It wouldn't have broken the bank to hire a designer, surely?

Some Venetians are concerned about the impact the three-day event—which includes 80 private jets and more than 30 private water taxis—will have on their city.

“The best way to predict the future is to invent it,” the famed computer scientist Alan Kay once said. Uttered more out of exasperation than as inspiration, his remark has nevertheless attained gospel-like status among Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, in particular a handful of tech billionaires who fancy themselves the chief architects of humanity’s future.  Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others may have slightly different goals and ambitions in the near term, but their grand visions for the next decade and beyond are remarkably similar. Framed less as technological objectives and more as existential imperatives, they include aligning AI with the interests of humanity; creating an artificial superintelligence that will solve all the world’s most pressing problems; merging with that superintelligence to achieve immortality (or something close to it); establishing a permanent, self-­sustaining colony on Mars; and, ultimately, spreading out across the cosmos. While there’s a sprawling patchwork of ideas and philosophies powering these visions, three features play a central role, says Adam Becker, a science writer and astrophysicist: an unshakable certainty that technology can solve any problem, a belief in the necessity of perpetual growth, and a quasi-religious obsession with transcending our physical and biological limits. In his timely new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, Becker calls this triumvirate of beliefs the “ideology of technological salvation” and warns that tech titans are using it to steer humanity in a dangerous direction.  “In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress.” “The credence that tech billionaires give to these specific science-fictional futures validates their pursuit of more—to portray the growth of their businesses as a moral imperative, to reduce the complex problems of the world to simple questions of technology, [and] to justify nearly any action they might want to take,” he writes. Becker argues that the only way to break free of these visions is to see them for what they are: a convenient excuse to continue destroying the environment, skirt regulations, amass more power and control, and dismiss the very real problems of today to focus on the imagined ones of tomorrow.  A lot of critics, academics, and journalists have tried to define or distill the Silicon Valley ethos over the years. There was the “Californian Ideology” in the mid-’90s, the “Move fast and break things” era of the early 2000s, and more recently the “Libertarianism for me, feudalism for thee”  or “techno-­authoritarian” views. How do you see the “ideology of technological salvation” fitting in?  I’d say it’s very much of a piece with those earlier attempts to describe the Silicon Valley mindset. I mean, you can draw a pretty straight line from Max More’s principles of transhumanism in the ’90s to the Californian Ideology [a mashup of countercultural, libertarian, and neoliberal values] and through to what I call the ideology of technological salvation. The fact is, many of the ideas that define or animate Silicon Valley thinking have never been much of a ­mystery—libertarianism, an antipathy toward the government and regulation, the boundless faith in technology, the obsession with optimization.  What can be difficult is to parse where all these ideas come from and how they fit together—or if they fit together at all. I came up with the ideology of technological salvation as a way to name and give shape to a group of interrelated concepts and philosophies that can seem sprawling and ill-defined at first, but that actually sit at the center of a worldview shared by venture capitalists, executives, and other thought leaders in the tech industry.  Readers will likely be familiar with the tech billionaires featured in your book and at least some of their ambitions. I’m guessing they’ll be less familiar with the various “isms” that you argue have influenced or guided their thinking. Effective altruism, rationalism, long­termism, extropianism, effective accelerationism, futurism, singularitarianism, ­transhumanism—there are a lot of them. Is there something that they all share?  They’re definitely connected. In a sense, you could say they’re all versions or instantiations of the ideology of technological salvation, but there are also some very deep historical connections between the people in these groups and their aims and beliefs. The Extropians in the late ’80s believed in self-­transformation through technology and freedom from limitations of any kind—ideas that Ray Kurzweil eventually helped popularize and legitimize for a larger audience with the Singularity.  In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress. I should say that AI researcher Timnit Gebru and philosopher Émile Torres have also done a lot of great work linking these ideologies to one another and showing how they all have ties to racism, misogyny, and eugenics. You argue that the Singularity is the purest expression of the ideology of technological salvation. How so? Well, for one thing, it’s just this very simple, straightforward idea—the Singularity is coming and will occur when we merge our brains with the cloud and expand our intelligence a millionfold. This will then deepen our awareness and consciousness and everything will be amazing. In many ways, it’s a fantastical vision of a perfect technological utopia. We’re all going to live as long as we want in an eternal paradise, watched over by machines of loving grace, and everything will just get exponentially better forever. The end. The other isms I talk about in the book have a little more … heft isn’t the right word—they just have more stuff going on. There’s more to them, right? The rationalists and the effective altruists and the longtermists—they think that something like a singularity will happen, or could happen, but that there’s this really big danger between where we are now and that potential event. We have to address the fact that an all-powerful AI might destroy humanity—the so-called alignment problem—before any singularity can happen.  Then you’ve got the effective accelerationists, who are more like Kurzweil, but they’ve got more of a tech-bro spin on things. They’ve taken some of the older transhumanist ideas from the Singularity and updated them for startup culture. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” [from 2023] is a good example. You could argue that all of these other philosophies that have gained purchase in Silicon Valley are just twists on Kurzweil’s Singularity, each one building on top of the core ideas of transcendence, techno­-optimism, and exponential growth.  Early on in the book you take aim at that idea of exponential growth—specifically, Kurzweil’s “Law of Accelerating Returns.” Could you explain what that is and why you think it’s flawed? Kurzweil thinks there’s this immutable “Law of Accelerating Returns” at work in the affairs of the universe, especially when it comes to technology. It’s the idea that technological progress isn’t linear but exponential. Advancements in one technology fuel even more rapid advancements in the future, which in turn lead to greater complexity and greater technological power, and on and on. This is just a mistake. Kurzweil uses the Law of Accelerating Returns to explain why the Singularity is inevitable, but to be clear, he’s far from the only one who believes in this so-called law. “I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear.” My sense is that it’s an idea that comes from staring at Moore’s Law for too long. Moore’s Law is of course the famous prediction that the number of transistors on a chip will double roughly every two years, with a minimal increase in cost. Now, that has in fact happened for the last 50 years or so, but not because of some fundamental law in the universe. It’s because the tech industry made a choice and some very sizable investments to make it happen. Moore’s Law was ultimately this really interesting observation or projection of a historical trend, but even Gordon Moore [who first articulated it] knew that it wouldn’t and couldn’t last forever. In fact, some think it’s already over.  These ideologies take inspiration from some pretty unsavory characters. Transhumanism, you say, was first popularized by the eugenicist Julian Huxley in a speech in 1951. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” name-checks the noted fascist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti and his futurist manifesto. Did you get the sense while researching the book that the tech titans who champion these ideas understand their dangerous origins? You’re assuming in the framing of that question that there’s any rigorous thought going on here at all. As I say in the book, Andreessen’s manifesto runs almost entirely on vibes, not logic. I think someone may have told him about the futurist manifesto at some point, and he just sort of liked the general vibe, which is why he paraphrases a part of it. Maybe he learned something about Marinetti and forgot it. Maybe he didn’t care.  I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear. For many of these billionaires, the vibes of fascism, authoritarianism, and colonialism are attractive because they’re fundamentally about creating a fantasy of control.  You argue that these visions of the future are being used to hasten environmental destruction, increase authoritarianism, and exacerbate inequalities. You also admit that they appeal to lots of people who aren’t billionaires. Why do you think that is?  I think a lot of us are also attracted to these ideas for the same reasons the tech billionaires are—they offer this fantasy of knowing what the future holds, of transcending death, and a sense that someone or something out there is in control. It’s hard to overstate how comforting a simple, coherent narrative can be in an increasingly complex and fast-moving world. This is of course what religion offers for many of us, and I don’t think it’s an accident that a sizable number of people in the rationalist and effective altruist communities are actually ex-evangelicals. More than any one specific technology, it seems like the most consequential thing these billionaires have invented is a sense of inevitability—that their visions for the future are somehow predestined. How does one fight against that? It’s a difficult question. For me, the answer was to write this book. I guess I’d also say this: Silicon Valley enjoyed well over a decade with little to no pushback on anything. That’s definitely a big part of how we ended up in this mess. There was no regulation, very little critical coverage in the press, and a lot of self-mythologizing going on. Things have started to change, especially as the social and environmental damage that tech companies and industry leaders have helped facilitate has become more clear. That understanding is an essential part of deflating the power of these tech billionaires and breaking free of their visions. When we understand that these dreams of the future are actually nightmares for the rest of us, I think you’ll see that senseof inevitability vanish pretty fast.  This interview was edited for length and clarity. Bryan Gardiner is a writer based in Oakland, California. 

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.Tech billionaires are making a risky bet with humanity’s future Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others may have slightly different goals, but their grand visions for the next decade and beyond are remarkably similar.They include aligning AI with the interests of humanity; creating an artificial superintelligence that will solve all the world’s most pressing problems; merging with that superintelligence to achieve immortality (or something close to it); establishing a permanent, self-­sustaining colony on Mars; and, ultimately, spreading out across the cosmos.Three features play a central role with powering these visions, says Adam Becker, a science writer and astrophysicist: an unshakable certainty that technology can solve any problem, a belief in the necessity of perpetual growth, and a quasi-religious obsession with transcending our physical and biological limits.In his timely new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, Becker reveals how these fantastical visions conceal a darker agenda. Read the full story. —Bryan Gardiner This story is from the next print edition of MIT Technology Review, which explores power—who has it, and who wants it. It’s set to go live on Wednesday June 25, so subscribe & save 25% to read it and get a copy of the issue when it lands! Here’s what food and drug regulation might look like under the Trump administration Earlier this week, two new leaders of the US Food and Drug Administration published a list of priorities for the agency. Both Marty Makary and Vinay Prasad are controversial figures in the science community. They were generally highly respected academics until the covid pandemic, when their contrarian opinions on masking, vaccines, and lockdowns turned many of their colleagues off them. Given all this, along with recent mass firings of FDA employees, lots of people were pretty anxious to see what this list might include—and what we might expect the future of food and drug regulation in the US to look like. So let’s dive into the pair’s plans for new investigations, speedy approvals, and the “unleashing” of AI. —Jessica Hamzelou This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here. The must-reads I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology. 1 NASA is investigating leaks on the ISSIt’s postponed launching private astronauts to the station while it evaluates. (WP $)+ Its core component has been springing small air leaks for months. (Reuters)+ Meanwhile, this Chinese probe is en route to a near-Earth asteroid. (Wired $) 2 Undocumented migrants are using social media to warn of ICE raidsThe DIY networks are anonymously reporting police presences across LA. (Wired $)+ Platforms’ relationships with protest activism has changed drastically. (NY Mag $)  3 Google’s AI Overviews is hallucinating about the fatal Air India crashIt incorrectly stated that it involved an Airbus plane, not a Boeing 787. (Ars Technica)+ Why Google’s AI Overviews gets things wrong. (MIT Technology Review) 4 Chinese engineers are sneaking suitcases of hard drives into the countryTo covertly train advanced AI models. (WSJ $)+ The US is cracking down on Huawei’s ability to produce chips. (Bloomberg $)+ What the US-China AI race overlooks. (Rest of World) 5 The National Hurricane Center is joining forces with DeepMindIt’s the first time the center has used AI to predict nature’s worst storms. (NYT $)+ Here’s what we know about hurricanes and climate change. (MIT Technology Review) 6 OpenAI is working on a product with toymaker MattelAI-powered Barbies?! (FT $)+ Nothing is safe from the creep of AI, not even playtime. (LA Times $)+ OpenAI has ambitions to reach billions of users. (Bloomberg $) 7 Chatbots posing as licensed therapists may be breaking the lawDigital rights organizations have filed a complaint to the FTC. (404 Media)+ How do you teach an AI model to give therapy? (MIT Technology Review) 8 Major companies are abandoning their climate commitmentsBut some experts argue this may not be entirely bad. (Bloomberg $)+ Google, Amazon and the problem with Big Tech’s climate claims. (MIT Technology Review) 9 Vibe coding is shaking up software engineeringEven though AI-generated code is inherently unreliable. (Wired $)+ What is vibe coding, exactly? (MIT Technology Review) 10 TikTok really loves hotdogs And who can blame it? (Insider $) Quote of the day “It kind of jams two years of work into two months.” —Andrew Butcher, president of the Maine Connectivity Authority, tells Ars Technica why it’s so difficult to meet the Trump administration’s new plans to increase broadband access in certain states. One more thing The surprising barrier that keeps us from building the housing we needIt’s a tough time to try and buy a home in America. From the beginning of the pandemic to early 2024, US home prices rose by 47%. In large swaths of the country, buying a home is no longer a possibility even for those with middle-class incomes. For many, that marks the end of an American dream built around owning a house. Over the same time, rents have gone up 26%.The reason for the current rise in the cost of housing is clear to most economists: a lack of supply. Simply put, we don’t build enough houses and apartments, and we haven’t for years. But the reality is that even if we ease the endless permitting delays and begin cutting red tape, we will still be faced with a distressing fact: The construction industry is not very efficient when it comes to building stuff. Read the full story. —David Rotman We can still have nice things A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.) + If you’re one of the unlucky people who has triskaidekaphobia, look away now.+ 15-year old Nicholas is preparing to head from his home in the UK to Japan to become a professional sumo wrestler.+ Earlier this week, London played host to 20,000 women in bald caps. But why? ($)+ Why do dads watch TV standing up? I need to know.

June 3, 20255 min readAre We Ready for Death in Space?NASA has quietly taken steps to prepare for a death in space. We need to ask how nations will deal with this inevitability now, as more people start traveling off the planetBy Peter Cummings edited by Lee Billings SciePro/Science Photo Library/Getty ImagesIn 2012 NASA stealthily slipped a morgue into orbit.No press release. No fanfare. Just a sealed, soft-sided pouch tucked in a cargo shipment to the International Space Station (ISS) alongside freeze-dried meals and scientific gear. Officially, it was called the Human Remains Containment Unit (HRCU). To the untrained eye it looked like a shipping bag for frozen cargo. But to NASA it marked something far more sobering: a major advance in preparing for death beyond Earth.As a kid, I obsessed over how astronauts went to the bathroom in zero gravity. Now, decades later, as a forensic pathologist and a perennial applicant to NASA’s astronaut corps, I find myself fixated on a darker, more haunting question:On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.What would happen if an astronaut died out there? Would they be brought home, or would they be left behind? If they expired on some other world, would that be their final resting place? If they passed away on a spacecraft or space station, would their remains be cast off into orbit—or sent on an escape-velocity voyage to the interstellar void?NASA, it turns out, has begun working out most of these answers. And none too soon. Because the question itself is no longer if someone will die in space—but when.A Graying CorpsNo astronaut has ever died of natural causes off-world. In 1971 the three-man crew of the Soviet Soyuz 11 mission asphyxiated in space when their spacecraft depressurized shortly before its automated atmospheric reentry—but their deaths were only discovered once the spacecraft landed on Earth. Similarly, every U.S. spaceflight fatality to date has occurred within Earth’s atmosphere—under gravity, oxygen and a clear national jurisdiction. That matters, because it means every spaceflight mortality has played out in familiar territory.But planned missions are getting longer, with destinations beyond low-Earth orbit. And NASA’s astronaut corps is getting older. The average age now hovers around 50—an age bracket where natural death becomes statistically relevant, even for clean-living fitness buffs. Death in space is no longer a thought experiment. It’s a probability curve—and NASA knows it.In response, the agency is making subtle but decisive moves. The most recent astronaut selection cycle was extended—not only to boost intake but also to attract younger crew members capable of handling future long-duration missions.NASA’s Space MorgueIf someone were to die aboard the ISS today, their body would be placed in the HRCU, which would then be sealed and secured in a nonpressurized area to await eventual return to Earth.The HRCU itself is a modified version of a military-grade body bag designed to store human remains in hazardous environments. It integrates with refrigeration systems already aboard the ISS to slow decomposition and includes odor-control filters and moisture-absorbent linings, as well as reversed zippers for respectful access at the head. There are straps to secure the body in a seat for return, and patches for name tags and national flags.Cadaver tests conducted in 2019 at Sam Houston State University have proved the system durable. Some versions held for over 40 days before decomposition breached the barrier. NASA even drop-tested the bag from 19 feet to simulate a hard landing.But it’s never been used in space. And since no one yet knows how a body decomposes in true microgravity (or, for that matter, on the moon), no one can really say whether the HRCU would preserve tissue well enough for a forensic autopsy.This is a troubling knowledge gap, because in space, a death isn’t just a tragic loss—it’s also a vital data point. Was an astronaut’s demise from a fluke of their physiology, or an unavoidable stroke of cosmic bad luck—or was it instead a consequence of flaws in a space habitat’s myriad systems that might be found and fixed? Future lives may depend on understanding what went wrong, via a proper postmortem investigation.But there’s no medical examiner in orbit. So NASA trains its crews in something called the In-Mission Forensic Sample Collection protocol. The space agency’s astronauts may avoid talking about it, but they all have it memorized: Document everything, ideally with real-time guidance from NASA flight surgeons. Photograph the body. Collect blood and vitreous fluid, as well as hair and tissue samples. Only then can the remains be stowed in the HRCU.NASA has also prepared for death outside the station—on spacewalks, the moon or deep space missions. If a crew member perishes in vacuum but their remains are retrieved, the body is wrapped in a specially designed space shroud.The goal isn’t just a technical matter of preventing contamination. It’s psychological, too, as a way of preserving dignity. Of all the “firsts” any space agency hopes to achieve, the first-ever human corpse drifting into frame on a satellite feed is not among them.If a burial must occur—in lunar regolith or by jettisoning into solar orbit—the body will be dutifully tracked and cataloged, treated forevermore as a hallowed artifact of space history.Such gestures are also of relevance to NASA’s plans for off-world mourning; grief and memorial protocols are now part of official crew training. If a death occurs, surviving astronauts are tasked with holding a simple ceremony to honor the fallen—then to move on with their mission.Uncharted RealmsSo far we’ve only covered the “easy” questions. NASA and others are still grappling with harder ones.Consider the issue of authority over a death and mortal remains. On the ISS, it’s simple: the deceased astronaut’s home country retains jurisdiction. But that clarity fades as destinations grow more distant and the voyages more diverse: What really happens on space-agency missions to the moon, or to Mars? How might rules change for commercial or multinational spaceflights—or, for that matter, the private space stations and interplanetary settlements that are envisioned by Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and other tech multibillionaires?NASA and its partners have started drafting frameworks, like the Artemis Accords—agreements signed by more than 50 nations to govern behavior in space. But even those don’t address many intimate details of death.What happens, for instance, if foul play is suspected?The Outer Space Treaty, a legal document drafted in 1967 under the United Nations that is humanity’s foundational set of rules for orbit and beyond, doesn’t say.Of course, not everything can be planned for in advance. And NASA has done an extraordinary job of keeping astronauts in orbit alive. But as more people venture into space, and as the frontier stretches to longer voyages and farther destinations, it becomes a statistical certainty that sooner or later someone won’t come home.When that happens, it won’t just be a tragedy. It will be a test. A test of our systems, our ethics and our ability to adapt to a new dimension of mortality. To some, NASA’s preparations for astronautical death may seem merely morbid, even silly—but that couldn’t be further from the truth.Space won’t care of course, whenever it claims more lives. But we will. And rising to that grim occasion with reverence, rigor and grace will define not just policy out in the great beyond—but what it means to be human there, too.

A few years ago, a sales executive I worked with found himself in a difficult position. His company was under review for a potential buyout, and his director asked him to present a version of the company’s story that, while technically true, left out critical details. The omission would make the company look healthier than it was, protecting its valuation and the leadership team’s positions post-acquisition. He knew this wasn’t an outright lie, but it didn’t feel honest either. Was this just strategic messaging or something more ethically concerning? And how could he navigate this without jeopardizing his reputation or future at the company? A third path He chose a third path. Instead of outright refusal, which might have been career-limiting, he started by asking clarifying questions. What was the real outcome that the leadership team wanted? Was there a way to tell a fuller, more balanced story that acknowledged challenges while highlighting future opportunities? In the end, he was able to get leadership buy-in to reframe the story to focus on how the company had learned from its struggles and was taking steps to improve. It wasn’t a spin. It was honest, forward-looking, and hopeful. The CEO praised the approach, and the executive maintained his integrity without derailing his career. The Institute of Business Ethics found in a study that one in three employees felt pressured to compromise the business’s ethical standards. Many comply out of fear—worried they’ll face retaliation, be labeled “difficult,” or lose opportunities. But there are ways to push back without risking your career. UNDERSTAND BEFORE OBJECTING When confronted with a questionable request, most people respond in one of two ways: They comply out of fear or they push back immediately, putting their job security at risk. There’s a better first step: Push to understand. Not all uncomfortable requests are unethical. Some are simply poorly communicated or misaligned with your values.  Clarify: Start by seeking to fully understand the request. You may find the issue is one of discomfort rather than unethical intent. Question: Explore the outcomes they want and whether the request achieves those goals in the best way. Asking thoughtful questions often makes leaders rethink their approach on their own. Redirect: If appropriate, propose a solution that meets the same business objectives without compromising integrity. For example, rather than omitting challenges, highlight how those challenges spurred innovation or improved future outcomes. These conversations can reveal that the person making the request is open to alternatives, they just hadn’t thought of them yet. UNETHICAL VERSUS ILLEGAL If you’ve clarified, questioned, and still feel uncomfortable, it’s important to assess whether the request is merely unethical or actually illegal. That distinction determines your next move. If the request is illegal, you will want to tread carefully. If you feel psychologically safe, it can be helpful to start communicating via email to keep a digital trail (although it is possible that your manager will cover their trail by refusing to engage on email). Further, if your company has an HR department, you can share the request with them along with expressing your discomfort. One friend who works in compliance found himself in this exact situation. His manager asked him to manipulate data, a clear violation of regulations. He responded by email, explicitly stating why the request was illegal and citing the relevant regulatory code. He was never asked to do it again. Sometimes, simply stating the facts is the most powerful shield you have. However, if the request is unethical but not necessarily illegal, your next move should be a personal decision that minimizes future regret. REGRET MINIMIZATION FRAMEWORK If you’re facing this kind of dilemma, it’s already a bad situation. There’s no playbook that guarantees success or protection. Sometimes, doing everything “right” still results in backlash or career limitations.  This is why I recommend applying what’s called the “regret minimization framework. Ask yourself: If I look back on this 10 years from now, will I regret how I handled it? This is the core of the regret minimization framework, a decision-making tool made famous by Jeff Bezos. It doesn’t promise a perfect outcome. But it helps you act in a way that minimizes long-term regret, even if it leads to short-term discomfort. When you apply this framework, you’re not just considering whether you’ll keep your job next month. You’re asking which version of yourself—today’s self or your future self—you want to protect more. Do you want to be someone who went along to keep the peace? Or someone who held the line when it mattered? This doesn’t mean you have to become a whistleblower or burn bridges. It simply means choosing the actions that leave you at peace with yourself, knowing you did what you could with the power and information you had at the time.

Hello and welcome to Modern CEO! I’m Stephanie Mehta, CEO and chief content officer of Mansueto Ventures. Each week this newsletter explores inclusive approaches to leadership drawn from conversations with executives and entrepreneurs, and from the pages of Inc. and Fast Company. If you received this newsletter from a friend, you can sign up to get it yourself every Monday morning. Summer officially starts in a few weeks, but I’ve already ordered and preordered the books that will keep me company on airplanes and trips to the beach. The first Modern CEO reading list was heavy on buzzworthy titles. Last year’s edition was a bit more dutiful, highlighting three works that explored the complexities of capitalism. This year, I’m diving into the lives of the ultrarich, whose impact on culture, society, and policy continues to rise. The Haves and the Have-Yachts: Dispatches on the Ultrarich by Evan Osnos Thanks in part to social media, consumption—of luxury goods, five-star resorts, rare wines, and the like—is increasingly conspicuous. One place where the ultrarich can avoid prying eyes? Aboard their superyachts. As Evan Osnos, a staff writer and podcast host at The New Yorker, writes of such floating mansions: “These shrines to excess capital exist in a conditional state of visibility: they are meant to be unmistakable to a slender stratum of society—and all but unseen by everyone else.” Osnos’s collection of essays promises to shed light on the excesses but also on how the rich amass and keep their wealth and the power that it affords. Personal History: A Memoir by Katharine Graham and Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist by Roger Lowenstein One of the biggest business stories of the year—Warren Buffett’s announcement that he will step down as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway—and the ongoing struggles of The Washington Post under Jeff Bezos (a superyacht owner), are prompting me to reread two great books on my bookshelf. Personal History is Graham’s candid memoir of the personal and professional hurdles she had to overcome en route to becoming CEO of The Washington Post Company and one of the most admired executives in media. Lowenstein’s masterful portrait of Buffett is part biography, part investing tutorial. Graham and Buffett were longtime friends, and Lowenstein seems to credit Graham with leavening some of Buffett’s thrifty instincts. Stories of Buffett’s frugality—his primary residence is a home he bought in Omaha in 1958 for $31,500—will surely be a good palate cleanser after the Osnos book. Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman’s OpenAI by Karen Hao Hao, an Atlantic contributor, is one of the leading journalists covering artificial intelligence (AI), and her book promises to be an unflinching look at the potential and perils of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s ambitions for generative AI, which seem to mirror the “move fast and break things” ethos of many tech companies. Luckily for readers, Hao seems willing to explore the unintended consequences of unfettered AI expansion, including the environmental impacts of water- and energy-hungry data centers. So Far Gone by Jess Walter Walter’s latest book—my one fiction pick—has many of the things I love in novel: a road trip, multigenerational conflict, and a gruff former journalist as the protagonist. In So Far Gone, Rhys Kinnick sets off to rescue his daughter and grandchildren from a radical militia group. It’s a world Walter knows well: As a journalist for the Spokane, Washington Spokesman-Review, Walter covered the 1992 standoff at Ruby Ridge in Northern Idaho, which is credited with fueling the anti-government militia movement. Challenging stuff, but an early review from Ann Patchett confirms why I love Walter’s writing: “Jess Walter managed to build such a warm, funny, loving novel out of so many horrible parts.” What are you reading this summer? What’s on your summer reading list? Please send the name, author, and a sentence or two about why you’d recommend it to modern leaders to stephaniemehta@mansueto.com. I’ll publish a bonus newsletter with reader suggestions before the official start of summer. Read more: summer reading roundup 24 books to read this summer, according to The Atlantic The Economist’s latest “beach friendly” reads The 15 books USA Today says you should read this summer

President Donald Trump has disrupted global trade and roiled markets in an effort to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. Some of his top tech allies, however, have backed ventures that replace human workers with robots.Elon Musk, a top donor and adviser to Trump, has touted humanoid robots as a future growth area for electric-carmaker Tesla. "You can produce any product,” Musk said of the robots’ potential capacity during a February interview with Dubai's World Governments Summit.Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who Trump last month called “terrific,” has invested in several advanced robotics firms.Bezos last year poured funds into Figure, a humanoid robot company that says its initial rollout will focus on manufacturers and warehouses, among other business applications. “We believe humanoids will revolutionize a variety of industries,” the company says on its website.Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman – both of whom joined Trump on his recent trip to the Middle East – helmed their respective companies as each invested in Figure. OpenAI ended its partnership with Figure last year.“Trump is talking about bringing back the jobs, and he’s not understanding the tension between that goal and automation, which the tech bros have enthusiasm for,” Harry Holzer, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University and a former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, told ABC News. “There’s a fundamental conflict between those goals.”MORE: Trump wants Apple to make iPhones in the US. Will it ever happen?Musk did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment made through Musk-owned firm SpaceX. Neither Bezos, Huang nor Altman responded to ABC News’ request.Speaking at a conference in April, Huang said the onset of artificial intelligence would fuel "new types of factories," which in turn would create jobs in construction and steelmaking, as well as in trades such as plumbing and electricity.Even more, Huang said, AI is set to trigger a surge in productivity at companies that adopt the new technology, allowing them to add employees as the firms increase output and revenue."New jobs will be created, some jobs will be lost, every job will be changed," Huang said. "Remember, it's not AI that's going to take your job. It's not AI that's going to destroy your company. It's the company and the person who uses AI that's going to take your job. And so that's something to internalize."Even after a rollback of some levies, consumers face the highest overall average effective tariff rate since 1934, the Yale Budget Lab found earlier this month.A key reason for the tariffs, White House officials say: Reshoring factories and rejuvenating employment in the manufacturing industry.Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said this month in an interview with Fox News that Trump's vision for ushering in a "golden age" for America involved enticing manufacturers to open factories and build in the United States."We're going to have huge jobs in manufacturing. You've heard the president talk about trillions and trillions of factories being built in America," he said in the interview on May 11.In response to ABC News' request for comment, White House Spokesperson Kush Desai said "the importance of President Trump’s push to reinvigorate American industry goes beyond creating good-paying jobs for everyday Americans.""Supply chain shocks of critical pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and semiconductors during the COVID era prove that America cannot rely on foreign imports. The Trump administration remains committed to reshoring manufacturing that’s critical to our national and economic security with a multifaceted approach of tariffs, tax cuts, rapid deregulation, and domestic energy production," Desai added.The share of U.S. workers in manufacturing has plummeted for decades. Roughly 8% of U.S. workers currently hold positions in manufacturing, which marks a steep decline from about a quarter of all employees as recently as 1970.Researchers attribute such decline to overlapping trends, including the offshoring of manufacturing to low-wage markets overseas and the adoption of labor-saving technology throughout the sector.Long before current advances, automation significantly increased productivity in U.S. factories, meaning the same number of workers could produce many more goods, researchers at Ball State University found in 2015. As a result, they said, manufacturing employment stagnated for decades even as output climbed.Popular Reads“Automation is something we’ve seen for a long time,” Philipp Kircher, a professor of industrial and labor relations at Cornell University, told ABC News.CEO of Meta and Facebook Mark Zuckerberg, Lauren Sanchez, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk attend the inauguration ceremony of Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 20, 2025.Julia Demaree Nikhinson, Pool via AFP via Getty Images, FILESome of Trump’s tech allies have backed firms that seek to further automate manufacturing, touting a new wave of artificial-intelligence equipped robots as a replacement for some workers and salve for labor shortages.Robotics outfit Vicarious boasts $250 million in investments from a set of backers that includes Bezos, Musk and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg – all of whom flanked Trump during his inauguration.On a webpage displaying photos of robots for use in warehouse settings, Vicarious tells potential clients that the products can “reduce both your costs and person-hour needs.”In 2022, Vicarious was acquired by Alphabet-backed robotics software firm Intrinsic. Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai also sat alongside tech leaders at Trump’s inauguration.Alphabet did not respond to ABC News' request for comment. Meta declined to comment.Yong Suk Lee, a professor of economics and technology at the University of Notre Dame, described the views on automation among Trump’s tech allies and some of his trade advisers as “opposed.”The tech position, Lee said, would likely win out, even if some firms do open plants in the U.S.“If you want to reshore, are you going to pay the same wages as Vietnam? Probably not,” Lee said. “Companies are faced with higher labor costs. In that case, they’ll probably automate.”Discordant views among some tech leaders and White House officials surfaced in April, when Musk sharply criticized tariff-advocate Peter Navarro, Trump’s senior counselor for trade and manufacturing. Navarro, Musk said, is “truly a moron.”In an interview with CNBC, Navarro responded, saying Musk "isn't a car manufacturer — he's a car assembler.”MORE: Target CEO says tariffs risk 'massive' costs, but price hikes a 'last resort'To be sure, analysts said, automation in manufacturing would likely continue regardless of support from Trump’s tech allies, since producers are locked in a competition to lower costs and increase output. The precise outlook for manufacturing employment is unclear, they added, since additional technology may add jobs for those maintaining and optimizing the machinery.“Whether it’s the companies that currently support the U.S. president or not, somebody would be doing this innovation, maybe slightly slower,” Kircher said.Even at current employment levels, a labor shortage bedevils U.S. manufacturers. Roughly one of every five U.S. factories that failed to produce at full capacity cited a shortage of workers, Jason Miller, a professor of supply chain management at Michigan State University, found in a January study analyzing government data.Agility Robots, an Amazon-backed firm building humanoid robots, identifies the current push for rejuvenated U.S. manufacturing as an opportunity for greater adoption of technology.“Manufacturing companies are seeing a massive reshoring movement spanning various industries,” Agility Robots says on its website. “Adding a humanoid robot to your manufacturing facility is a great way to stay on the leading edge of automation.”In response to ABC News' request for comment, an Amazon spokesperson pointed to previous remarks about robotics made by a company executive."Our goal is to ensure these systems improve safety and productivity. Technology should be used to help us retain and grow our talent through skill development and reimagining how we make our workplace better, both in productivity and safety. If we do this well, we’re certain to always innovate for our customers," Tye Brady, chief technologist at Amazon Robotics, said in a September blog post.Amazon has "created more U.S. jobs in the last decade than any other company," Amazon said this month.