DuckDuckGo founder. Co-author, Super Thinking. Co-author, Traction. <br/><br/><a href="https://gabrielweinberg.com?utm_medium=podcast">gabrielweinberg.com</a>
Gabriel Weinberg's Substack
Claim This Podcastby Gabriel Weinberg
39 episodes
Updated Daily
Accepts GuestsHas SponsorsLocation 🇺🇸
31
Podcast Authority
BetaPoorBased on show quality, social media presence, reviews, charts, and more
Quality63
Social0
YouTube0
Engagement0
Podcast Overview
DuckDuckGo founder. Co-author, Super Thinking. Co-author, Traction. <br/><br/><a href="https://gabrielweinberg.com?utm_medium=podcast">gabrielweinberg.com</a>
Language
🇺🇲
Publishing Since
4/27/2025
Unlock The Full Podcast Authority Score Report
See how your podcast performs across key metrics
31
Podcast Authority
BetaPoorBased on show quality, social media presence, reviews, charts, and more
Quality63
Social0
YouTube0
Engagement0
7
Excellent Areas
1
Good Performance
11
Growth Opportunities
excellent
Publishing Consistency
Every 7 days
Performing excellently!
good
iTunes Tags
6.5/10
Recommendations available
Unlock the full report to see detailed tips
poor
Episode Thumbnails
Recommendations available
Unlock the full report to see detailed tips
+16 More Metrics
Unlock comprehensive insights including:
- • YouTube presence analysis
- • Social media reach metrics
- • RSS compliance scoring
- • Podcast 2.0 features
- • Technical standards
What's Included in Your Full Report
Detailed Analytics
- Complete breakdown of all 19 authority metrics
- Personalized recommendations for each metric
- Industry benchmarks and comparisons
- Technical RSS feed analysis and compliance scoring
Growth Strategies
- Step-by-step action plans for improvement
- Quick wins to boost your score immediately
- Pro tips from successful podcasters
Get your free podcast insights report
See how your show performs across every key metric
Instant delivery
No spam
Attract Better Guests
High authority scores make your podcast more attractive to industry leaders and influencers who want to appear on credible shows.
Secure Sponsorships
Sponsors look for podcasts with proven authority and engagement. Your score demonstrates your podcast's value to potential partners.
Grow Your Audience
Understanding your strengths and weaknesses helps you make data-driven decisions to expand your listener base effectively.
2 verified contact emails on file for Gabriel Weinberg's Substack
Pitch yourself as a guest, propose sponsorships, or reach out directly to the host.
Recent Episodes
June 13, 2026
No, everyone is not using AI for everything.
<p>Last year around this time The New York Times Magazine ran an A.I. issue with an introduction titled “<a target="_blank" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/16/magazine/using-ai-hard-fork.html">Everyone Is Using A.I. for Everything. Is That Bad?</a>” It’s an edited transcript from <a target="_blank" href="https://www.nytimes.com/column/hard-fork">the Hard Fork podcast</a>, which I think assumes two things are true that are turning out to be false. </p><p>* Once you’ve tried AI, you use it “for everything.” No, in fact most people who’ve tried it are just occasional AI users.</p><p>* AI has gotten so good that despite any misgivings, “everyone is using A.I.” No, in fact large chunks of the population aren’t using AI at all.</p><p>(It isn’t really strictly defined in the article, but I’m taking AI to mean generative AI accessible via a chat interface.)</p><p>“Everyone is using AI for everything” is actually “Some people are using AI for some things”</p><p>Take Gen Z, where <a target="_blank" href="https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2026/02/24/how-teens-use-and-view-ai/">AI awareness is the highest</a>: in the last year, even though AI has supposedly gotten a lot better, Gen Z AI adoption has all but stalled, with a meaningful percentage of the Gen Z population still using AI rarely, if at all.</p><p>Here’s <a target="_blank" href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/708224/gen-adoption-steady-skepticism-climbs.aspx">Gallup’s </a>year-over-year (2025/2026) breakdown:</p><p>* 79/81% use AI at least rarely</p><p>* 41/42% are anxious about AI </p><p>* <strong>32/31% use AI only monthly/every few months</strong></p><p>* 22/31% are angry about AI</p><p>* <strong>21/19% never use AI</strong></p><p>This tracks with Microsoft’s new <a target="_blank" href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/dmc/topics/ai-economy-institute/reports/us-ai-adoption-2026-q1/">United States AI Diffusion site</a>, based on “anonymized, aggregated Microsoft telemetry.” Their associated <a target="_blank" href="https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2026/05/28/united-states-ai-adoption-shows-steady-growth-but-distribution-remains-uneven/">blog</a> reports “more than <strong>30 percent of the US working-age population is using AI [meaning about 70% isn’t], an increase of 3 percentage points from the end of 2025</strong>.” The underlying <a target="_blank" href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/AI-Diffusion-US-Technical-Report.pdf">academic paper</a> specifies that usage is defined as “engagement with major AI services including ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude, Microsoft Copilot, and others….with at least 90 minutes of usage time in a given month.”</p><p>The Microsoft data is brand new, and it mirrors <a target="_blank" href="https://sparktoro.com/blog/new-research-20-of-americans-use-ai-tools-10x-month-but-growth-is-slowing-and-traditional-search-hasnt-dipped/">another usage study from Datos</a> from last year, also based on real-world usage data. The Datos study found similarly that, as of last June, <strong>only 21% of desktop devices visited “AI Tools” 10 or more times a month, 62% visited 0 times, and the remaining 17% in between</strong>.</p><p>Back on the survey side, a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.searchlightinstitute.org/research/americans-have-mixed-views-of-ai-and-an-appetite-for-regulation/">recent Searchlight Institute study</a> found “<strong>58% report using or trying AI, specifically tools like ChatGPT or Claude, divided evenly between fairly regular users (30% use at least a few times a month) [roughly matching the Microsoft/Datos data] and more infrequent users (29% have used AI, but only once a month or less).</strong>” And finally a new survey from <a target="_blank" href="https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/the-biggest-issue-in-american-politics?publication_id=5247799&post_id=201400614&isFreemail=false&r=4e5x7&triedRedirect=true">The Argument</a> finds “<strong>most Americans use AI once a week or less.</strong>” </p><p>All of this triangulates to AI use in America at approximately <strong>one third actively using AI, one third occasionally using AI, and one third never using AI</strong>, with some movement depending on how you define those terms. In any case, this split is a far cry from “everyone is using AI for everything;” it’s much closer to “some people are using AI for some things.” AI use also hasn’t shifted that much in the past six months to a year. In fact, the only thing that has substantially changed is negative sentiment about AI has gone significantly up, for example the Gallup’s Gen Z poll reporting anger about AI jumping about 40% relative year over year.</p><p>Many people are holding back AI use because of real AI concerns and lack of perceived AI value</p><p>I think it is a reasonable conclusion to draw from all of this data that a significant percentage of the population is actively limiting their AI usage. The Searchlight study examines a big reason why: real concerns people have with AI. The top three concerns found are “AI will replace jobs and cause unemployment” (42%), "AI will violate people’s privacy” (35%), and “AI will spread misinformation and lies” (33%).</p><p>This sentiment also matches a strong desire for safety/privacy AI regulation. A solid majority thinks “the government should prioritize creating safety/privacy rules for AI, even if that means the U.S. develops AI more slowly than countries like China.”</p><p>Another big reason is skepticism in AI usefulness. SearchLight asked about a range of technologies and to say “whether you believe the overall impact of each technology on society is positive or negative.” AI only has an +8% net positive rating right now, right next to +7% for social media, which were only greater than crypto at -17%. Meanwhile cell phones, the internet, and solar energy are at +68%, +67%, and +65%, respectively. </p><p>The Argument study broke this down further, asking about specific societal benefits from AI, finding broad skepticism and concluding “people aren’t really buying the bullish case for AI that CEOs and boosters alike are selling. In other words, the skepticism about AI’s effects is real and deep-running. And given how many people use it daily, this is not just an ill-informed set of opinions on something respondents have never seen before (like tariffs were before 2025).”</p><p>It is possible for people to have one view at a societal level and then act differently at an individual level, but that does not seem to be what we’re seeing here. The plurality occasional usage and large percentage of complete avoidance speaks to the fact that a lot of people seemingly aren’t yet finding enough individual value net of their concerns to justify daily or even weekly usage. The gap in media narrative (that everyone is using AI for everything) relative to the reality (that some people are using AI for some things) perhaps reflects a bubble around early-adopting knowledge workers that includes much of the tech press (and me for that matter, though I’m trying really hard to stay connected to reality).</p><p>It’s a mistake for companies, pundits, and policy makers to ignore how people are really feeling and acting about AI. It’s not all sunshine and rainbows. It’s also clearly not binary (all use or no use), but instead a continuum of AI opinions and use, with a lot of people in the middle.</p><p>The meat of it all</p><p>I think there is an apt analogy to be made here to preferences around meat consumption. Another thing that seems to be everywhere right now is <strong>protein</strong>. Telling us how important protein is in our diet is analogous to telling us how useful AI is for productivity. And, meat being a primary source of protein is analogous to AI chat tools being a primary source of generative AI. And yet here’s how Americans break down in terms of their meat consumption preferences, based on a handful of U.S. studies from this decade:</p><p>* 95% eat meat (<a target="_blank" href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/510038/identify-vegetarian-vegan.aspx">Gallup</a>, 2023)</p><p>* 70% report reducing red meat consumption (<a target="_blank" href="https://www.rutgers.edu/news/why-health-and-price-not-sustainability-drive-us-meat-consumption-choices">Rutgers</a>, 2024)</p><p>* 30% eat (all) meat only rarely/occasionally (<a target="_blank" href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/282779/nearly-one-four-cut-back-eating-meat.aspx">Gallup</a>, 2020)</p><p>* 12% don’t eat red meat (<a target="_blank" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-026-06619-z">Nature</a>, 2026)</p><p>* 4% don’t eat any meat, that is are vegetarian (<a target="_blank" href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/510038/identify-vegetarian-vegan.aspx">Gallup</a>, 2023)</p><p>* 1% don’t eat any animal products, that is are vegan (<a target="_blank" href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/510038/identify-vegetarian-vegan.aspx">Gallup</a>, 2023)</p><p>That is, not everyone eats meat, a majority actively curbs their consumption of red meat, and a significant percentage don’t eat it at all. Different people have different (not mutually exclusive) reasons for limiting their meat consumption, including health, cost, environment, and ethics. Those are all also primary concerns for AI consumption! </p><p>The analogy also highlights market opportunities to appeal to people across the continuum, speaking to their feelings on AI and addressing their particular AI concerns. For example, we (at DuckDuckGo) make all AI features optional and one of those features, <a target="_blank" href="https://duck.ai">duck.ai</a>, is a private chatbot alternative that helps address AI privacy concerns. To extend the analogy in this way, we’re a restaurant with a variety of options on the menu, from healthy meat dishes (private AI) to vegetarian (turn down AI) to vegan dishes (turn off AI), which most eaters across the spectrum can appreciate.</p><p>Does this mean about one third of the population is bound to use AI only rarely/occasionally forever? No. Unlike with meat, the AI technology landscape is changing so rapidly that it is very unclear both where AI products and regulations will end up. Product evolution could make AI more useful to the average person, and regulations could reduce concerns. However, we can say that, as of right now, a meaningful percentage of the population has tried the current state of AI and has decided to actively limit their use of it.</p><p></p><p><p>Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts or <a target="_blank" href="https://gabrielweinberg.com/p/podcast">get the audio version</a>.</p></p><p></p> <br/><br/>This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://gabrielweinberg.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1">gabrielweinberg.com</a>
June 7, 2026
A "patchwork" of AI laws is a feature, not a bug
<p>Consider a few of the big AI risks: violating privacy, taking jobs, and destroying the world. Here’s what Sam Altman (CEO, OpenAI) and Dario Amodei (CEO, Anthropic) have to say about each, representing the two largest AI companies.</p><p>On AI Violating Privacy</p><p>* <a target="_blank" href="https://www.techlawcrossroads.com/2025/07/sam-altmans-warning-everything-you-tell-chatgpt-could-end-up-being-used-against-you/">Sam</a>: If you go talk to ChatGPT about your most sensitive stuff, and then there's a lawsuit or whatever, we could be required to produce that.</p><p>* <a target="_blank" href="https://www.darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace">Dario</a>: AI seems likely to enable much better propaganda and surveillance, both major tools in the autocrat's toolkit.</p><p>On AI Taking Jobs</p><p>* <a target="_blank" href="https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/sam-altman-believes-ai-will-change-world-and-everything-else">Sam</a>: AI is going to eliminate a lot of current jobs, and there will be classes of jobs that totally go away.</p><p>* <a target="_blank" href="https://www.windowscentral.com/artificial-intelligence/anthropic-ceo-warns-25-percent-chance-ai-threatens-job-losses">Dario</a>: AI could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs—and spike unemployment to 10-20% in the next one to five years.</p><p>On AI Destroying the World</p><p>* <a target="_blank" href="https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PTzsEQXkCfig9A6AS/transcript-of-sam-altman-s-interview-touching-on-ai-safety">Sam</a>: And the bad case—and I think this is important to say—is like lights out for all of us.</p><p>* <a target="_blank" href="https://www.obsolete.pub/p/a-compilation-of-tech-executives">Dario</a>: My chance that something goes really quite catastrophically wrong on the scale of human civilization might be somewhere between 10 to 25%.</p><p>So, the leaders of AI think there is a decent chance it will destroy the world, are pretty sure it is going to wipe out lots of jobs, and are absolutely sure it is violating our privacy and has the potential to enable much more mass surveillance. We need government to help manage these risks, let alone all the other concerns surrounding AI like data centers, child safety, etc.</p><p>There is currently a debate whether Congress should prevent states from regulating certain AI risks. For example, the recently introduced <a target="_blank" href="https://obernolte.house.gov/media/press-releases/obernolte-trahan-release-discussion-draft-great-american-ai-act">Great American AI Act</a> preempts (stops) states for three years from “regulating the development of any artificial intelligence model” (from § 121 in the <a target="_blank" href="https://obernolte.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/obernolte.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/the-great-american-ai-act-discussion-draft-website-compressed-compressed.pdf">full text</a> and <a target="_blank" href="https://obernolte.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/obernolte.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/gaaia-discussion-draft-section-by-section-website.pdf">explanatory text</a>).</p><p>It would be one thing if Congress was super effective, but it’s just not, especially with regard to tech regulation. Case in point, Congress has failed to pass a general privacy law for the entire life of the Internet! In fact, aside from narrow, reactive measures like the <a target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAKE_IT_DOWN_Act">TAKE IT DOWN Act</a>, Congress has failed to pass any comprehensive tech regulation for a generation. Do we really think that it is going to start now and sufficiently deal with the myriad of AI risks? NO. Their lack of progress to date is more than enough evidence. Meanwhile, states have already been moving to regulate these risks.</p><p>I also don’t buy the criticism leveled against these state laws that they are somehow slowing down innovation via costly compliance, particularly in our AI race against China. The state laws getting the most pushback, like <a target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_in_Frontier_Artificial_Intelligence_Act">California's SB 53</a>, apply to a small number of frontier firms, now some of the most well-capitalized companies in the world. Yes, monitoring rules across states carries real costs, but these compliance costs are a rounding error to these companies. And, the broader state AI laws that reach smaller AI companies mostly require things like transparency and consumer notices, exactly the kinds of rules states already impose in many other regulated industries without killing progress. I've seen no systematic evidence that state AI laws have materially slowed innovation.</p><p>The case for state participation doesn’t even depend on Congress’s track record on tech regulation (or lack thereof). Even if Congress could somehow become much more effective overnight, AI is still too big and too fast-moving for one governing body to manage its regulation. In this case, a so-called “patchwork of laws” is a feature, not a bug. Parallel beats serial, and independent bodies produce independent ideas, covering ground a single regulator never would. It’s worth noting that Dario himself made this case in <a target="_blank" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/05/opinion/anthropic-ceo-regulate-transparency.html">an op-ed last year</a>, opposing a proposed 10-year federal moratorium on state AI laws, calling it “far too blunt an instrument.” <a target="_blank" href="https://gabrielweinberg.com/p/states-should-be-allowed-to-regulate">I agree</a>. Congress should set a federal floor on the risks it's uniquely positioned to handle, like existential safety, national security, and cross-border harms, letting states go further where they see fit. </p><p>While the preemption clause in the Great American AI Act is narrower than previously proposed (for example three years instead of ten years), the provisions of the act itself further make the point that zero years is warranted. On jobs, the act just funds a study to examine the problem rather than meeting the moment, say by <a target="_blank" href="https://gabrielweinberg.com/p/start-collecting-an-ai-token-tax">levying a direct tax on AI consumption to fund displaced workers.</a> If it’s too weak on jobs, arguably the most politically salient aspect of AI regulation needed, you can bet it will also be too weak on any area it is preventing states from regulating. So no preemption please. Let states protect their citizens as they see fit. More rules for AI are needed than Congress is realistically positioned to enact.</p><p></p><p><p>Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts or <a target="_blank" href="https://gabrielweinberg.com/p/podcast">get the audio version</a>.</p></p><p></p> <br/><br/>This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://gabrielweinberg.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1">gabrielweinberg.com</a>
May 24, 2026
More data supports science funding literally pays for itself
<p>Previously I put out a post explaining “<a target="_blank" href="https://gabrielweinberg.com/p/how-science-funding-literally-pays">how science funding literally pays for itself</a>” that takes you through the math and some data that backs it up. Now two new data points further bolster this claim.</p><p>First, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the nonpartisan federal agency that provides budget and economic information to Congress, published a report entitled “<a target="_blank" href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/62377">Estimating the Economic Effects of Federal Investment in Research and Development</a>.<strong>” </strong>Usually the CBO only projects out 10 years per their mandate, but because the effects of science funding can take longer to fully manifest, they projected out 30 years. </p><p><p>Thanks for reading Gabriel Weinberg! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.</p></p><p>The relevant headline takeaway is highlighted below in their primary table (Table 1), showing that over this period the effects of a $30B increase in science funding for 10 years ($300B in total and about a 33% increase from today) would result in decreasing the overall deficit over 30 years (see green arrows). The decrease is about -2% on average if the “R&D funding increase [is] financed by reducing noninvestment spending” and about -1% on average if the “R&D funding increase [is] financed by borrowing.”</p><p>This means that the increased science funding would grow the economy so much that the tax revenues received from this growth alone would outweigh the spending increase, leading to an overall decrease in the budget deficit. In other words, increasing science funding (at least by this amount) is a complete no-brainer, so let’s do it already!</p><p>A few years ago the CBO did a similar report for infrastructure spending and compared the two in this report, finding the ROI effects of science funding to be about seven times greater than infrastructure spending. Again, so let’s do it already!</p><p>The effect on the present value of GDP over the next 30 years (discounted using Treasury rates) that a dollar increase in deficit-financed R&D spending would have is <strong>about seven times larger</strong> than the effect that CBO, in its August 2021 report, estimated the same increase in infrastructure spending would have. </p><p>Second, the Clark Center regularly <a target="_blank" href="https://kentclarkcenter.org/us-economic-experts-panel/">polls a panel of economists</a>, and recently <a target="_blank" href="https://kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/science-funding/?utm_source_platform=mailpoet">they asked about this specific topic</a>. The panel essentially universally agreed that historically U.S. science funding has paid for itself. In particular, 82% agreed “historical federal support for scientific research has paid for itself through a substantial positive effect on long-run U.S. productivity growth.” 0% disagreed, with the rest either not answering, or declaring either “no opinion” or “uncertain”. They also ask respondents about the confidence in their answer, and when weighted the results are even more striking with a whopping 97% in the agree category.</p><p>Are you sold yet? Government science funding, the bulk of which goes to medical research, extends our lifespans and healthspans by inventing new medicines and other technologies that grow our economy so much it literally pays for itself. I get that this is not the most flashy policy area, but it is the most obviously good for our long-term future.</p><p>Finally, and also new this year, the Pew Research Center put out a survey on <a target="_blank" href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2026/01/15/do-americans-think-the-country-is-losing-or-gaining-ground-in-science/">Americans’ views of science and science funding</a>, and among other things found broad bipartisan support for government science funding. 84% of U.S. adults say “government investments in scientific research aimed at advancing knowledge are usually worthwhile investments for society over time.” That breaks down by part as 76% of Republicans and 93% of Democrats (including independents who lean one way or the other).</p><p><p>Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts or <a target="_blank" href="https://gabrielweinberg.com/p/podcast">get the audio version</a>.</p></p><p></p> <br/><br/>This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://gabrielweinberg.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1">gabrielweinberg.com</a>
39 total episodes available
Recent guests on Gabriel Weinberg's Substack
Guests from recent episodes — sign up to see every guest that has ever appeared on this show.
Gabriel Weinberg
Guest
Deep-dive analytics for Gabriel Weinberg's Substack
Frequently asked questions
Have a different question and can't find the answer you're looking for? Reach out to our support team by sending us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as we can.
- What is Gabriel Weinberg's Substack?
- How often does this podcast release new episodes?
This podcast updates daily.
- Where can I listen to this podcast?
This podcast is available on 4 platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more. You can also use the RSS feed directly.
- Does this podcast accept guests?
Information about guest appearances is not available.
Legal Disclaimer
Pod Engine is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected with any of the podcasts displayed on this platform. We operate independently as a podcast discovery and analytics service.
All podcast artwork, thumbnails, and content displayed on this page are the property of their respective owners and are protected by applicable copyright laws. This includes, but is not limited to, podcast cover art, episode artwork, show descriptions, episode titles, transcripts, audio snippets, and any other content originating from the podcast creators or their licensors.
We display this content under fair use principles and/or implied license for the purpose of podcast discovery, information, and commentary. We make no claim of ownership over any podcast content, artwork, or related materials shown on this platform. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
While we strive to ensure all content usage is properly authorized, if you are a rights holder and believe your content is being used inappropriately or without proper authorization, please contact us immediately at hey@podengine.ai for prompt review and appropriate action, which may include content removal or proper attribution.
By accessing and using this platform, you acknowledge and agree to respect all applicable copyright laws and intellectual property rights of content owners. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of the content displayed on this platform is strictly prohibited.