with OpenAI can be seen as a vote of confidence in Google’s cloud computing capability that competes with the likes of Microsoft Azure and Amazon Web Services. It also expands Google’s vast client list that includes tech, gaming, entertainment, and retail companies, as well as organizations in the public sector. As technology continues to evolve—from the return of 'dumbphones' to faster and sleeker computers—seasoned tech journalist, Cedric Solidon, continues to dedicate himself to writing stories that inform, empower, and connect with readers across all levels of digital literacy. With 20 years of professional writing experience, this University of the Philippines Journalism graduate has carved out a niche as a trusted voice in tech media. Whether he's breaking down the latest advancements in cybersecurity or explaining how silicon-carbon batteries can extend your phone’s battery life, his writing remains rooted in clarity, curiosity, and utility. Long before he was writing for Techreport, HP, Citrix, SAP, Globe Telecom, CyberGhost VPN, and ExpressVPN, Cedric's love for technology began at home courtesy of a Nintendo Family Computer and a stack of tech magazines. Growing up, his days were often filled with sessions of Contra, Bomberman, Red Alert 2, and the criminally underrated Crusader: No Regret. But gaming wasn't his only gateway to tech.  He devoured every T3, PCMag, and PC Gamer issue he could get his hands on, often reading them cover to cover. It wasn’t long before he explored the early web in IRC chatrooms, online forums, and fledgling tech blogs, soaking in every byte of knowledge from the late '90s and early 2000s internet boom. That fascination with tech didn’t just stick. It evolved into a full-blown calling. After graduating with a degree in Journalism, he began his writing career at the dawn of Web 2.0. What started with small editorial roles and freelance gigs soon grew into a full-fledged career. He has since collaborated with global tech leaders, lending his voice to content that bridges technical expertise with everyday usability. He’s also written annual reports for Globe Telecom and consumer-friendly guides for VPN companies like CyberGhost and ExpressVPN, empowering readers to understand the importance of digital privacy. His versatility spans not just tech journalism but also technical writing. He once worked with a local tech company developing web and mobile apps for logistics firms, crafting documentation and communication materials that brought together user-friendliness with deep technical understanding. That experience sharpened his ability to break down dense, often jargon-heavy material into content that speaks clearly to both developers and decision-makers. At the heart of his work lies a simple belief: technology should feel empowering, not intimidating. Even if the likes of smartphones and AI are now commonplace, he understands that there's still a knowledge gap, especially when it comes to hardware or the real-world benefits of new tools. His writing hopes to help close that gap. Cedric’s writing style reflects that mission. It’s friendly without being fluffy and informative without being overwhelming. Whether writing for seasoned IT professionals or casual readers curious about the latest gadgets, he focuses on how a piece of technology can improve our lives, boost our productivity, or make our work more efficient. That human-first approach makes his content feel more like a conversation than a technical manual. As his writing career progresses, his passion for tech journalism remains as strong as ever. With the growing need for accessible, responsible tech communication, he sees his role not just as a journalist but as a guide who helps readers navigate a digital world that’s often as confusing as it is exciting. From reviewing the latest devices to unpacking global tech trends, Cedric isn’t just reporting on the future; he’s helping to write it. View all articles by Cedric Solidon Our editorial process The Tech Report editorial policy is centered on providing helpful, accurate content that offers real value to our readers. We only work with experienced writers who have specific knowledge in the topics they cover, including latest developments in technology, online privacy, cryptocurrencies, software, and more. Our editorial policy ensures that each topic is researched and curated by our in-house editors. We maintain rigorous journalistic standards, and every article is 100% written by real authors.

Every item on this page was hand-picked by a House Beautiful editor. We may earn commission on some of the items you choose to buy.While some design-minded folks prefer the shiny, unmarked quality of newly made furniture and decor, others opt for the charm and history associated with vintage and antique treasures. Buying secondhand and locally is not only more sustainable, but it's a great way to avoid increased fees from recent tariff policies. There's never been a better time to invest in ready-made pieces that have seen decades (or even centuries) of history unfold. That said, discerning the true value of high-end antiques—whether it be a secretary desk whose top requires a bit of elbow grease to open or a Lalique bottle that bears a tiny chip in the base—is no easy feat. After all, if you don't know the ins and outs of this particular niche, you could very well get duped into overspending.To prepare you for your next outing to the antique shop, vintage store, or flea market, we asked experts in the field for their most helpful shopping tips. Here's what they had to say about sourcing decades-old treasures—without regretting your purchase later. Related Stories Buy From a Reputable Sourcetaikrixel//Getty Images"Fakes are really the rare outliers and not the norm in the world of antiques and vintage furniture," according to Anthony Barzilay Freund, editorial director and director of fine art at 1stDibs. He says that it's always best to investigate the reputation of individual dealers or browse a reputable online marketplace that sells only vetted and authenticated items. "When buying any piece of furniture that purports to be old, it's important that you are working with a reputable dealer who has a history of handling the type of material and a track record of participating in vetted fairs or selling on digital platforms such as 1stDibs that monitor inventory," Freund continues. That way, you can trust the info you're given. "You can perform your due diligence by asking the dealer to provide you with any information about the piece's provenance (who made it, where it was made, and who owned it over the years)."As for antique-hunting at thrift stores and flea markets, you may find a few quality pieces here and there. "And the more you look, the better able you'll be to discern quality," says Freund. So, browse often!Related StoryLook for a Maker’s MarkMany antiques from famed designers bear a stamp or signature indicating who made them—but many don't, and not all stamps can be trusted. "A piece that has a stamp may be an indication that it's by a specific designer, but there have been known cases in which some badly intentioned people use someone else's branding stamp to produce fakes," says Benoist F. Drut, owner of New York–based gallery Maison Gerard. The prolific 18th-century French designer George Jacobs, for instance, was famous for his iconic stamps, but even he didn't mark every piece he designed with a signature, so "you can't rely entirely on the stamp to prove authenticity," Drut says. That being said, he adds, "It's usually obvious if it's a real stamp and not a copy." Herman MillerIf there's an artist or design house you like, do some research first to uncover exactly what type of mark, if any, you should be seeking. For example, one of the most popular vintage pieces is the beloved Eames lounge chair. According to the brand, which still produces some of the designer's original designs, "Labels and stamps can be the best and the quickest method of authenticating your Eames design. It may also help you to date and value your piece." Every Eames piece, from the first designs from the early 1940s to the ones produced now, bears a label. The only exception is the fiberglass shell chair, each of which bears a stamp. Both the labels and stamps feature a series of letters and numbers that can help determine the exact age of the piece. Related StoryAsk for Provenance DocumentsThis may seem like the most straightforward step, but it's usually the least reliable for one key reason. "Pieces that are a few hundred years old move from place to place during their lifetime, and rarely do the papers follow them," Drut explains. In most cases, you simply have to decide whether or not you trust what the dealer is telling you to be true about a piece's provenance. Some items, however, do come with papers that can easily be authenticated. These pieces are typically ones that have been in the family's estate for generations. If such papers aren't available, he adds, a piece may also be listed in probate inventories or wills, so be sure to check everywhere.A piece with family provenance further helps validate its authenticity. In certain occasions, a piece may be seen in an early 20th-century black and white photograph or, in rare instances, in a daguerreotype.—Erik GronningRelated StoryDo Your Own ResearchBeeldbewerking//Getty ImagesIf you're considering an older piece, the dealer from whom you're buying it should have a general idea of the year or decade it was produced. With that information, do some digging about how similar pieces of furniture were made and with which types of materials. "Look at books about that time period and, if you can, visit museums," says Drut. "It doesn't take a professional to see all of the subtle details—such as the materials and techniques used—that indicate if it's authentic or not." Along the way, you might uncover some lesser-known designers whose pieces are still genuine works of art, but may be easier to find and more affordable to purchase. (If an Eames chair is out of your price range, for example, you might want to look into a Plycraft seat.)Related StoryPerform a “Run-Down”Before making a big-ticket purchase, ask the dealer what the piece is made of—the response will be another indicator of authenticity. Take chairs as an example."Plenty of chairs and sofas made today are filled with foam," says Drut. "An 18th-century chair, however, will be filled with horsehair, as foam was not invented until much later in the 20th century."You'll also want to observe where small marks or imperfections in the construction may bear the signature of a handcrafted (as opposed to mass-produced) item. "The process of making a piece of furniture using only hand tools leaves behind 'tool marks,'" says Erik Gronning, Sotheby's head of Americana. "Saws leave a mark called a saw kerf while planes leave plane marks, and modern electrical powered saws and planes also leave marks, but theirs are regular and not inconsistent as one sees with hand tools." Related Story Request Pre-Restoration PhotosGiorez//Getty Images"If the piece has been extensively cleaned and/or refinished," Freund advises, "ask to see pre-restoration photographs." Any reputable restorer regularly enlisted by antique dealers is likely to have a few on hand. Here's the thing about restorations: They're not a bad thing, and they're definitely not a reason to question a piece's authenticity or age. For instance, Drut says, if you're considering buying a 19th-century chair whose back leg is attached with glue, "that's because it's 200 years old and, without the glue, the chair may not be usable." Looking at an image of the chair before the glue was applied can reassure you that you're getting a strengthened original, not a fake. On the other hand, if you find a centuries-old piece that looks spotless, "How can you explain that? You can't," says Drut." An alleged antique that looks too good to be true probably is." Consider what an update may be concealing: "If something has been fully painted over, that often means that someone has something to hide. Stay away," says Drut. More specifically, Gronning adds that "18th- and early 19th-century pieces in their 'original' surface have a very dark or nearly black appearance that, to the untrained eye, could appear dirty or ratty, but it is this appearance that helps authenticate its age." If this is the case with an antique treasure you're considering, it's important to look at any perceived flaws as marks of character. "Antiques and vintage pieces have a patina and personality that one cannot find in a newly constructed object," Freund says. "Rather than viewing this as damage or wear and tear, antique lovers think signs of age give an object a visual interest, warmth, and uniqueness that really enhances the character of a room." Follow House Beautiful on Instagram and TikTok.

Ballerina is what happens when a studio wants to extend a franchise but really has no reason to do so except a financial one. Subtitled From The World of John Wick, this action thriller contains too much action and precious little thrills. Directed (maybe) by Len Wiseman of Underworld fame, Ballerina is set in the same universe as the four majestic adrenaline epics starring Keanu Reeves, and incorporates as many elements from those films as possible, including the Continental Hotel and the Ruska Roma, not to mention appearances from Ian McShane, Anjelica Huston, the late, great Lance Reddick, and Mr. Reeves himself. But what is also found in ample supply in the John Wick movies and sadly missing in Ballerina is heart, character, and a sense of conviction. At the center of the movie is a miscast, utterly bland Ana de Armas as Eve Macarro, whose father’s death sent her as a little girl into the custody of McShane’s Winston Scott and, eventually, the tutelage of the Director (Huston) of the Ruska Roma ballet/assassin school. It’s there that Eve goes through the usual training montage, with her inability to dance only matched by her evident aptitude at killing and fighting. Once her training is complete, Eve is sent out into the world on Ruska Roma business, but of course her main goal is avenging her dad, who was killed by members of a mysterious cult led by the enigmatic Chancellor (Gabriel Byrne). No sooner can you say “she’s gone rogue” than she does just that, jetting off to Prague in pursuit of a cult member (Norman Reedus) who’s trying to get himself and his own little daughter out from under the Chancellor’s thumb, while finding herself at odds with the Director and pursued by the Chancellor’s minions at every turn. The movie’s thin “lady vengeance” premise, which we’ve seen countless times before, is reheated once again by screenwriter Shay Hatten, who has co-written the last two John Wick entries but seems lost here. Unlike John Wick himself, whose single-minded quest for revenge over the death of his dog took on mythic overtones as more layers to both John and the surreal world of elegant criminality in which he moved were revealed, Eve has nothing to define her that hasn’t been done or said before. It doesn’t help that Armas, while up to the role’s physicality, offers nothing in terms of personality—she’s an empty vessel. Which is a shame, since she’s displayed earthiness (Knives Out), complexity (Blonde), and a sexy playfulness (No Time to Die) in previous work. The rest of the non-Wick cast is forgettable as well, with Byrne’s Chancellor and his entire regime badly underdeveloped, and Reedus completely wasted in what amounts to maybe two scenes. McShane, Reddick, and Huston just go through their paces, spouting lots of portentous lines about “choice” and “fate” that ring mostly hollow, as does a late-stage twist that carries no weight because one of the characters involved barely registers. As for the Baba Yaga himself, the largely non-verbal Reeves is the “Chekhov’s gun” of the film: introduced briefly in the first act, he inevitably turns up again in the third act, parachuted in by the magic of rumored reshoots even though his contribution to the narrative amounts to absolutely nothing. It’s always nice to see him, but if you took him out, it wouldn’t drastically change the picture. Speaking of reshoots, there’s a Frankenstein nature to the proceedings that provides evidence for the reports that Wick director (and franchise torch-bearer) Chad Stahelski refilmed much of the movie after Wiseman’s first draft came up short. While the first act is a murky, enervated slog, things seem to pick up in the middle, with a more eye-catching color scheme (such as a sequence in a neon-lit club reminiscent of a similar scene in the magnificent John Wick: Chapter 4), a creative, free-flowing use of the camera, and some of the more inventive, oddball action that has become part and parcel of the franchise—most notably in a scene where de Armas and an enemy smash a pile of dinner plates over each other’s heads with manic Three Stooges-like energy. Unfortunately, there’s also a sadistic edge to a lot of the action this time as well, particularly in a climactic fight involving flamethrowers that badly wants to emulate the famous overhead apartment shot from John Wick: Chapter 4 but goes on for far too long and ultimately becomes actively unpleasant. That’s a problem with even the better action on hand in Ballerina, as if the filmmakers want to make up for the film’s deficiencies by overdoing what the series is best known for. Hatten’s script was an original piece that was rewritten to fit into the John Wick universe, with elements introduced in John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum to pave the way for the arrival of Eve and Ballerina. But this reverse engineering highlights the pitfalls of trying to create a cinematic universe without stopping to wonder whether it’s a good idea. Watching John Wick stonily fight and slaughter his way through his off-center world and its population of funky, eccentric weirdos has been fantastic fun (the threat of an arc-undermining John Wick 5 notwithstanding) because of the unique nature of the character and that world. But dropping the more conventional, cliched tropes of Ballerina into the mix, along with a protagonist (and actor) not nearly as compelling, only exemplifies that the John Wick movies are character-driven first and foremost. All the brutal action, heavy-handed callbacks, and predictable cameos in the world can’t make this Ballerina into a better dancer. Ballerina opens in theaters in the U.S. on Friday, June 6. Join our mailing list Get the best of Den of Geek delivered right to your inbox!

/May 30, 2025/4:28 p.m. ETTrump Attacks Harvard With Social Media Screening for All VisasThis pilot program will soon be expanded across the country.Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesThe Trump administration has begun carrying out its expanded vetting for student visa applicants, surveilling their social media accounts to make sure they aren’t posting anything in support of Palestine, which the administration considers antisemitic. This vetting will start with Harvard visa applicants but is expected to be adopted nationwide.Secretary of Stato Marco Rubio sent a cable to all U.S. embassies and consulates on Thursday ordering them to “conduct a complete screening of the online presence of any nonimmigrant visa applicant seeking to travel to Harvard University for any purpose.” That would apply not just to students but also to faculty, staff, and researchers visiting the university.The Trump administration is taking particular interest in people who have their social media accounts on “private,” an obvious, ominous crossing of boundaries.The State Department has ordered officers to examine “whether the lack of any online presence, or having social media accounts restricted to ‘private’ or with limited visibility, may be reflective of evasiveness and call into question the applicant’s credibility.”This is yet another instance of Harvard serving as a test subject for the administration’s larger crackdown on free speech and international students at American universities. Trump has already revoked billions of dollars in research funding from the Massachusetts school, and even banned it from admitting any international students at all, although the latter policy was temporarily revoked by a judge. Most Recent Post/May 30, 2025/3:53 p.m. ETStephen Miller Grilled on Musk’s Drug Use as Wife Lands New GigTrump’s chief adviser seems desperate to avoid questions on Elon Musk. Does that have anything to do with his wife’s new job? Francis Chung/Politico/Bloomberg/Getty ImagesStephen Miller had a dismissive response Friday to new reports of Elon Musk’s drug use during Trump’s campaign last year. CNN’s Pamela Brown asked the far-right Trump adviser if there was “any drug testing or requests for him to drug test when he was in the White House given the fact that he was also a contractor with the government.”  A chuckling Miller ignored the question and said, “Fortunately for you and all of the friends at CNN, you’ll have the opportunity to ask Elon all the questions you want today yourself,” before he then segued into the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda. “The drugs I’m concerned about are the drugs that are coming across the border from the criminal cartels that are killing hundreds of thousands of Americans,” Miller said. Perhaps Miller laughed instead of answering because his wife, Katie Miller, has left her job as adviser and spokesperson for the Department of Government Efficiency to work full-time for Musk and his companies. Miller has probably had enough of Musk, as he has also been subtweeting the tech oligarch, trying to refute Musk’s criticisms that the Republican budget bill would raise the deficit. “The Big Beautiful Bill is NOT an annual budget bill and does not fund the departments of government. It does not finance our agencies or federal programs,” Miller said, in a long X post earlier this week. Is there bad blood between Miller and Musk that has now spiraled because Miller’s wife is working for the tech oligarch and fellow fascism enthusiast? Most Recent Post/May 30, 2025/3:19 p.m. ETOld Man Trump Repeatedly Fumbles in Weird Speech Praising Elon MuskDonald Trump couldn’t keep some of his words straight as he marked the supposed end of Elon Musk’s tenure at the White House.Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesHours after reports emerged Friday that Elon Musk had been under the influence of heavy drugs during his time advising the president, Musk and Donald Trump stumbled and fumbled their way through a White House press conference recognizing the end of the tech billionaire’s special government employee status.The wildly unusual joint conference featured Musk’s black eye, a giant gold key that Trump said he only gives to “very special people,” cringe-worthy regurgitations by Musk of Trump’s take on his Pulitzer Board defamation suit, and claims that Musk’s unpopular and controversial time in the White House was not quite over.But as Trump continued to praise Musk and his time atop the Department of Government Efficiency, the president’s verbal gaffes became more apparent. He claimed that DOGE had uncovered $42 million in wasteful spending, referring to expenditures related to Uganda, which Trump pronounced as “oo-ganda.” The 78-year-old also mentioned he would have Musk’s DOGE cuts “cauterized by Congress,” though he quickly corrected himself by saying they would be “affirmed by Congress,” instead. Trump’s on-camera slippage has gotten worse in recent weeks: Earlier this month, Trump dozed off while in a meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. That is despite the fact that the president received a clean bill of health in a medical report released in April that described Trump as being in “excellent health,” including neurological functioning.Musk, meanwhile, refused to acknowledge emerging reports of his alleged drug use. But the news of White House drug use under Trump’s helm is nothing new: In fact, if the reports prove true, it would be little more than a return to form. Last year, a report by the Department of Defense inspector general indicated that the West Wing operated more like a pill mill than the nation’s highest office. Common pills included modafinil, Adderall, fentanyl, morphine, and ketamine, according to the Pentagon report. But other, unlisted drugs—like Xanax—were equally easy to come by from the White House Medical Unit, according to anonymous sources that spoke to Rolling Stone.While other presidents were known to take a mix of drug cocktails to fight off back pain (like JFK) or bad moods (like Nixon), no previous administrations matched the level of debauchery of Trump’s, whose in-office pharmacists unquestioningly handed out highly addictive substances to staffers who needed pick-me-ups or energy boosts—no doctor’s exam, referral, or prescription required.“It was kind of like the Wild West. Things were pretty loose. Whatever someone needs, we were going to fill this,” another source told Rolling Stone in March 2024.Meanwhile, pharmacists described an atmosphere of fear within the West Wing, claiming they would be “fired” if they spoke out or would receive negative work assignments if they didn’t hand pills over to staffers.Read more about the press conference:Trump and Elon Musk Have Ominous Warning About Future of DOGEMost Recent Post/May 30, 2025/3:00 p.m. ETElon Musk Gives Strange Excuse for Massive Black EyeMusk showed up a press conference with Donald Trump sporting a noticeable shiner.Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesElon Musk sported what looked like a black eye during his DOGE goodbye press conference with President Trump on Friday. When asked about it, he blamed the bruise on his 5-year-old son punching him in the face. “Mr. Musk … is your eye OK? What happened to your eye; I noticed there’s a bruise there?” one reporter finally asked near the end of the press conference.“Well, I wasn’t anywhere near France,” Musk said, in a weak attempt at a joke regarding footage of French President Emmanuel Macron’s wife slapping him in the face.“I was just horsing around with [my son] little X and said, ‘Go ’head and punch me in the face,’ and he did. Turns out even a 5-year-old punching you in the face actually does—”“That was X that did it? X could do it!” Trump chimed in. “If you knew X …”“I didn’t really feel much at the time; I guess it bruises up. But I was just messing around with the kids.”Musk chose an impeccable time to show up to a press conference with a black eye. Earlier in the day, The New York Times reported on Musk’s rampant drug use on and off the campaign trail, as the world’s richest man frequently mixed ketamine and psychedelics and kept a small box of pills, mostly containing Adderall. The shiner only adds to speculation around his personal habits.More on that Times report:Elon Musk Was on Crazy Combo of Drugs During Trump CampaignMost Recent Post/May 30, 2025/2:51 p.m. ETTrump and Elon Musk Have Ominous Warning About Future of DOGEElon Musk’s time as a government employee has come to an end, but his time with Donald Trump has not.Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesDespite the fanfare over Elon Musk’s supposed departure from the Department of Government Efficiency, Donald Trump says that the billionaire bureaucrat isn’t really going anywhere.“Many of the DOGE people are staying behind, so they’re not leaving. And Elon’s not really leaving. He’s gonna be back and forth, I think. I have a feeling. It’s his baby, and he’s gonna be doing a lot of things,” Trump said during a press conference in the Oval Office Friday.The press conference was held to mark the end of Musk’s time as a so-called “special government employee,” a title that allowed him to bypass certain ethics requirements during his 134-day stint in Trump’s administration. The president made sure to give Musk a gaudy golden key—what it actually unlocks went totally unaddressed—to make sure he could get back into the White House. “This is not the end of DOGE, but really the beginning,” Musk said, promising that DOGE’s “influence” would “only grow stronger” over time.Earlier Friday, the billionaire bureaucrat shared a post on X asserting that the legacy of DOGE was more psychological than anything else. Surely, it will take longer than four months to forget the image of Musk running around with a chainsaw. Read more about Musk:Elon Musk Was on Crazy Combo of Drugs During Trump CampaignMost Recent Post/May 30, 2025/1:21 p.m. ETDem Governor Vetoes Ban on Surprise Ambulance Bills in Shocking MoveThe bill had unanimous support in both chambers of the state legislature.Michael Ciaglo/Getty ImagesColorado’s Democratic Governor Jared Polis has vetoed a bill that would ban surprise billing by ambulance companies, over the unanimous objections of both chambers of the state legislature. Why would Polis veto a bill that’s popular with everyone, even Colorado Republicans? The governor wrote in his veto statement that drafting errors in the bill made it “unimplementable” and estimated that it would make insurance premiums go up by as much as $0.73 to $2.15 per person. “I am committed to working with proponents and sponsors to protect Coloradans from surprise bills, but I encourage all parties to work towards a more reasonable reimbursement rate that mitigates premium impacts and nets a better deal for Colorado families,” Polis wrote. In Colorado, if legislators in both chambers repass the bill with a two-thirds majority, they can override the governor’s veto, especially considering that the bill passed with the support of every single legislator. But the legislature adjourned on May 7, meaning that the bill has to be passed again when the legislature reconvenes in January.  For some reason, ending surprise ambulance billing nationally is not the slam-dunk issue it should be. Congress ended most surprise medical bills in 2020 but exempted ground ambulances from the bill. Was Polis’s veto due to badly drafted language and a (seemingly modest) price hike in insurance premiums, as he said, or was it for a different, more nefarious reason? We might not know unless and until the bill is reintroduced next year. More on surprise ambulance bills:Congress Doesn’t Care About Your Surprise Ambulance Bill Most Recent Post/May 30, 2025/12:21 p.m. ETTrump’s Pardons Since Jan 6 Spree Show an Infuriatingly Corrupt TrendSince his January 6 pardon spree, Donald Trump has tended to grant clemency a little closer to home.Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty ImagesA good chunk of the white-collar criminals pardoned by Donald Trump after his massive “Day One” pardoning spree either have a political or financial tie to him.The president has issued 60 pardons since he offered political forgiveness to some 1,600 individuals charged in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. But out of those subsequent 60 unrelated to the attack, 12 people—or roughly one in five—were already in Trump’s orbit, according to ABC News.They included several politicos, including former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who was convicted on several counts of corruption, including for an attempt to sell Barack Obama’s Senate seat after he left the position for the White House; former Republican Representative Michael Grimm, who pleaded guilty to tax fraud; former Nevada gubernatorial candidate Michele Fiore, who allegedly stole public funds intended to commemorate a slain police officer; and former Tennessee state Senator Brian Kelsey, who pleaded guilty to campaign finance fraud in 2022.Trump also pardoned major financiers of his presidential campaigns. Trevor Milton, the founder of the Nikola electric vehicle company, donated nearly $2 million toward Trump’s 2024 campaign. Imaad Zuberi, who has donated to both parties, issued “at least $800,000 to committees associated with Trump and the Republican Party,” ABC reported.Others helped Trump advance his retribution campaign against his political enemies, or helped advance his own image in the broader Republican Party. Devon Archer and Jason Galanis, both former business partners of Hunter Biden, accused the younger Biden of leveraging his father’s name and influence in order to conduct business overseas. Archer had defrauded a Native American tribal entity, while Galanis was serving time for multiple offenses. Trump also forgave Todd and Julie Chrisley—reality TV stars known for their show Chrisley Knows Best who were sentenced to a combined 19 years on fraud and tax evasion charges—after their daughter Savannah Chrisley spoke at the 2024 Republican National Convention.Speaking to press Friday after her parents’ release, Savannah Chrisley said that the “biggest misconception right now is I either paid for a pardon or slept for a pardon—,” but she couldn’t finish her sentence before Todd interjected: “That’s something I would have done,” he said.Read who else Trump is thinking of pardoning:Trump Considering Pardons for Men Who Tried to Kill Gretchen WhitmerMost Recent Post/May 30, 2025/12:04 p.m. ETTrump Knew He Was Deporting Innocent People to El Salvador All AlongMany of the people deported to El Salvador have no criminal record, and Donald Trump knew it.Michael M. Santiago/Getty ImagesDonald Trump’s administration was well aware that many of the 238 Venezuelan immigrants it shipped off to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador had no criminal records at all, according to a Friday report from ProPublica.  While Trump officials claimed that the deportees were brutal gang members and “the worst of the worst,” only 32 of the deportees had actually been convicted of crimes, and most of them were minor offenses such as traffic violations, according to data from the Department of Homeland Security reviewed by ProPublica, The Texas Tribune, and a team of journalists from Venezuelan media outlets. One of the men, 23-year-old Maikol Gabriel López Lizano, faced a misdemeanor charge after he was arrested in 2023 for riding his bike and drinking a can of beer.Little more than half of the deportees, 130 of the 238, were charged only with violating U.S. immigration laws. Twenty of them had criminal records from other countries. The U.S. government data showed that 67 individuals had pending charges, with only six being for violent crimes. In several cases, the government data about the pending charges differed from what ProPublica was able to find. In some cases, the men had actually been convicted, and in one, the charges had been dropped. But in many cases, these individuals were remanded to a foreign prison before their criminal cases were ever resolved. The Trump administration has touted allegations of gang affiliation as a justification for denying the deportees their due process rights. But none of the men’s names appeared on a list of roughly 1,400 alleged Tren de Aragua members kept by the Venezuelan government, ProPublica reported. Trump’s border czar Tom Homan tried desperately in March to downplay reporting that many of these individuals did not have criminal records. “A lot of gang members don’t have criminal histories, just like a lot of terrorists in this world, they’re not in any terrorist databases, right?” Homan said on ABC News. But the methods the government relies on to classify individuals as gang members—such as identification of gang-affiliated tattoos—have been disproven by experts. Not only were many of the men who were deported not proven gang members, they weren’t even criminals, and by denying them the right to due process, they were remanded to a foreign prison notorious for human rights abuses without ever getting to prove it. Trump has continued to pressure the Supreme Court to allow him to sidestep due process as part of his massive deportation campaign, claiming that the judiciary has no right to intrude on matters of “foreign policy.” But immigrants residing on U.S. soil—who are clearly not the bloodthirsty criminals the administration insists they are—are still subject to protections under U.S. law. Read more about the deportations:Trump Asks Supreme Court to Help Him Deport People Wherever He WantsMost Recent Post/May 30, 2025/11:41 a.m. ETJoni Ernst Stoops to Shocking Low When Told Medicaid Cuts Will KillSenator Joni Ernst had a disgusting answer when confronted by a constituent at her town hall about Trump’s budget bill.Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesRepublican Senator Joni Ernst had a particularly unhinged response to questions from her constituents at a town hall in Parkersburg, Iowa, on Friday.Ernst was asked about the GOP’s budget bill kicking people off of Medicaid, and her condescending answer quickly became callous and flippant as the Iowa politician smirked at the audience.“When you are arguing about illegals that are receiving Medicaid, 1.4 million, they’re not eligible, so they will be coming off, so—” Ernst began, before an audience member shouted, “People are going to die!”“People are not—well, we all are going to die,” Ernst responded, as the audience drowned her in loud protests.What was Ernst thinking with that answer? Almost every Republican town hall this year has gone badly for the politician holding it, thanks to President Trump upending the federal government, and Ernst surely knew that choosing death over Medicaid wouldn’t go over well with the crowd. Earlier this week in Nebraska, Representative Mike Flood was heckled after he admitted that he didn’t read the budget bill.Ersnt’s town hall wasn’t even the first one in Iowa to go badly for a Republican. On Wednesday, Representative Ashley Hinson was met with jeers and boos, with audience members in Decorah, Iowa calling her a fraud and a liar. But at least Hinson had the good sense not to seemingly embrace death over a vital, lifesaving government program. More on Trump’s bill:Here Are the Worst Things in Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill Most Recent Post/May 30, 2025/11:35 a.m. ETKetanji Brown Jackson Blasts “Botched” Supreme Court Ruling on TPSSupreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a scathing disssent, called out the rest of the court for allowing Trump’s harmful executive order to stand.Anna Moneymaker/Getty ImagesSupreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson thinks the Supreme Court “botched” a decision to allow the Trump administration to revoke the Temporary Protected Status protections of about 500,000 Haitian, Cuban, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan immigrants.Jackson and fellow liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor were the only two dissenters.“The Court has plainly botched this assessment today. It requires next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm,” Jackson wrote in the dissent. “And it undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives of and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.”TPS is a long-standing program that allowed those 500,000 immigrants to stay in the U.S. after they fled violence and risk in their home countries. After the Supreme Court’s ruling, all of them are at high risk of sudden deportation. “It is apparent that the government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum predecision damage,” Jackson wrote.Read the full dissent here.View More Posts

Start SlideshowStart SlideshowImage: Nintendo / Kotaku / Jake Randall / Burndumb, Nintendo / Kotaku, Fox / Disney / Kotaku, Sandfall Interactive, Nintendo / Kotaku, Arrowhead Game Studios / Kotaku, Screenshot: Подкаст «Пóпы и культура» / YouTube / Switch 2, a2dubai / YouTube / KotakuFrom mergers to memes, the landscape of interactive entertainment is always in motion. Here’s your cheat sheet for the week’s most important stories in gaming.Previous SlideNext SlideList slidesTarget Leaves Dozens Of Switch 2 Consoles Locked In A Cage On The Store FloorNintendo’s next big console, the Switch 2, is set to arrive on store shelves in just 10 days. So it’s not surprising to see photos showing dozens of Switch 2 consoles sitting in store warehouses and back areas. However, I wasn’t expecting a bunch of Switch 2 consoles to be sitting in a metal cage in the middle of a Target already. - Zack Zwiezen Read MorePrevious SlideNext SlideList slidesSwitch 2 Leaker Explains How He Got The Console Early And Why He's Not Afraid Of NintendoImage: Nintendo / KotakuIt was the middle of the night when Fedor Volkov found himself anxiously waiting on the streets of Moscow for a ride back home. In his arms he held a Switch 2 box and nestled within was the console fans had been waiting years to get their hands on, but which still didn’t officially go on sale for more than a week. He was too nervous and excited to remember to bring something to hide it in. - Ethan Gach Read MorePrevious SlideNext SlideList slidesSomeone Take Away Randy Pitchford's PhoneImage: Fox / Disney / KotakuSometimes you just gotta walk away. And this might be one of those times. Earlier this month, Gearbox co-founder and CEO Randy Pitchford replied to someone on social media about the studio’s next game, Borderlands 4, possibly receiving an $80 price tag. He said it wasn’t his call and then infamously added, “If you’re a real fan, you’ll find a way to make it happen.” This didn’t go over well with people online. A few days later, on May 22, he said he didn’t intend to sound like an asshole. - Zack Zwiezen Read MorePrevious SlideNext SlideList slidesSwitch 2 Startup And Menu Settings Appear Online As Early Player Shows Off Console In 'Code Red' Leak For NintendoScreenshot: Подкаст «Пóпы и культура» / YouTube / Switch 2The Switch 2 is just days away from its official June 5 launch, but already footage is beginning to spread online of people going hands-on with Nintendo’s next console. One fan based in Russia recently uploaded a nearly 10-minute video that includes the Switch 2's startup sequence and a tour through its menu settings. “Respects to this man for sacrificing his life to unbox the console a week before launch,” reads the top comment on YouTube. - Ethan Gach Read MorePrevious SlideNext SlideList slidesClair Obscur: Expedition 33 Publisher Says Fans Would Never Guess The Hit RPG's Budget: 'I'm Sure Mirror's Edge And Vanquish Cost More'Image: Sandfall InteractiveClair Obscur: Expedition 33 is one of the top-rated games of the year and has sold over 3.3 million copies. And it did it all with a very small budget, according to publisher Kelpler Interactive. How small? Portfolio director Matthew Handrahan isn’t saying, but he thinks everyone’s guesses are probably wrong. - Ethan Gach Read MorePrevious SlideNext SlideList slidesOnly One First-Party Nintendo Game Won't Work On Switch 2Image: Nintendo / KotakuThe Nintendo Switch 2 will be able to play most original Switch games without any issues when it launches on June 5. According to an update from Nintendo, most big games and all first-party titles (with one tiny exception) will work on Switch 2, though you might need an update or an old Joy-Con. - Zack Zwiezen Read MorePrevious SlideNext SlideList slidesHelldivers 2 Players Are Pulling Off Incredible Feats In A Last-Ditch Effort To Save Super EarthImage: Arrowhead Game Studios / KotakuHelldivers 2's Galactic War has come to Super Earth and it’s going very, very badly. Players have lost every major city on the planet save for two, but are making a triumphant last stand against the Illuminate as fans from across the real world band together to hold the line. - Ethan Gach Read MorePrevious SlideNext SlideList slidesSomeone's Unboxing A Switch 2 But Claims It Needs A Day-One Patch To WorkScreenshot: a2dubai / YouTube / KotakuSwitch 2 hardware appears to be officially out in the wild, but it doesn’t sound like anyone will be able to play the console early. A day-one patch is needed for it to fully work, according to someone who uploaded a brief unboxing video of the new Nintendo console to YouTube. - Ethan Gach Read MorePrevious SlideNext SlideList slidesGameStop Doubles Down On Crypto With Massive Bitcoin Purchase As Stores CloseGameStop Doubles Down On Crypto With Massive Bitcoin Purchase As Stores Close Share SubtitlesOffEnglishThe company continues its pivot away from selling games and toward doing anything else to stay afloatPrevious SlideNext SlideList slidesPlayStation’s Days of Play Brings Bomb Rush Cyberfunk, NBA 2K25 & More To PS PlusPlayStation’s Days of Play Brings Bomb Rush Cyberfunk, NBA 2K25 & More To PS Plus Share SubtitlesOffEnglishBomb Rush Cyberfunk is hitting PS Plus alongside NBA 2K25 and a Destiny 2 takeover in June

There are very few philosophers who become part of popular culture, and often, if their ideas become influential, people don’t know where they came from.Niccolò Machiavelli, the great 16th-century diplomat and writer, is an exception.I don’t know how many people have actually read Machiavelli, but almost everyone knows the name, and almost everyone thinks they know what the word “Machiavellian” means. It’s someone who’s cunning and shrewd and manipulative. Or as one famous philosopher called him, “the teacher of evil.”But is this fair to Machiavelli, or has he been misunderstood? And if he has been, what are we missing in his work?Erica Benner is a political philosopher and the author of numerous books about Machiavelli including my favorite, Be Like the Fox, which offers a different interpretation of Machiavelli’s most famous work, The Prince.For centuries, The Prince has been popularly viewed as a how-to manual for tyrants. But Benner disagrees. She says it’s actually a veiled, almost satirical critique of authoritarian power. And she argues that Machiavelli is more timely than you might imagine. He wrote about why democracies get sick and die, about the dangers of inequality and partisanship, and even about why appearance and perception matter far more than truth and facts.In another of his seminal works, Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli is also distinctly not authoritarian. In fact, he espouses a deep belief in republicanism (the lowercase-r kind, which affirms representative government).I invited Benner onto The Gray Area to talk about what Machiavelli was up to and why he’s very much a philosopher for our times. As always, there’s much more in the full podcast, so listen and follow The Gray Area on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, or wherever you find podcasts. New episodes drop every Monday.This interview has been edited for length and clarity. The popular view of Machiavelli is that he wanted to draw this neat line between morality and politics and that he celebrated ruthless pragmatism. What’s incomplete or wrong about that view?What is true is that he often criticizes the hyper-Christian morality that puts moral judgments into the hands of priests and popes and some abstract kind of God that he may or may not believe in, but in any case doesn’t think is something we can access as humans. If we want to think about morality both on a personal level and in politics, we’ve got to go back to basics. What is the behavior of human beings? What is human nature? What are the drives that propel human beings to do the stuff that we call good or bad? He wants to say that we should see human beings not as fundamentally good or evil. We shouldn’t think that human beings can ever be angels, and we shouldn’t see them as devils when they behave badly.But the basic point is if you want to develop a human morality, you study yourself, you study other humans, you don’t put yourself above other humans because you’re one, too. And then you ask, What kind of politics is going to make such people coexist?I take it you think his most famous book, The Prince, is not well understood?I used to have to teach Machiavelli and I would just say, It’s a handbook for tyrants. But he wrote the Discourses, which is a very, very republican book. So that’s the first thing that sets people off and makes you think, How could he have switched so quickly from writing The Prince to being a super-republican writing the Discourses? So that’s a warning sign. When I started seeing some of the earliest readers of Machiavelli and the earliest comments you get from republican authors, they all see Machiavelli as an ally and they say it. They say he’s a moral writer. Rousseau says, “He has only had superficial and corrupt readers until now.” If you ever pick up The Prince and you read the first four chapters, and most people don’t read them that carefully because they’re kind of boring, the exciting ones are the ones in the middle about morality and immorality and then you come to chapter five, which is about freedom.And up to chapter four, it sounds like a pretty cruel, cold analysis of what you should do. Then you get to chapter five and it’s like, Wow! It’s about how republics fight back, and the whole tone changes. Suddenly republics are fighting back and the prince has to be on his toes because he’s probably not going to survive the wrath of these fiery republics that do not give up.So who is he talking to in the book? Is he counseling future princes or warning future citizens?It’s complicated. You have to remember that he was kicked out of his job and had a big family to support. He had a lot of kids. And he loved his job and was passionate about the republic. He was tortured. He doesn’t know what’s going to happen next. He’s absolutely gutted that Florence’s republican experiment has failed and he can’t speak freely. So what does a guy with a history of writing dramas and satire do to make himself feel better? It’s taking the piss out of the people who have made you and a lot of your friends very miserable, in a low-key way because you can’t be too brutally satirical about it. But I think he’s really writing to expose the ways of tyrants.Would you say that Machiavelli has something like an ideology or is he just a clear-eyed pragmatist?He’s a republican. And again, this is something that, if you just read The Prince, you’re not going to get. But if you read the Discourses, which was written around the same time as The Prince, it’s very, very similar in almost every way except that it praises republics and criticizes tyrants very openly. Whereas The Prince never once uses the words “tyrant” or “tyranny.” So if there’s a guiding political view, whether you call it “ideology” or not, it’s republicanism. And that’s an ideology of shared power. It’s all the people in a city, all the male people in this case. Machiavelli was quite egalitarian. He clearly wanted as broad of a section of the male population to be citizens as possible. He says very clearly, The key to stabilizing your power is to change the constitution and to give everyone their share. Everyone has to have their share. You might want to speak a little bit more for yourself and the rich guys, but in the end, everyone’s got to have a share.Should we treat Machiavelli like a democratic theorist? Do you think of him as someone who would defend what we call democracy today?If you think the main principle of democracy is that power should be shared equally, which is how I understand democracy, then yes. He’d totally agree with that. What kind of institutions would he say a democracy has to have? He’s pretty clear in the Discourses. He says you don’t want a long-term executive. You need to always check power. I realize we exist in a very different world than Machiavelli, but is he a useful guide to understanding contemporary politics, particularly American politics?This is a really Machiavellian moment. If you read The Prince and look not just for those provocative quotes but for the criticisms, and sometimes they’re very subtle, you start to see that he’s exposing a lot of the stuff that we’re seeing today. Chapter nine of The Prince is where he talks about how you can rise to be the ruler of a republic and how much resistance you might face, and he says that people might be quite passive at first and not do very much. But at some point, when they see you start to attack the courts and the magistrates, that’s when you’re going to clash. And he says, That’s when you as a leader — and he’s playing like he’s on the leader’s side — that’s when you’ve got to decide if you’re going to get really, really tough, or are you going to have to find other ways to soften things up a bit?What would he make of Trump?He would put Trump in two categories. He’s got different classifications of princes. He’s got the prince of fortune, somebody who relies on wealth and money and big impressions to get ahead. He would say that Trump has a lot of those qualities, but he’d also call him this word “astutia” — astuteness, which doesn’t really translate in English because we think of that as a good quality, but he means calculating shrewdness. Somebody whose great talent is being able to shrewdly manipulate and find little holes where he can exploit people’s weaknesses and dissatisfactions.This is what he thought the Medici were good at. And his analysis of that is that it can cover you for a long time. People will see the good appearances and hope that you can deliver, but in the long run, people who do that don’t know how to build a solid state. That’s what he would say on a domestic front. I think there’s an unsophisticated way to look at Trump as Machiavellian. There are these lines in The Prince about knowing how to deploy cruelty and knowing when to be ruthless. But to your deeper point, I don’t think Machiavelli ever endorses cruelty for cruelty’s sake, and with Trump — and this is my personal opinion — cruelty is often the point, and that’s not really Machiavellian.Exactly. I wouldn’t say Trump is Machiavellian. Quite honestly, since the beginning of the Trump administration, I’ve often felt like he’s getting advice from people who haven’t really read Machiavelli or put Machiavelli into ChatGPT and got all the wrong pointers, because the ones that they’re picking out are just so crude. But they sound Machiavellian. You’re absolutely right, though. Machiavelli is very, very clear in The Prince that cruelty is not going to get you anywhere in the long term. You’re going to get pure hate. So if you think it’s ever instrumentally useful to be super cruel, think again.This obviously isn’t an endorsement of Trump, but I will say that something I hear often from people is that the system is so broken that we need someone to smash it up in order to save it. We need political dynamite. I bring that up because Machiavelli says repeatedly that politics requires flexibility and maybe even a little practical ruthlessness in order to preserve the republic. Do you think he would say that there’s real danger in clinging to procedural purity if you reach a point where the system seems to have failed?This is a great question. And again, this is one he does address in the Discourses quite a lot. He talks about how the Romans, when their republic started slipping, had “great men” coming up and saying, “I’ll save you,” and there were a lot before Julius Caesar finally “saved” them and then it all went to hell. And Machiavelli says that there are procedures that have to sometimes be wiped out — you have to reform institutions and add new ones. The Romans added new ones, they subtracted some, they changed the terms. He was very, very keen on shortening the terms of various excessively long offices. He also wanted to create emergency institutions where, if you really faced an emergency, that institution gives somebody more power to take executive action to solve the problem. But that institution, the dictatorship as it was called in Rome, it wasn’t as though a random person could come along and do whatever he wanted. The idea was that this dictator would have special executive powers, but he is under strict oversight, very strict oversight, by the Senate and the plebians, so that if he takes one wrong step, there would be serious punishment. So he was very adamant about punishing leaders who took these responsibilities and then abused them.Listen to the rest of the conversation and be sure to follow The Gray Area on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, or wherever you listen to podcasts.See More:

What worked in The Witcher 3 and what didn't: looking back on a landmark RPG with CD Projekt Red "We learned a lot of lessons down the road." Image credit: CD Projekt Red Feature by Robert Purchese Associate Editor Published on May 31, 2025 Do you remember what you were doing when The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt was released? It came out on 19th May 2015. I remember because I was inside CD Projekt Red at the time, trying to capture the moment for you - a moment I'm unlikely to replicate there or anywhere else. I recall sitting in the studio's canteen in the small hours of the morning, after a midnight launch event in a mall in Warsaw, chewing on a piece of cold pizza and wondering out loud what would come next for the studio, because at the time, who could know? One era was ending and another was about to begin. Would it bring the fame and fortune CD Projekt Red desired? Today, more than 60 million sales of The Witcher 3 later, we know the answer is yes. The Witcher 3 became a role-playing classic. It delivered one of the most touchable medieval worlds we've explored, a rough place of craggy rocks and craggier faces, of wonky morales and grim realities, of mud and dirtiness. And monsters, though not all were monstrous to look at. It was a world of grey, of superstition and folklore, and in it stood we, a legendary monster hunter, facing seemingly impossible odds. The Witcher 3 took fantasy seriously. But the decade since the game's release has been turbulent for CD Projekt Red. The studio launched its big new sci-fi series in 2020 with Cyberpunk 2077, and though the game has now sold more than 30 million copies, making it monetarily a success, it had a nightmarish launch. The PS4 version had to be removed from sale. It brought enormous pressure, growing pains and intense scrutiny to the studio, and CD Projekt Red would spend a further three years patching and updating - and eventually releasing an expansion - before public opinion would mostly turn around. Today the studio returns to safer ground, back to The Witcher world with the new game The Witcher 4, and as we look forward to it we should also look back, to the game that catapulted the studio to fame, and see what has been learnt. The Witcher 3 is at version 4.04 today, a number that represents an enormously long period of post-release support.Watch on YouTube It all began with naivety, as perhaps any ambitious project should. It's easy to forget that 14 years ago, when The Witcher 3 was being conceived, CD Projekt Red had never made an open-world game before. The Witcher 1 and The Witcher 2 were linear in their approaches. It's also easy to forget that the people making the game were 14 years younger and less experienced. Back then, this was the studio's chance at recognition, so it aimed high in order to be seen. "The Witcher 3 was supposed to be this game that will end all other games," Marcin Blacha, the lead writer of the game, tells me. Simply make an open-world game that's also a story-driven game and release it on all platforms at the same time. How hard could it be? "When I'm thinking about our state of mind back in those days, the only word that comes to my mind is enthusiastic," Blacha says. "It was fantastic because we were so enthusiastic that we were full of courage. We were trying to experiment with stuff and we were not afraid. We were convinced that when we work with passion and love, it will pay off eventually." Every project has to begin somewhere and for Blacha, the person tasked with imagining the story, The Witcher 3 could only begin with Ciri, the daughter-of-sorts to The Witcher's central monster hunter character Geralt. As Blacha says, "The most important thing about Geralt and the most important thing about the books is the relationship between Geralt, Ciri and Yennefer. I already did two games with no sign of Ciri, no sign of Yennefer, and then we finally had a budget and proper time for pre-production, so for me, it was time to introduce both characters." It's a decision that would have major repercussions for the rest of The Witcher series at CD Projekt Red. Blacha didn't know it then, but Ciri would go on to become the protagonist of The Witcher 4. Had she not been the co-protagonist of The Witcher 3 - for you play as her in several sections during the game - who knows if things would have worked out the same way. It's an understandable progression as it is, though there is still some uncertainty among the audience about Ciri's starring role. But Ciri's inclusion came with complications, because the Ciri we see in the game is not the Ciri described in the books. That Ciri is much closer to the Ciri in the Netflix Witcher TV show, younger and more rebellious in a typical teenager way. She might be an important part of the fiction, then, but that doesn't mean she was especially well liked. "People were thinking that she's annoying," says Blacha, who grew up reading The Witcher books. CD Projekt Red, then, decided to make a Ciri of its own, aging her and making her more "flesh and bone", as Blacha puts it. He fondly recalls a moment in the game's development when reviewing the Ciri sections of the game, and saying aloud to studio director Adam Badowski how much he liked her. "I didn't know that she's going to be the protagonist of the next game," he says, "but I said to Adam Badowski, she's going to be very popular." Once Ciri had been earmarked for inclusion in The Witcher 3, the idea to have her pursued by the phantom-like force of the Wild Hunt - the members of which literally ride horses in the night sky, like Santa Claus' cursed reindeer - came shortly after. CD Projekt Red had introduced the Wild Hunt in The Witcher 2 so it made sense. The outline of the main story was then laid down as a one-page narrative treatment. Then it was expanded to a two-page treatment, a four page treatment, an eight page treatment and so on. At around 10 pages, it already had the White Orchard prologue, almost the entirety of the No Man's Land zone, and a hint of what would happen on Skellige and in Novigrad. When it was around 40 pages long, the quest design team was invited in. CD Projekt Red made their Ciri older than she is in the books. | Image credit: CD Projekt Red The quest design team's job is to turn a story into a game, and this was a newly created department for The Witcher 3, created because the old way of writers designing the quests wasn't working any more. "We were struggling a bit with making sure that every written story that we have prepared is also a story that we can play well," Paweł Sasko says. He joined CD Projekt Red to be a part of that quest design team. The quest design team carves up a narrative treatment, paragraph by paragraph, and expands those into playable questlines for the game. "It's basically something between game design and a movie scenario," Sasko says. There's no dialogue, just a description of what will happen, and even a one-paragraph prompt can balloon into a 20-30 page design. Among the paragraphs Sasko was given to adapt was a storyline in No Man's Land concerning a character known as the Bloody Baron. The Bloody Baron storyline is widely acclaimed and has become synonymous with everything Sasko and CD Projekt Red were trying to do with the game. It's a storyline that probes into mature themes like domestic abuse, fatherhood, and love and loss and grief. More importantly, it presents us with a flawed character and allows us time and space to perhaps change our opinion of them. It gives us layers many other games don't go anywhere near. When Sasko first encountered the storyline, there was only an outline. "It said that Geralt meets the Bloody Baron who asks Geralt to hunt a monster and look for his wife and daughter, and for that, he is going to share information about Ciri and tell Geralt where she went. That was pretty much it." And Sasko already knew a few things about what he wanted to do. He knew he wanted to show No Man's Land as a Slavic region bathed in superstitions and complex religious beliefs, one that had been ravaged by famine and war. He also knew the tone of the area was horror because this had been outlined by Blacha and the leaders of The Witcher 3 team. Says Blacha: "My opinion is that a successful Witcher game is a mix of everything, so you have a horror line, you have a romance, you have adventure, you have exploration. When we started to think about our hubs, we thought about them in terms of a show, so No Man's Land, the hub with the Bloody Baron, was horror; Skellige was supposed to be an adventure; and Novigrad was supposed to be a big city investigation." But there were key missing pieces then from the Bloody Baron sequence we know today. The botchling, for instance - the monstrous baby the quest revolves around. It didn't exist. It was an idea that came from Sasko after he read a Slavic bestiary. "Yes," he says, "the botchling idea came from me." The Bloody Baron. | Image credit: Eurogamer / CD Projekt Red He wanted the botchling to be the conduit through which more mature themes of the story could be approached - something overt to keep you busy while deeper themes sunk in. It's an approach Sasko says he pinched from Witcher author Andrzej Sapkowski, after deconstructing his work. "What he's doing is he's trying to find universal truths about human beings and struggles, but he doesn't tell those stories directly," Sasko says. "So for instance racism: he doesn't talk about that directly but he finds an interesting way how, in his world, he can package that and talk about it. I followed his method and mimicked it." This way the botchling becomes your focus in the quest, as the Baron carries it back to the manor house and you defend him from wraiths, but while you're doing that, you're also talking and learning more about who the Bloody Baron - who Phillip Strenger - is. "I wanted you to feel almost like you're in the shoes of that Bloody Baron," Sasko says. "Peregrination is this path in Christianity you go through when you want to remove your sins, and that's what this is meant to be. He's just trying to do it, and he's going through all of those things to do something good. And I wanted the player to start feeling like, 'Wow, maybe this dude is not so bad.'" It's a quest that leaves a big impression. An email was forwarded to Sasko after the game's release, written by a player who had lost their wife and child as the Baron once had. "And for him," he says, "that moment when Baron was carrying the child was almost like a catharsis, when he was trying so badly to walk that path. And the moment he managed to: he wrote in his letter that he broke down in tears." There's one other very significant moment in The Witcher 3 that Sasko had a large hand in, and it's the Battle of Kaer Morhern, where the 'goodies' - the witchers and the sorceresses, and Ciri - make a stand against the titular menace of the Wild Hunt. Sasko designed this section specifically to emotionally tenderise you, through a series of fast-paced and fraught battles, so that by the time the climactic moment came, you were aptly primed to receive it. The moment being Vesemir's death - the leader of the wolf school of witchers and father figure to Geralt. This, too, was Sasko's idea. "We needed to transition Ciri from being a hunted animal to becoming a hunter," he tells me, and the only event big enough and with enough inherent propulsion was Vesemir's death. Eredin, the leader of the Wild Hunt, breaks Vesemir's neck. | Image credit: Eurogamer / CD Projekt Red But for all of the successful moments in the game there are those that didn't work. To the team that made the game, and to the players, there are things that clearly stand out. Such as Geralt's witcher senses, which allow him to see scent trails and footsteps and clues in the world around him. Geralt's detective mode, in other words. Sasko laughs as he cringes about it now. "We've overdone the witcher senses so much, oh my god," he says. "At the time when we were starting this, we were like, 'We don't have it in the game; we have to use it to make you feel like a witcher.' But then at the end, especially in the expansions, we tried to decrease it so it doesn't feel so overloaded." He'd even turn it down by a further 10 to 20 per cent, he says. There were all of the question marks dotted across the map, luring us to places to find meagre hidden treasure rewards. "I think we all scratch our heads about what we were thinking when trying to build this," Sasko tells me. "I guess it just came from fear - from fear that the player will feel that the world is empty." This was the first time CD Projekt Red had really the player's hand go, remember, and not controlled where in the world you would be. Shallow gameplay is a criticism many people have, especially in the game's repetitive combat, and again, this is something Sasko and the team are well aware of. "We don't feel that the gameplay in Witcher 3 was deep enough," he says. "It was for the times okay, but nowadays when you play it, even though the story still holds really well, you can see that the gameplay is a bit rusty." Also, the cutscenes could have been paced better and had less exposition in them, and the game in general could have dumped fewer concepts on you at once. Cognitive overload, Sasko calls it. "In every second sentence you have a new concept introduced, a new country mentioned, a new politician..." It was too much. More broadly, he would also have liked the open-world to be more closely connected to the game's story, rather than be, mostly, a pretty backdrop. "It's like in the theatre when you have beautiful decorations at the back made of cardboard and paper, and not much happens to them except an actor pulls a rope and it starts to rain or something." he says. It's to do with how the main story influences the world and vice versa, and he thinks the studio can be better at it. Ciri and Geralt look at a coin purse in The Witcher 3. This is, coincidentally, the same tavern you begin the game in, with Vesemir, and the same tavern you meet Master Mirror in. | Image credit: Eurogamer / CD Projekt Red One conversation that surprises me, when looking back on The Witcher 3, is a conversation about popularity, because it's easy to forget now - with the intense scrutiny the studio seems always to be under - that when development began, not many people knew about CD Projekt Red. The combined sales of both Witcher games in 2013 were only 5 million. Poland knew about it - the Witcher fiction originated there and CD Projekt Red is Polish - and Germany knew about it, and some of the rest of Europe knew about it. But in North America, it was relatively unknown. That's a large part of the reason why the Xbox 360 version of The Witcher 2 was made at all, to begin knocking on that door. And The Witcher 3, CD Projekt Red hoped, would kick that door open. "We knew that we wanted to play in the major league," says Michał Platkow-Gilewski, vice president of communications and PR, stealing a quote from Cyberpunk character Jackie. That's why The Witcher 3 was revealed via a Game Informer cover story in early 2013, because that was deemed the way to do things there - the way to win US hearts, Platkow-Gilewski tells me. And it didn't take long for interest to swell. When Platkow-Gilewski joined CD Projekt Red to help launch the Xbox 360 version of The Witcher 2 in 2012, he was handing out flyers at Gamescom with company co-founder Michał Kicinski, just to fill presentations for the game. By the time The Witcher 3 was being shown at Gamescom, a few years later, queues were three to four hours long. People would wait all day to play. "We had to learn how to deal with popularity during the campaign," Platkow-Gilewski says. Those game shows were crucial for spreading the word about The Witcher 3 and seeing first-hand the impact the game was having on players and press. "Nothing can beat a good show where you meet with people who are there to see their favourite games just slightly before the rest of the world," he says. "They're investing their time, money, effort, and you feel this support, sometimes love, to the IP you're working on, and it boosts energy the way which you can't compare with anything else. These human to human interactions are unique." He says the studio's leader Adam Badowski would refer to these showings as fuel that would propel development for the next year or so, which is why CD Projekt Red always tried to gather as many developers as possible for them, to feel the energy. It was precisely these in-person events that Platkow-Gilewski says CD Projekt Red lacked in the lead up to Cyberpunk's launch, after Covid shut the world down. The company did what it could by pivoting to online events instead - the world-first playtest of Cyberpunk was done online via stream-play software called Parsec; I was a part of it - and talked to fans through trailers, but it was much harder to gauge feedback this way. "It's easy to just go with the flow and way harder to manage expectations," Platkow-Gilewski says, so expectations spiralled. "For me the biggest lesson learned is to always check reality versus expectations, and with Cyberpunk, it was really hard to control and we didn't know how to do it." It makes me wonder what the studio will do now with The Witcher 4, because the game show sector of the industry still hasn't bounced back, and I doubt - having seen the effect Covid has had on shows from the inside of an events company - whether it ever will. "Gamescom is growing," Platkow-Gilewski says somewhat optimistically. "Gamescom is back on track." But I don't know if it really is. Michał Platkow-Gilewski cites this moment as one of his favourite from the Witcher 3 journey. The crew were at the game show PAX in front of a huge live audience and the dialogue audio wouldn't play. Thankfully, they had Doug Cockle, the English language voice actor of Geralt, with them on the panel, so he live improvised the lines. Watch on YouTube Something else I'm surprised to hear from him is mention of The Witcher 3's rocky launch, because 10 years later - and in comparison to Cyberpunk's - that's not how I remember it. But Platkow-Gilewski remembers it differently. "When we released Witcher 3, the reception was not great," he says. "Reviews were amazing but there was, at least in my memories, no common consensus that this is a huge game which will maybe define some, to some extent, the genre." I do remember the strain on some faces around the studio at launch, though. I also remember a tense conversation about the perceived graphics downgrade in the game, where people unfavourably compared footage of Witcher 3 at launch, with footage from a marketing gameplay trailer released years before it. There were also a number of bugs in the game's code and its performance was unoptimised. "We knew things were far from being perfect," Platkow-Gilewski says. But the studio worked hard in the years after launch to patch and update the game - The Witcher 3 is now on version 4.04, which is extraordinary for a single-player game - and they released showcase expansions for it. Some of Marcin Blacha's favourite work is in those expansions, he tells me, especially the horror storylines of Hearts of Stone, many of which he wrote. That expansion's villain, Master Mirror, is also widely regarded as one of the best in the game, disguised as he is as a plain-looking and unassuming person who happens to have incredible and undefinable power. It's not until deep into the expansion you begin to uncover his devilish identity, and it's this subtle way of presenting a villain, and never over explaining his threat, that makes Master Mirror so memorable. He's gathered such a following that some people have concocted elaborate theories about him. Lead character artist Pawel Mielniczuk tells me about one theory whereby someone discovered you can see Master Mirror's face on many other background characters in the game, which you can, and that they believed it was a deliberate tactic used by CD Projekt Red to underline Master Mirror's devilish power. Remember, there was a neat trick with Master Mirror in that you had already met him at the beginning of The Witcher 3 base game, long before the expansion was ever developed, in a tavern in White Orchard. If CD Projekt Red could foreshadow him as far back as that, the theory went, then it could easily put his face on other characters in the game to achieve a similar 'did you see it?' effect. The real villain in the Hearts of Stone expansion, Gaunter O'Dimm. Better known to many as Master Mirror. There's a reason why he has such a plain-looking face... | Image credit: CD Projekt Red The truth is far more mundane. Other characters in the game do have Master Mirror's face, but only because his face is duplicated across the game in order to fill it out. CD Projekt Red didn't know when it made the original Witcher 3 game that this villager would turn into anyone special. There was a tentative plan but it was very tentative, so this villager got a very villager face. "We just got a request for a tertiary unimportant character," says Mileniczuk. "We had like 30-40 faces for the entire game so we just slapped a random face on him." He laughs. And by the time Hearts of Stone development came around, the face - the identity - had stuck. Expansions were an important part of cementing public opinion around The Witcher 3, then, as they were for cementing public opinion around Cyberpunk. They've become something of a golden bullet for the studio, a way to creatively unleash an already trained team and leave a much more positive memory in our heads. Exactly what went wrong with Cyberpunk and how CD Projekt Red set about correcting it is a whole other story Chris Tapsell told recently on the site, so I don't want to delve into specifics here. Suffice to say it was a hard time for the studio and many hard lessons had to be learned. "The pressure was huge," Platkow-Gilewski says, "because from underdogs we went to a company which will, for sure, deliver the best experience in the world." But while much of the rhetoric around Cyberpunk concerns the launch, there's a lot about the game itself that highlights how much progress the studio made, in terms of making open-world role-playing games. One of my favourite examples is how characters in Cyberpunk walk and talk rather than speak to you while rooted to the spot. It might seem like a small thing but it has a transformative and freeing effect on conversations, allowing the game to walk you places while you talk, and stage dialogue in a variety of cool ways. There's a lot to admire about the density of detail in the world, too, and in the greater variety of body shapes and diversity. Plus let's not forget, this is an actual open world rather than a segmented one as The Witcher 3 was. In many ways, the game was a huge step forward for the studio. Cyberpunk wasn't the only very notable thing to happen to the Witcher studio in those 10 years, either. During that time, The Witcher brand changed. Netflix piggybacked the game's popularity and developed a TV series starring Henry Cavill, and with it propelled The Witcher to the wider world. Curiously, CD Projekt Red wasn't invited to help, which was odd given executive producer Tomek Baginski was well known to CD Projekt Red, having directed the intro cinematics for all three Witcher video games. But beyond minor pieces of crossover content, no meaningful collaboration ever occurred. "We had no part in the shows," Pawel Mileniczuk says. "But it's Hollywood: different words. I know how hard it was for Tomek to get in there, to convince them to do the show, and then how limited influence is when the production house sits on something. It's many people, many decision makers, high stakes, big money. Nobody there was thinking about, Hey, let's talk to those dudes from Poland making games. It's a missed opportunity to me but what can I say?" The debut trailer for The Witcher 4.Watch on YouTube Nevertheless, the Netflix show had a surprisingly positive effect on the studio, with sales of The Witcher 3 spiking in 2019 and 2020 when the first season aired. "It was a really amazing year for us sales wise," Platkow-Gilewski says. This not only means more revenue for the studio but also wider understanding; more people are more familiar with The Witcher world now than ever before, which bodes very well for The Witcher 4. Not that it influenced or affected the studio's plans to return to that world, by the way. "We knew already that we wanted to come back to The Witcher," Platkow-Gilewski says. "Some knew that they wanted to tell a Ciri story while we were still working on Witcher 3." But, again, with popularity also comes pressure. "We'll have hopefully millions of people already hooked in from the get-go but with some expectations and visions and dreams which we have to, or may not be able to, fulfil," Platkow-Gilewski adds. You can already sense this pressure in comments threads about the new game. Many people already have their ideas about what a new Witcher game should be. The Witcher 4 might seem like a return to safer ground, then, but the relationship with the audience has changed in the intervening 10 years. "I think people are again with us," Platkow-Gilewski says. "There are some who are way more careful than they used to be; I don't see the hype train. We also learned how to talk about our game, what to show, when to show. But I think people believe again. Not everyone, and maybe it's slightly harder to talk with the whole internet. It's impossible now. It's way more polarised than it used to be. But I believe that we'll have something special for those who love The Witcher." Here we are a decade later, then, looking forward to another Witcher game by CD Projekt Red. But many things have changed. The studio has grown and shuffled people around and the roles of the people I speak to have changed. Marcin Blacha and Pawel Mielniczuk aren't working on The Witcher 4, but on new IP Project Hadar, in addition to their managerial responsibilities, and Pawel Sasko is full-time on Cyberpunk 2. It's only really Michał Platkow-Gilewski who'll do a similar job for The Witcher 4 as on The Witcher 3, although this time with dozens more people to help. But they will all still consult and they're confident in the abilities of The Witcher 4 team. "They really know what they're doing," says Sasko, "they are a very seasoned team." "We learned a lot of lessons down the road," Platkow-Gilewski says, in closing. "I started this interview saying that we had this bliss of ignorance; now we know more, but hopefully we can still be brave. Before, we were launching a rocket and figuring out how to land on the moon. Now, we know the dangers but we are way more experienced, so we'll find a way to navigate through these uncharted territories. We have a map already so hopefully it won't be such a hard trip."

27 May, 2025 Most design studios run a meeting that looks back at the year just past, and forward to the year ahead. How can teams make the most of this important annual ritual? This article is part of our meetings series, looking at different types of design meetings, and how they could be improved. You can find all the articles here.  Although they call it lots of different names, most design businesses run an annual meeting where they look back at the year that’s gone, and forward to the 12 months ahead. When done well, these meetings can be extremely useful – to celebrate successes, re-establish focus, and course correct where necessary. But when done badly they can confuse staff, paper over problems, and damage morale. Gillian Davis, an executive coach and leadership expert who works with many creative businesses, points out there is often a huge gap between the way big client meetings are prepared, and the attention big internal meetings receive. We spoke with Davis, and three design leaders, to gather practical advice for running more effective annual get-togethers. Start with why Davis says the first decision for leaders planning one of these meetings is to work out why they are doing it, and what they want to achieve. “It’s too easy for these meetings to become a waste of everyone’s time,” she warns. “Ask yourself, what is the one message we need to get through going into next year? And then design the meeting around that.” That takes clarity, an ability to prioritise what the business needs now, and sometimes self-awareness. SUN’s Jamie Kelly says their most recent annual meeting was part of a “personal reinvigoration” to address a flatness he felt in the studio, despite a string of successful projects. “I wanted to use it as a spur, to look at all this great work we’d done, but also to get down and dirty into the things that we hadn’t enjoyed, or that hadn’t gone so well,” he says. “It was about mixing that celebration with some really honest conversations.” Context shapes content Communication begins way before the first words have been uttered. Where do you hold the meeting? How do you frame it? What do you ask people to prepare? All of these decisions shape how your message will land. For example, if a business is reflecting on a challenging financial year,  holding this meeting in a sun-soaked locale with a generous free bar will seem quite jarring. That may seem like an extreme example, but Davis says she has seen proposals that are totally at odds with the story the leaders want to tell. Number crunching Many leaders use these annual meetings to reflect on the company’s financial performance and its targets for the year ahead. Work out how much you want, and need to share, says John Wilson, CEO of Universal Design Studio and Map Project Office. “We try to be open and transparent, so there’s an understanding of where we are as a studio and there are no sharp surprises,” he says. “But I don’t think everyone needs to know everything.” For Guanglun Wu, founding partner and chief digital officer at Made by On, accessibility is key when it comes to this information. “We need to explain it in a way that can be contextualised by everybody within the organisation,” he says. “Some people understand what numbers and acronyms mean, and others don’t. So we put a lot of effort into those presentations in terms of the information design, so we can make that accessible.” SUN’s Jamie Kelly had a neat approach in his most recent annual meeting. He visualised the turnover as percentages related to specific client projects. “People could see how the projects they worked on contributed to the overall picture, and how their work has impacted the business,” Kelly explains. “I think the team found it interesting and maybe a bit surprising.” Who speaks – Leaders Gillian Davis says that the amount of time taken up by leadership presentations should depend on where the company is and how it’s doing. In tough times, she says, people want to see and hear from their leaders. In this context, she thinks 90% of the meeting should be direct communication from the most senior leadership. In better times, the teams themselves should be encouraged to present and lead discussions. Who speaks – Teams Most leaders like these meetings to include talks from specific teams but there are a couple of things to consider. Davis once saw an 150 slide deck for a company’s upcoming AGM, and every department had its own structure for their individual section. Some consistency is important, she says, as is avoiding it feeling like a long list of things that team has done. It’s great to celebrate successes, but it’s even more useful if that involves some reflection on how and why it worked well. Davis thinks “some element of interaction” helps elevate these sessions even further, so other employees can ask questions. For Made by ON’s Guanglun Wu, it’s all about teasing out what different teams can learn from each other. “What was really interesting about yout project that you want everyone else to know?” he says. “Explain the journey, what you learned and what are the future opportunities where we can be better.” This dynamic may be different in smaller teams. SUN’s Jamie Kelly runs these meetings as a two-way discussion for his seven-strong studio. “I pause after each section to ask questions. I want to hear what they think success could look like, so they can push my thinking,” he says. “It’s much easier in a small studio, where there is less hierarchy, to have that open dialogue.” Who speaks – Clients At its most recent annual session, Made by On invited a panel of current clients to take part in a fireside chat in front of the whole company. Guanglun Wu says it added a whole new dimension to the day. “When you have people come in and talk about their perspective on working with us, and how we enable their success, or how we communicate, then it builds that empathy.” Be practical and specific Let’s say leaders want to encourage more accountability in their teams. Saying that is the easy part, but it isn’t enough on its own. “Explain why you want to become more accountable as a business,” Gillian Davis says. “Say how you noticed it’s a problem. Describe the impact on the business. And then say how you are going to fix it, in a practical, day-to-day way.” Similarly give people the tools they need to make the changes you want to see. “Don’t just tell people something like you want them to develop their LinkedIn network,” Davis says. “Give them a playbook, a step-by-step breakdown of what that means and how to do that.” Beware of big surprises If you want to use the meeting to announce big changes around culture, structure or process, it’s worth getting some people on board first, says Made by On’s Guanglun Wu. “It’s important to give the people who need to instigate the change early visibility,” he says. “Explain the reasoning to the people it’s going to affect first, and give them a forum where they can give input.” Then when changes are announced to the wider group, you have a cadre of people who can help explain it to their colleagues, and allay any concerns. End on a high Like any performance – and Gillian Davis thinks these meetings do require an element of performance from leaders – the ending really matters. Think about how you want to leave people feeling, and tie it back to that one key message you were looking to land. Davis once saw a brilliant annual meeting at a big creative firm, which ended on a massive high. People were visibly enthused and excited. Until someone immediately grabbed the microphone to explain the travel arrangements for people who needed the shuttle bus. See annual meetings as part of a bigger strategy While these big set-piece meetings are important, they need to work as part of a consistent and coherent approach to leadership. Gillian Davis says leaders should look at how annual, monthly, and weekly meetings work together, some of which may be for everyone, and others for specific teams. “I think the monthly meeting should be a super-engaging company health check, and then the teams should have their own weekly rituals, where the real brass tacks of the work is discussed,” she says. For John Wilson, leadership is ongoing work, that shows up in myriad ways, big and small. “My gut feeling is that it’s not really about these big single meetings,” he says. “It’s about constantly iterating and refining and re-strategising and re-budgeting. “The best leaders I’ve worked with are not necessarily always standing up at the front, they are also gently pushing and prodding from behind.” Industries in this article What to read next Features How to run better meetings 27 May, 2025 How to run better pitches 27 May, 2025 “We need to talk about meetings…” 27 May, 2025

Xando Member Oct 28, 2017 37,943 In an interview with GamesMarkt, Omega Forcedirector and producer Tomohiko Sho – who produced this year's Dynasty Warriors: Origins – was asked how successful the series is in the West, given that most of the Steam user reviews for the game are written in Chinese. Sho replied that, in his view, Dynasty Warriors is not yet a successful series in the West, but that it's possible for this to change in the future. "I believe that the 'Dynasty Warriors' series is not yet in a position to be called a success in the West," Sho said. "On the contrary, I believe that there is a great potential for the series to gain many fans in the future. "With our latest title, Dynasty Warriors: Origins, we were able to attract new fans in addition to those we have had since the PlayStation 2 era. The Western market is very important, and I believe that if there is a next title, we will gain even more new fans." Click to expand... Click to shrink... Dynasty Warriors producer says the series still can’t be called a success in the West | VGC The latest game, Dynasty Warriors: Origins, has sold more than 1 million copies worldwide… www.videogameschronicle.com Origins was the first game in the series i played and i absolutely loved it so i hope it can continue to grow in the west.  --R Being sued right now, please help me find a lawyer Member Oct 25, 2017 15,658 Origins is a must play for everyone that likes action games. A masterpiece from beginning to end.   PlanetSmasher The Abominable Showman Member Oct 25, 2017 133,345 I think he's being modest more than anything else. This is less "the series is a failure" and more "I think we can do even better".   Glio Member Oct 27, 2017 27,882 Spain I honestly think what limits the franchise most in the West today is the setting of Three Kingdoms, not the gameplay. It's a fascinating historical period, but I don't think it'll be very popular here.  Dekuman Member Oct 27, 2017 21,144 Glio said: I honestly think what limits the franchise most in the West today is the setting of Three Kingdoms, not the gameplay. It's a fascinating historical period, but I don't think it'll be very popular here. Click to expand... Click to shrink... it's why spin offs of the formula like Hyrule Warriors do considerably better.   Richietto One Winged Slayer Member Oct 25, 2017 26,133 North Carolina Glio said: I honestly think what limits the franchise most in the West today is the setting of Three Kingdoms, not the gameplay. It's a fascinating historical period, but I don't think it'll be very popular here. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Unfortunately this. Obviously it did really well on Steam and what not but there's a reason Hyrule Warrios can do so damn well on a single platform. It's the setting.   fiendcode Member Oct 26, 2017 26,412 We saw this from the CCUs tbh, overwhelmingly tilted towards Asia.   LAA One Winged Slayer Member Oct 28, 2017 3,264 Origins I haven't tried, more tempted seeing impressions here, but I read Steph Sterling's review on it and they weren't happy with realism essentially removing personality from it. I think the other thing that puts me off is they just seem very heavy handed with DLC too, and seemingly for pretty basic things, I want as complete of a game as possible. Really I'm kinda surprised they haven't done more collabs with more IPs. I think Hyrule Warriors was really the first I truly played and loved. Other collabs since I've enjoyed too like P5 Strikers. Berserker was fine. AOT I enjoyed too and that's actually very different from the others. I'd love a KH Musou eventually.. so many characters and abilities they could use, and enemies are pretty simplistically designed, and there's already been moments where you had to kill 1000+ Heartless, seems a perfect fit, ha.  PlanetSmasher The Abominable Showman Member Oct 25, 2017 133,345 Dekuman said: it's why spin offs of the formula like Hyrule Warriors do considerably better. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Do they really do that much better?  OP OP Xando Member Oct 28, 2017 37,943 Glio said: I honestly think what limits the franchise most in the West today is the setting of Three Kingdoms, not the gameplay. It's a fascinating historical period, but I don't think it'll be very popular here. Click to expand... Click to shrink... You're probably right but for me the three kingdoms setting made it even more interesting. Don't think a medieval europe or a more western fantasy approach would catch me in the same way.  Disco Stu Member Oct 27, 2017 2,557 Glio said: I honestly think what limits the franchise most in the West today is the setting of Three Kingdoms, not the gameplay. It's a fascinating historical period, but I don't think it'll be very popular here. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Totally agree and this is coming from someone seeks out other Three Kingdoms content because of KOEI. Someone the other day mentioned using the engine for an Avengers or Superman style game. I could see that catching on if done right.  Glio Member Oct 27, 2017 27,882 Spain PlanetSmasher said: Do they really do that much better? Click to expand... Click to shrink... Not all of them, but some, yes. Age of Calamity is the best selling musou at 4M.  Rosebud Two Pieces Member Apr 16, 2018 51,357 I want Origins but still too pricey unfortunately. I love Samurai Warriors, Pirate Warriors, Persona 5 Strikers...   TheAggroCraig This guy are sick of the One Winged Slayer Member Nov 6, 2017 7,354 I'll show up for the franchise again when they bring back Dynasty Warriors Gundam   Dekuman Member Oct 27, 2017 21,144 PlanetSmasher said: Do they really do that much better? Click to expand... Click to shrink... Here's what i can find from the Nintendo million seller list Hyrule Warriors - Age of Calamity 4+ million units as of March 2021  MetalKhaos Member Oct 31, 2017 2,228 PlanetSmasher said: I think he's being modest more than anything else. This is less "the series is a failure" and more "I think we can do even better". Click to expand... Click to shrink... That's my take. Origins was first DW game I enjoyed in a really long time. Solid entry, and I feel a game like this is made all the better with this current gen due to how incredibly fast the loading times are.  SlasherMcGirk Member Oct 27, 2017 4,429 Cincinnati Glio said: I honestly think what limits the franchise most in the West today is the setting of Three Kingdoms, not the gameplay. It's a fascinating historical period, but I don't think it'll be very popular here. Click to expand... Click to shrink... It's not even that I think its the fact that they have done the same setting and characters 20 times over. It's an interesting period and story with great characters but you can only add and stretch the same story so many times without diminishing returns.   PlanetSmasher The Abominable Showman Member Oct 25, 2017 133,345 SlasherMcGirk said: It's not even that I think its the fact that they have done the same setting and characters 20 times over. It's an interesting period and story with great characters but you can only add and stretch the same story so many times without diminishing returns. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I think the other problem is there aren't that many periods of time across history that can support this kind of game structure with such a heavy emphasis on specific heroes. Like, they tried Troy once and it didn't really catch on, nor did Bladestorm. For better and for worse, the Three Kingdoms and Sengoku eras are kind of the time periods that have A) a level of ubiquity in Asia that makes East Asian players interested in them and B) an emphasis on character substantial enough to support the Musou gameplay format. By comparison, I don't think a Musou game based on (for example) the American Revolution would sell particularly well outside of the US, and that war was A) not that long and B) took place in an era where firearms had largely supplanted melee combat so the movesets would wind up feeling very samey.  Ltn_Esteves Member Feb 4, 2021 213 Dekuman said: Here's what i can find from the Nintendo million seller list Hyrule Warriors - Age of Calamity 4+ million units as of March 2021 Click to expand... Click to shrink... And I think that is without japan sales, since Nintendo is only the publisher in the west   Astral Member Oct 27, 2017 33,463 TheAggroCraig said: I'll show up for the franchise again when they bring back Dynasty Warriors Gundam Click to expand... Click to shrink... Man I would love this. Did they stop for licensing reasons or something? Origins was amazing and I can't wait for what's next.  PlanetSmasher The Abominable Showman Member Oct 25, 2017 133,345 Astral said: Man I would love this. Did they stop for licensing reasons or something? Origins was amazing and I can't wait for what's next. Click to expand... Click to shrink... They stopped because the third game sold almost no copies. People got sick of the concept after the second game.  Glio Member Oct 27, 2017 27,882 Spain PlanetSmasher said: I think the other problem is there aren't that many periods of time across history that can support this kind of game structure with such a heavy emphasis on specific heroes. Like, they tried Troy once and it didn't really catch on, nor did Bladestorm. For better and for worse, the Three Kingdoms and Sengoku eras are kind of the time periods that have A) a level of ubiquity in Asia that makes East Asian players interested in them and B) an emphasis on character substantial enough to support the Musou gameplay format. By comparison, I don't think a Musou game based on (for example) the American Revolution would sell particularly well outside of the US, and that war was A) not that long and B) took place in an era where firearms had largely supplanted melee combat so the movesets would wind up feeling very samey. Click to expand... Click to shrink... It doesn't really need to be historical. There are One Piece, Zelda, Dragon Quest, Gundam... They could do something sci-fi or fantasy with their own setting and characters if they want. But, hey, if they like three kingdoms, they don't need to change it, but it's going to be very hard to grow in the West.   Dreamboum Member Oct 28, 2017 23,942 How are they gonna find an audience in the west when the game is 80 *euros* on all platforms? Their biggest discount is 64 euros. Come on man  MarvelousIntent Member Aug 13, 2019 3,936 LAA said: Origins I haven't tried, more tempted seeing impressions here, but I read Steph Sterling's review on it and they weren't happy with realism essentially removing personality from it. I think the other thing that puts me off is they just seem very heavy handed with DLC too, and seemingly for pretty basic things, I want as complete of a game as possible. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I'd recommend watching some gameplay to see how you feel about it. I understand Steph's gripes with Origins, but it is legitimately the best game in the series and it isn't even close. Like, the combat is actually good. Enemy officers actually put up a fight. Lu Bu is an actual boss fight and hard as hell to beat. Origins three greatest faults are where it chooses to end, the silent protagonist you can't customize, and that there are only like 9 weapons. The weapons issue also isn't that bad because each weapon has functions different and has plenty of abilities to choose from. It feels fantastic to play and blows every other game out of the water. Also, as far as I'm aware, Origins doesn't really have DLC. It had some pre-order bonuses, but thats it. As it is, the game is complete.  PlanetSmasher The Abominable Showman Member Oct 25, 2017 133,345 Glio said: It doesn't really need to be historical. There are One Piece, Zelda, Dragon Quest, Gundam... They could do something sci-fi or fantasy with their own setting and characters if they want. But, hey, if they like three kingdoms, they don't need to change it, but it's going to be very hard to grow in the West. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I don't think a bunch of anime Musou spinoffs are going to grow the franchise in the West. They've been doing anime spinoffs for 20 years and they just sell to people who are already Musou fans who happen to like that particular anime. It's a concept that only works on fanbase overlap. And I don't think an original setting is going to interest people who aren't already fans either.  General Tso Member Jan 10, 2018 540 Dynasty Warriors Origins was an excellent refresh, and I hope they continue to build off it (like they did DW2 through DW5), because the fundamentals are all there.   DontHateTheBacon Unshakable Resolve Member Oct 27, 2017 14,618 It was my first Dynasty Warriors game and I had a complete blast with it. I'm in if this is what they'll be like going forward. I hope the dust settles well for it in the west.   Dale Copper Member Apr 12, 2018 24,363 Glio said: Not all of them, but some, yes. Age of Calamity is the best selling musou at 4M. Click to expand... Click to shrink... One Piece Pirate Warriors 4 is also at 4 million sales. Spinoffs are more popular if they push them.  thewienke Member Oct 25, 2017 19,345 "If there is a next game" I hope they're being deliberately evasive there considering Origins ends half way through the story Although I do think the story is more interesting before the Three Kingdoms are established since there are more players and more going on  Pyro God help us the mods are making weekend threads Member Jul 30, 2018 18,900 United States Glio said: I honestly think what limits the franchise most in the West today is the setting of Three Kingdoms, not the gameplay. It's a fascinating historical period, but I don't think it'll be very popular here. Click to expand... Click to shrink... This is definitely part of it. I'm more into Samurai Warriors because the setting is more interesting to me.  LiquidDom Avenger Oct 27, 2017 2,729 I bought Origins on day one but have so much else on my plate. I'd like to get to it soon, might be a good palette cleanser after Death Stranding 2   OP OP Xando Member Oct 28, 2017 37,943 Dreamboum said: How are they gonna find an audience in the west when the game is 80 *euros* on all platforms? Their biggest discount is 64 euros. Come on man Click to expand... Click to shrink... I bought a key for like 43€ a few months ago so you can definitely get it cheaper if you're looking for it.   Kyrios Member Oct 27, 2017 19,152 --R said: Origins is a must play for everyone that likes action games. A masterpiece from beginning to end. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Yup, still a frontrunner for my personal GOTY.  OP OP Xando Member Oct 28, 2017 37,943 Only thing i wished they would improve on really would be that the MC has more of a personality   DyCy Member Oct 25, 2017 587 I loved Origins as my first real DW (I played the first Hyrule Warriors) but as interesting as it was for a first timer I do wonder how much I'd want to revisit the Three Kingdoms story over and over again in sequels so I do think the setting is limiting the potential of the franchise. Would love a spin off based on Star Wars, Marvel or Final Fantasy though.  Astral Member Oct 27, 2017 33,463 PlanetSmasher said: They stopped because the third game sold almost no copies. People got sick of the concept after the second game. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Aw damn. I honestly didn't even know there was a third one. I think they have the potential of making a really good one with the current formula.   Glio Member Oct 27, 2017 27,882 Spain PlanetSmasher said: I don't think a bunch of anime Musou spinoffs are going to grow the franchise in the West. They've been doing anime spinoffs for 20 years and they just sell to people who are already Musou fans who happen to like that particular anime. It's a concept that only works on fanbase overlap. And I don't think an original setting is going to interest people who aren't already fans either. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I'm going to be cynical because it's an idea that doesn't appeal to me personally, but I'm pretty sure if they made a dark fantasy setting with fallen knights, ruined kingdoms and cursed battlefields; and marketed it as "the Dark Souls of musou," it would sell. And I feel almost dirty just proposing it.  PlanetSmasher The Abominable Showman Member Oct 25, 2017 133,345 Glio said: I'm going to be cynical because it's an idea that doesn't appeal to me personally, but I'm pretty sure if they made a dark fantasy setting with fallen knights, ruined kingdoms and cursed battlefields; and marketed it as "the Dark Souls of musou," it would sell. And I feel almost dirty just proposing it. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I don't...really think it would work? Like the entire fantasy of Musou is "being an unstoppable killing machine", trying to focus it around super-hardcore grimdark difficulty would kind of defeat the purpose of it being Musou at all. Dark fantasy doesn't just succeed by default, and I don't think audiences would be tricked by that either. The Berserk musou flopped catastrophically badly.  MaxAugust Member Jan 28, 2018 3,573 thewienke said: "If there is a next game" I hope they're being deliberately evasive there considering Origins ends half way through the story Although I do think the story is more interesting before the Three Kingdoms are established since there are more players and more going on Click to expand... Click to shrink... The secret is everyone throughout time has felt that the pre-Three Kingdoms phase of the Three Kingdoms is the interesting part. Pretty much every adaptation stalls out a bit after things solidify. Hard to make the decades long stalemate and then abrupt anticlimactic (although poetic in an "everyone fails" way) denouement satisfying as a conventional narrative.