「リスクは私たちに、報酬は彼らに」：ゾーラン・マムダニ市長が語るAIとデータセンター

AI can make businesses faster. It can also make mistakes, expose data, and execute the wrong instructions faster. ThreatLocker helps organizations set boundaries AI cannot ignore by controlling what applications can run, what they can reach, and how they interact with sensitive resources. Innovation needs more than good intentions. It needs limits. Control AI with zero trust at threatlocker.com slash wired. That's T-H-R-E-A-T-L-O-C-K-E-R dot com slash wired. I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's Global Editorial Director, and we are here today at City Hall in downtown Manhattan. There's a lot going on outside these windows, including a lot of sirens, but I am about to sit down with Mayor Mamdani about a year after he won the mayoral election and became New York's mayor, yes, but also the Internet's mayor. Mayor Mamdani, thank you for taking the time. Very welcome. Thank you for being here. Oh, thank you for having me.

It's going really well so far. Yeah, great. So it was almost exactly this time last year that Wired and I interviewed you in your campaign office. And I remember that for two reasons. One, it was just before the election. But two, you had a birthday. And I was remembering this this weekend because I was in Sunset Park on Saturday on a walk. Sunset Park, for those who don't know, is the best park in Brooklyn and actually all of New York. I'm sure you agree. uh and i saw you being serenaded with happy birthday so you have just now turned a year older i did not join i kept walking i was like i'm gonna see this guy um i was wondering like who's that woman who's not singing along with the really excited nine-year-old she was like trying to and she was like no we're gonna keep going that was me all right but i'm curious it's been a year do you feel a year older or older than that how has the last year of your life been it's been a pretty incredible year it has also been probably

the most transformative year that i've lived in my life in terms of what my life was versus what it is now and much of that year has been having the privilege of having the greatest job in the world and to lead the city and now to be 35 35 35 35 35 and how old do you feel i think 35 it's a funny thing because in the world of my friends this is an age that there's a lot of existential questions that come with it in the work that i do most people are significantly older than me. And so the meaning of the age, it doesn't really live in a professional setting. Do you ever feel like your age is a barrier to you in politics? No. I think...

When I met Lula and we met during the UN General Assembly, He was very excited by the fact that I was young. He kept coming back. So young. Yeah. I don't think it's a barrier. I think that it's been one that has also illuminated both the promises and the betrayals of politics. To be 35 means you grew up through the housing crisis. You grew up through the Iraq war. You grew up through so much of what has shaped our country's politics over the last few decades have been these kind of formative moments in my and so many other people's lives. And I think that too often politics is shaped by those for whom these are issues that simply just affect other people, not ones that have been all-consuming in many ways.

We spent quite a bit of time last year talking about social media and your campaign's use of it. Wired declared you the Internet's mayor. That was before you even won the election. It was a gamble. We felt pretty good about your odds. But we talked... Not sponsored by Calci. Absolutely not and never. Now, you told us then that you wanted your campaign to not just do social media better than other candidates, but you said to really, quote, own the medium. And you're still at it. How are you thinking about social media as a tool now for governance versus a tool for campaigning? What are the differences? What are the similarities? I think the similarity is that you have to continue to recognize the fact that for many New Yorkers, this is how they engage with the world. It is yet another medium that has to be treated with the same legitimacy and respect as traditional mediums. And I say that because if your goal is to reach as many New Yorkers as possible, to tell them about a policy that you are unveiling that they could stand to benefit from, your responsibility is then to communicate through every conceivable measure.

So social media means that we can make a video that could reach – that will reach – almost every video will reach more than a million people. And that's just on one specific medium. and also it means that you have to continue to work your way backwards from how are new yorkers consuming media it's not that we have the right answer it's just that we're listening so for example with a lot of our spanish language outreach we heard from a number of spanish-speaking new yorkers that if you really want to communicate with a specific constituency that you're not reaching right now you need to make a whatsapp channel so we made a whatsapp channel that's And on that channel, we will share directly with Spanish-speaking New Yorkers information that we're putting out. And you will hear voice notes of me speaking in incredibly halting Spanish about what that policy is. And I think for too long, there's been a sense of pat myself on the back in government where it's like I put out the paper press release.

People should just know. I put this in one obscure place that people could find that they were looking for it. we have to make politics and political decisions something that reach people wherever they already are, as opposed to the condescension that comes with, if you're not reading this, then it's not meant for you. You also talked last year about your time campaigning and feeling like you needed to put yourself out there on social media in different ways, quote, many of which are embarrassing. What does it look like to be less embarrassing on social media now that you're the mayor? You're asking the wrong guy. Have you tried to clean up your act a little bit? I feel like I'm equally embarrassing. I think there's a part of social media which is all about the presentation of cool and mystery. And that's not a part. I don't know that that's so much what you're delivering. That's not where I live. No. I don't live there. We're not living in mystery. I live in a world where you will know everything about me, and I have to utilize that to try and share the message of what we're doing and why we're doing it.

And I think that in some ways means abandoning any fear of embarrassment or what it means for perception and thinking about if the way that you can learn about the rent guidelines board is me jumping into freezing cold water, then so be it. And that's what it was when I was running for office. And I think today we're still taking the same approach of how can we communicate with as many people as possible? How can we not veer into a place of complacency that, oh, now that we're the mayor, it means that everything has to conform to a traditional outreach. and the reality is that part of the reason why so many people feel so ambivalent at best about politics is that there's a sense of irrelevance and some of that irrelevance comes from the focus of politics but some of it also comes from the methods of politics if politics continues to present itself in a way that it did 20 years ago that is ignoring the fact that we are living in a very different world today and that's the world that we should be speaking to and that's the world

whose concerns we should be reflecting. And I would just say that in the years since we sat down together, there's been a lot of focus on our use of the medium as if that is more important than the message. And I think that it's important to focus on the use of medium, the respect for the medium, and also to understand that putting tired old ideas into a short-form version in a vertical video does not answer the critical issue with politics today. It's not just the presentation. It's also the substance. Now, your use of social media has not been without criticism. And I want to ask you a little bit about that. So the New York Times published a story in September about your office's work with creators. Now, your administration works with creators, some of whom receive talking points around initiatives. They're invited to cover events, sometimes events where maybe traditional journalists, people like myself, would not be present. So among the concerns raised in that piece is the

idea of this distinction between journalist and creator. So if your office sent me talking points before this interview, I would have shredded them, and then I would have come and just done the interview anyway. I understand wanting to leverage social media to reach people in new ways. I think that's really laudable. But how do you think about that distinction between, quote-unquote, professional journalism and content creation, right? Because I think for the average person, and people are very smart, New Yorkers are smart people, but that line has become incredibly blurry. They don't necessarily know when they open TikTok whether they are watching someone who is a journalist at the New York Times or someone who is a creator who doesn't have that same background. So how do you think about that? I would push you a little bit. Push away. In that talking points are essentially the basis of a press release. When we announce a new policy, we'll put in the press release, there'll be the quotes from myself and other relevant agency heads and other relevant politicians. And then there'll also be a description as to what the policy is.

And to me that is so critical because we looking to demystify politics And some policies are pretty self And other policies are ones that frankly if I didn have talking points then I wouldn even be able to formulate what that is So earlier this week we announced that we were going to deliver on an innovative solution to flooding in Central Park. We were going to be able to lower the water levels in three key water bodies to ensure that we would do so in advance of a storm and then prevent the typical stormwater runoff. You need to be able to explain that before you have a conversation about it. So that's where I would push a little bit on the idea of what talking points are and what they serve. I think to your question, you have to be able to treat all of these different mediums with respect and understand the differences of them. So if we were an administration that exclusively engaged with digital first creators, then that would be an issue. But what I see as important is

We have to speak to journalists for whom their medium is television, newspaper, radio, digital, magazine, as well as those for whom their only medium might be TikTok or Instagram or Twitter or Blue Sky, whatever it may be. It cannot be a choice any longer because I think, as you've said, for many New Yorkers, there is a sense that all of this is media. And I think that we have to have a respect for that as opposed to what has long been a political condescension about which media is legitimate and which media is illegitimate. And to me, if a New Yorker spends a minute of their time watching something or reading something, I need to know what that is and I need to make sure we're engaging with that too. How do you separate audiences in your mind when you think about maybe what you would say on TikTok or Instagram, what you would say to a journalist, what you would say behind a podium? Do you think about those distinctions? Not so much. I think if you try to calibrate yourself for every single constituency, you are losing sight of why people will want to listen.

it starts to veer into an imitation as opposed to a presentation of the facts. And I think there's a difference in that, you know, we'll sit down for 48 minutes. If I put out a video on Instagram for 48 minutes, is it going to do well? No. But if I'm thinking that I should speak like this over there and I should speak like this over here, you're going to end up kind of twisting and turning yourself into knots. Now, last question on this. Please. I want to move to the midterms. But last year, we spent some well-earned time talking about Eric Adams' social media campaign. He did incredible things on those platforms. Remarkable. Michael Bay. Phenomenal. Life has been changed by that one video. Who is the Eric Adams of the midterms on social? Oh. We all need someone to follow and have a laugh at. Who's your Eric Adams this year? i will say that the social media that i am still confused by sure is that of the departing

congressman shrie tanadar tell us more in michigan i don't know about this i just never fully i never fully understand what i'm looking at what are you looking at what's happening in the videos Sometimes it's even just still images. Incredible. And I'm... Are we in carousel mode? No, it's typically solo style. Okay. I would invite others to take a look, and I would say that I'm very excited as well about the incoming congressman. I will take a look. There is some remarkable AI-generated social media content from some candidates, some of which includes AI-generated versions of you talking about, I think it was a delusion pill. I haven't seen that one. You and Governor Hochul, you're talking about taking the delusion pill where you think that having higher taxes and less money is a good thing. You should check this out. Was this from Bruce Blakeman? Yes. I'm sure it was. It's incredible stuff. Mr. AI. It looks just like you. Yeah.

It's incredible. We're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back. AI tools can write code, access files, connect to the internet, and execute commands at a speed no human can match. That productivity is powerful, but it also means one bad instruction or compromised tool can quickly become a security incident. ThreatLocker helps organizations use AI without losing control. Put zero-trust guardrails around tools like ClaudeCode and control exactly what they can execute, access, and connect to. Set clear boundaries around the applications, files, systems, and online destinations your AI tools are permitted to use. Because a proven AI tool should not mean giving it unrestricted access to your environment. Control what runs. Control what it can do. Control what it connects to. Learn how ThreatLocker can help you safely embrace AI at ThreatLocker.com slash Wired. That's T-H-R-E-A-T-L-O-C-K-E-R dot com slash Wired. One day last year, police entered a mansion in L.A. County

and discovered the couple that lived there had almost two dozen children. Nearly every one of them born through surrogates. But those surrogates had been deceived. I started crying. I was like, what the heck did I just get myself into? I'm Ava Kaufman. The Journey is a new series from In the Dark and The New Yorker. Find it now in the In the Dark podcast feed. me, Mark Aducci, on YouTube, VanityFair.com, and wherever you listen to podcasts. It's all fair game.

Now, you are not on the ballot for the midterms this November, but this is a big one. This is coming up next week. This episode will come out the day of the midterms. And in the last year, you have become one of the most influential people in politics. Whether you agree with me saying that or not, I think there is consensus. You've been described repeatedly as something of a power broker within the Democratic Party. An endorsement from you matters. I'm curious to start about your decision to endorse and campaign for Governor Hochul. She's seeking re-election. You were critical of her before taking office. Can you talk us through that calculus and what changed there? I think the key thing that my endorsement is a reflection of is just how productive our working relationship has been. And frankly, it is a stark contrast to that of the typical working relationship between the mayor of New York City and the governor of New York State. You look through the years, frankly, and you will find mayor and governor after mayor and governor who are seemingly forever at loggerheads.

and what I found in working with Governor Hochul is that we can deliver on material wins for working-class New Yorkers and to me the single most exciting one of those is Universal 2K. On the eighth day of our administration she agreed to deliver 1.2 billion dollars to make Universal Child Care a reality for two-year-olds in this city and the two of us spent a morning maybe about a week or two ago with a family whose child was enrolled in 2K. And they told us that before that, they had to send their child to a different state. His grandmother had to drive him at 4am for him to get to a child care that they could afford. And they were still paying $2,300 a month. And so that partnership delivered this family more than $20,000 of savings that they can now save to put towards the house. And that to me is what politics has to be. It has to mean something for working people. You don't have to translate to them what $2,300 a month means. They feel it. They know it.

And that's what I'm excited to build on. And to me, it's her track record. It's her commitment to the city, one that continued in the budget that we had. We're facing a significant fiscal deficit, and she was a real partner in ensuring that we could deliver a balanced budget. And then also there's the stark contrast with her opponent, who is a little more busy with AI-generated videos of the two of us. He's been very busy. He's been very busy. I generate videos. And defending ICE. Yes. I could go on. Which is a combination that I think most New Yorkers would not want to see in the governor's office. And I also think that his response to universal child care was to say this was a delivery of a benefit to lazy parents. And I have yet to meet a lazy parent in New York City. I meet people who are exhausted by the fact that our city and our country has made parenthood something that is incredibly difficult to do and seen as if it's purely an individual responsibility. when it's the benefit of our whole city if children can be raised here. He said he would cut that program. He said he would cut Medicaid in half.

I mean, times are tough as they are. And to have a gubernatorial candidate running on an agenda of, I'm going to make working people's lives harder and more expensive, I want to find a consultant who sold him that dream because they must have had an incredible pitch because it makes no sense to me. Now, if Governor Hochul is reelected, where do you hope to take that partnership? Where do you want to see that collaboration focus next? I would say continuing on child care. What we have delivered funding for is enough to take a program for 2,000 two-year-olds. Next year, we're taking it to 12,000 two-year-olds. We want to deliver this for every single two-year-old in New York City. And as of now, we're scheduled to expand to all of the Bronx, all of Staten Island. We want it to be every single borough, every single two-year-old. And the governor has said she's committed to the expansion of this program. And to me, when we're talking about a cost of living crisis, we're talking about the most expensive city in America. Child care is the second leading expense for working families in the city. If we can deliver that, what we are really delivering to New Yorkers is a more affordable life.

That that has to be the job Talk to me about the DSA Now your name has become synonymous in many ways with that movement It has been one of the dominant political stories of the last year this rise of DSA candidates winning races across the country Why do you think now is the time for that organization? Why now? Why not five years ago? Why not ten years ago? Why not five years from now? Why in this moment do you think that that movement and those candidates are seeing so much traction? I think precisely because the movement is built around delivering dignity to working class people. And today's politics is an illustration of the betrayal of the working class. And so never before has there been such an urgent demand for a new kind of politics. and here in New York City, the problems that working class people are facing are in many ways the problems that working class people are facing across the country,

their inability to afford their rent, their childcare, their groceries, their electricity bills. And so that message of fighting for working class Americans, it's compelling wherever you are. And that's what drew me to DSA in the first place, was that this was an entire organization built around an understanding that this had to be the focus of our politics. That politics had to mean material wins for working class people and that we had to be willing to fight for it. And that's one of the things that I really love so much about what it means to be a DSA member is the D stands for democratic. The organization does what its members decide to do. I think a lot of politics, a lot of organizations now, it feels like there's the set of people who make the decisions and there's everybody else who has to go along with them. And the whole point of this is democracy, that people should be able to choose their own future. People should be able to not just choose their own leaders, but also take that democracy and extend it from the ballot box

to the rest of their lives. On that note, we've been doing a lot of coverage at Wired of Data Centers, and there is something so interesting to me about how that has become such a bipartisan issue and how, yes, it is a national issue, but it feels so hyperlocal. This is about people in their communities reacting to something happening very much on the ground, very adjacent to where they live, to where they work. I would be so curious to hear your point of view on the data center movement and why you think that specific issue has become such a flashpoint, such an issue in this election. Where do you think that comes from? I think the movement to oppose data centers is one that gives me a real sense of hope. Why? Because it shows the ways in which this fight is cutting across the typical lines that separate Americans. As you've said, it's a bipartisan fight. Me and Ron DeSantis don't have much in common.

And yet there is a similar opposition to the development of these kinds of data centers. I think it speaks to a few things. The first is the incredible amount of energy that we are talking about when we're talking about AI. Think about the recent version of ChatGPT. Just the training of that model took the same amount of energy it would take to power all of San Francisco for three days. That's the scale. And so what you're seeing in opposition from Americans across the country is an opposition for what these data centers would mean in their day-to-day lives, what it would mean in their electricity rates, what it would mean in terms of the impact on their environment. And it's also a repudiation of what has been a governing politics for the last few years when it comes to AI, which is our risk, their reward. and I think you're seeing it whether you're in Florida, whether you're in New York, across the entire country.

And even in California, we've seen municipalities that have started to ban the construction of data centers entirely. I think a small suburb of L.A. was one of the first ones. Now, you've supported New York State setting a one-year pause on data center construction. What next? What comes after that? I mean, what to you is the solve for this? I think one of the solves is a recognition of the costs that come with AI. So much of what we are talking about is based on a very limited amount of information that we have. And that is by design. Because when we're talking about these incredibly powerful companies, we also are talking about a level of opacity that renders it almost impossible for us to make an informed conclusion as to how much this query is actually costing us as a society. You mean sort of an absence of data about energy use and things like that,

or do you mean the idea that this technology is sort of mythical rather than infrastructure? I mean the former, and I think that frankly there is an attempt to make this technology seem as if it is mythical. or as if it is divine. There is a real investment. Exactly. There's an investment in the idea that this is so complicated that the only rational response should be that we trust those who created it. And in many ways, it's what Facebook was arguing in 2008, that they should be able to regulate themselves. And yet what we need to see is a response that grasps the scale of the adoption of this technology and the incentives that are driving a lot of this technology at this time and the fact that we are now at a point where there are far too many similarities between the housing bubble and the state of AI in our economy today. You worry that we're in a bubble? Yes. You worry that bubble's going to pop? Yes. Do you trust the Sam Altman's of the world?

No. Do you trust the Sam Altman's of the world? I'm not the one being interviewed. No. But no, I don't. I'm curious about, in the context of AI, you focus obviously on New York. What is your role in shaping how AI affects New Yorkers? How do you think about that? I think it's a role on a practical level, and I also think it's a role that reckons with the enormity of AI's impact. Now, on the practical level, it means formulating one of the most comprehensive AI moratoriums in any American school system, which we put forward that would ban the use of generative AI for students from 2K through eighth grade. ban it because we need students to be given the room to be students students to be able to try and fail and learn and also to bring an end to the use of our students as guinea pigs for

the profit motives of technology companies there's been this strange thing over the last few years maybe last few decades where while we would not be willing to have a pharmaceutical company help to write the curriculum of a science class, we have been all too willing to partner with technology companies to not just inform the products that are used in the classroom, but also how they are taught. And then to the second point, the fact that the impact of AI is not purely an economic impact or an ecological impact, it is also an emotional impact. for all of the focus on job numbers and what jobs will be replaced by AI, there also has to be a reckoning with job satisfaction. There are a lot of jobs where the very purpose of the job is starting to be stripped away by artificial intelligence. There was recently an interview that The Daily conducted with a mathematics professor.

Oh, in tears. In tears. speaking about AI's newfound ability to solve this age-old problem that inspired a crisis for him and for other mathematicians as to what were they doing now? What purpose did they have? And I think that that is a question that should be at the forefront of how we respond to AI because for too long we've treated it, in your language, as a mythical thing, as an unknowable thing. And in fact, it is a thing very much within human control. And that means that we have to answer these questions also thinking about humanity as the primary responsibility. You've said that citywide AI policy has been guided by the question of, quote, what we can do in the face of a complete abdication of federal law. how does that affect your ability to rein in the technology on a municipal level?

What does that dynamic look like? And where are you held back from being able to do what you would like to do? In other words, how would you like to see the federal government handling this technology right now? I would like to see them reckon with the questions of the similarities between the housing bubble and the nature of AI in the economy today. I would like to see them reckon with the wildly varying estimates of actual profitability of these companies and the ways in which so much of their business dealings are attempts at continuing to prop up a completely artificial valuation of themselves that justifies the amount of money that they're spending on a daily basis. And I would like to see them reckon with the fact that the application of AI has already been seen to have fatal consequences. When we're talking about AI hallucinations, this is not just of intellectual interest. It's also something that almost led us to war with China.

When we're talking about AI's use of outdated information, that's what led to our government bombing an Iranian children's school. This is right now This is not a hypothetical in the future And what we doing here in New York City is we looking to utilize every tool we have in the face of that application Some of those tools are very practical. It's the implementation of a new rule by our Department of Consumer and Worker Protection that realtors cannot use AI-generated images of apartments. Those images did look incredible. They looked incredible, but they were not real. No, they were not real. They were not honest. And yet the housing market is tough enough. You don't need to wonder if your dream apartment is actually a dream. You should know that it is something that exists. Similarly, a lot of New Yorkers have been trapped in these doom loops with chatbots. So we've put together another rule that puts a limitation on that. We've also seen companies that have used AI to delude customers to thinking they're getting a much better deal than they are.

These are the kinds of day-to-day actions that we can take. However, what we are talking about is something of international importance, and yet all too often when it is raised at that level, it is caricatured as this is everything that we're doing is critically important because we are in a race with China. And that kind of an arms race terminology is used to justify every abdication of duty in this country. Now you have a bafflingly good relationship with the president. Have you talked to him about AI? We've had conversations about a lot of different topics that affect the city. Do you feel confident in his administration's ability to get a handle on that technology? I think that federal policy has been lacking thus far on this. And I think that the critiques that I've just leveled, that is how I honestly feel about what federal policy has been thus far. All right, another quick break. We'll be right back.

AI tools can write code, access files, connect to the Internet, and execute commands at a speed no human can match. That productivity is powerful, but it also means one bad instruction or compromised tool can quickly become a security incident. ThreatLocker helps organizations use AI without losing control. Put zero-trust guardrails around tools like Claude Code and control exactly what they can execute, access, and connect to. Set clear boundaries around the applications, files, systems, and online destinations your AI tools are permitted to use. Because approving an AI tool should not mean giving it unrestricted access to your environment. Control what runs. Control what it can do. Control what it connects to. Learn how ThreatLocker can help you safely embrace AI at threatlocker.com. slash Wired. That's T-H-R-E-A-T-L-O-C-K-E-R dot com slash Wired. I'm Vincent Cunningham. I'm Nomi Frye. I'm Alex Schwartz, and we host Critics at Large from The New Yorker. Each week, we pick a starting point. The new novel you can't stop thinking about,

the movie everybody's seeing this weekend, and we kind of go galaxy brand with it. Right, We take the ideas at the center of these things and trace them across history, across mediums, all to get to the bottom of why this particular text is important right now in politics and culture and also in your everyday life. We go highbrow. We go lowbrow. We go everything in between. Food culture to meme culture. Charlie XCX to Tony Morrison. K-pop to the Kennedys. From horror movies to heated rivalry. From the Oscars to the Met Gala. The Golden Bachelor of Wuthering Heights, great expectations to desperate housewives. That's what we're talking about over here. We're having fun. Critics Allard from The New Yorker, every Thursday, wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, my name is Zach Barron. I'm the Senior Special Projects Editor at GQ, and I'm pleased to introduce One More Question, GQ's new weekly interview show. Over the years in the magazine, I've written dozens of cover stories and traveled the world to talk to and write about some of the most interesting people in the GQ universe.

From Martin Scorsese to George Clooney and Brad Pitt to Outkast Andre 3000. And now I'll be doing it weekly. I'm going to sit down with some of the most interesting people in the world and figure out what makes them, well, them. New episodes of One More Question will be available each week wherever you get your podcasts or on YouTube if seeing people in chairs is more your thing. Now, I want to ask you about a different use of technology. Wired has reported extensively this year on the surveillance tech at Madison Square Garden. We've described it as a panopticon, among other things. We've published several stories about this. We're actually being sued by James Dolan over that reporting. Thank you, James. I want to know what you think about what is happening there. And I'm curious about your view on whether a private citizen, whether someone like James Dolan, should be able to wield that kind of surveillance power over everyday New Yorkers.

No. I don't think that that should be allowed. I think that it is indicative of much that is wrong in our country today in terms of the use of technology. How does one, say, the mayor of New York City address something like that? I think first they would do it in a Wired interview. And then there is also legislation that Council Member Shahana Hanif has introduced. And I think that that's an important response to this kind of an issue. And I think it's an issue that has frankly been true, not just at Madison Square Garden, I think also at Radio City Music Hall, where I think there was at one time reporting of a mother who was taking her child to see a show and then being barred from entering. because of her professional work. So last year I asked you if technology was making democracy stronger or weaker. You told me weaker in its current use. What about today? Still weaker.

Why? I have family members sending videos, AI videos of me, to me thinking that it's real. I mean, it's not funny. I have a family member who complimented me on a 45-minute debate that I had with a European member of parliament. How'd you do? And I watched the video. I was like, this is not me. Did you win, though? I couldn't last through that video. Apparently, I did. I did well. Defeated my European AI counterpart. But, no, it wasn't real. And I think that there is a real crisis of faith as to what is real right now. And some of the application of it is, you know, it's lighthearted, it's funny. but it is quite terrifying to think that in an age of such little faith in traditional institutions, how even that could be diminished further by the application of this technology in that way. We need to close by talking about the future. Okay. The Democratic Party is going through a lot of change right now.

As I mentioned earlier, Democratic Socialists are having a moment. Let's fast forward, say, a decade. Okay. It's 2036. what do you hope that party looks like and who's running it i hope that party looks like one that realizes the only majority in this country is the working class and that it fights for it and that it understands that no longer can an ambitious version of the party only be one that we find in history books there's too many monuments in this city to incredible figures who showcase what it could look like to fight for working class people we need that to be a living breathing politic. I think the people who run it have to be the American people. What are you doing in 10 years? I don't know. Hopefully I will have finished a second term, but I can never take that for granted. Mayor Mamdani, thank you so much for your time. It's a real pleasure. Thank you so much. Thank you. The Big Interview is produced by Lina Masitsis.

Our executive producer is Kate Osborne. Music and mixing by Pran Bandy. This episode was fact-checked by Matt Giles. And I am, of course, your host, Katie Drummond, Wired's Global Editorial Director. Check back here on Thursday for the latest episode of Uncanny Valley, where Wired's writers and editors add you to their Slack channel. Thank you. how they interact with sensitive resources. Innovation needs more than good intentions. It needs limits. Control AI with zero trust at threatlocker.com slash wired. That's T-H-R-E-A-T-L-O-C-K-E-R.com slash wired.

One day last year, police entered a mansion in L.A. County and discovered the couple that lived there had almost two dozen children, nearly every one of them born through surrogates. but those surrogates had been deceived. I started crying. I was like, what the heck did I just get myself into? I'm Ava Kaufman. The Journey is a new series from In the Dark and The New Yorker. Find it now in the In the Dark podcast feed. Hi, I'm Nicole Phelps, Global Fashion News and Features Director at Vogue and co-host of the Run-Through podcast. Each week on the show, our listeners get an all-access path into the world of Vogue. On Tuesdays, join me as I interview influential designers like Calvin Klein, Rachel Scott, and Simone Bilotti. On Thursdays, join Chloe Mao, head of editorial content at Vogue US, and Choma Navi, British Vogue's head of editorial content, as they explore fashion through the lens of culture with guests like Doja Cat and Margot Robbie.

Listen and watch the run through with Vogue wherever you get your podcasts and Vogue's YouTube channel.