We're a nonprofit exposing the negative effects of persuasive technology and social media and empowering people to take action. Discover The Social Dilemma, our podcast, course, and more.

Researchers are split on whether relying on AI is eroding our critical thinking -- or just changing it. Here's what they actually found.

A letter from CHT’s Executive Director

Have you been on a customer service phone-call recently and found yourself wondering whether you’re actually talking to a human – or to an AI voice agent?

We're looking for mid-career experts from interdisciplinary backgrounds with media experience and excitement to apply to our fellowship program.

Tristan Harris on his experience meeting the Pope ahead of his encyclical on AI

We're looking for mid-career experts from interdisciplinary backgrounds with media experience and excitement to apply to our fellowship program.

A conversation with experts on the tech we need to govern AI

Expert calls for metrics on AI models' societal impact, not just performance

The prevalence of humanoid robots powered by artificial intelligence is growing worldwide and expected to increase dramatically in coming years, from sales of $3 billion in 2025 to $15.2 billion by 2030 and $5 trillion by 2050, with 1 ...

Announcing CHT’s new work on “AI and What Makes Us Human”

TIME asked Tim Cook, Ray Kurzweil, Gwynne Shotwell, and 22 others to tell us about an innovation that speaks to America at 250

The Mythos near-catastrophe demonstrates why the status quo cannot continue.

One of the most common arguments you hear from company executives racing to develop super-intelligent AI is that it will cure cancer. It’s an incredibly powerful and seductive promise. If superintelligent AI really can cure cancer, then anyone who stands in the way of it, anyone who wants to slow it down — even because of its serious risks — is essentially letting people die. In fact, the biggest risk would be going too slowly. But what if a superintelligent AI isn’t actually capable of solving cancer in the way it's been described? What if we're being sold a false promise to justify a dangerous race? That’s exactly what our guest this week argues is happening. Dr. Emilia Javorsky is a physician, public health researcher, and director of the Futures Program at the Future of Life Institute. She's worked across scientific research, clinical trials, tech startups, and AI policy. Emilia recently wrote a paper titled “How AI Can and Can't Cure Cancer,” in which she argues that the promise of superintelligence curing cancer falls apart under scrutiny. Emilia lost a parent to cancer, so her criticism of this promise comes from a place of real concern, not cynicism. It also comes from her belief that AI can be really revolutionary for medicine, if we build it the right way. Subscribe to our Substack https://centerforhumanetechnology.substack.com/

We measure AIs to see whether they can pass a bar exam, write working code, and use your computer interface. We test to see how good they are at completing complex tasks, or just impressing humans.

“The AI Doc: Or How I Became An Apocaloptimist” opens in theaters across the U.S. this Friday, March 27. In this episode, we sit down with the team behind this groundbreaking documentary — Oscar-winning producers Daniel Kwan, Jonathan Wang, and Ted Tremper. They explore how they navigated the overwhelming complexity of AI, held space for radically different perspectives, and created a film designed not just to inform but to be experienced together. At CHT, we believe clarity creates agency. This film has the power to create the shared clarity we need to steer the direction of AI towards a better, more humane technological future. With every new technology, there’s a brief window to set the rules of the road that determine the future we live in. This is ours. So grab your friends, your family and go see “The AI Doc.” Subscribe to our Substack https://centerforhumanetechnology.substack.com/

In an abrupt shift, the company may release future AI models without ironclad safety guarantees

This week on Your Undivided Attention, Tristan Harris and Daniel Barcay offer a backstage recap of what it was like to be at the Davos World Economic Forum meeting this year as the world’s power brokers woke up to the risks of uncontrolled AI. Amidst all the money and politics, the Human Change House (https://www.youtube.com/@_humanchange) staged a weeklong series of remarkable conversations between scientists and experts about technology and society. This episode is a discussion between Tristan and Professor Yoshua Bengio, who is considered one of the world’s leaders in AI and deep learning, and the most cited scientist in the field. Yoshua and Tristan had a frank exchange about the AI we’re building, and the incentives we’re using to train models. What happens when a model has its own goals, and those goals are ‘misaligned’ with the human-centered outcomes we need? In fact this is already happening, and the consequences are tragic. Truthfully, there may not be a way to ‘nudge’ or regulate companies toward better incentives. Yoshua has launched a nonprofit AI safety research initiative called Law Zero that isn't just about safety testing, but really a new form of advanced AI that's fundamentally safe by design. Corrections and Clarifications: 1) In this episode, Tristan Harris discussed AI chatbot safety concerns. The core issues are substantiated by investigative reporting, with these clarifications: Grok: The Washington Post reported in August 2024 that Grok generated sexualized images involving minors and had weaker content moderation than competitors. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/08/07/grok-ai-child-safety-csam/ Meta: The Wall Street Journal reported in December 2024 that Meta reduced safety restrictions on its AI chatbots. Testing showed inappropriate responses when researchers posed as 13-year-olds (Meta's minimum age) (https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/meta-ai-chatbot-safety-restrictions-e9e8ce3f). Our discussion referenced "eight year olds" to emphasize concerns about young children accessing these systems; the documented testing involved 13-year-old personas. Bottom line: The fundamental concern stands—major AI companies have reduced safety guardrails due to competitive pressure, creating documented risks for young users. 2) There was no Google House at Davos in 2026, as stated by Tristan. It was a collaboration at Goals House. 3) Tristan states that in 2025, the total funding going into AI safety organizations was “on the order of about $150 million.” This number is not strictly verifiable. Subscribe to our podcast: https://www.humanetech.com/podcast Subscribe to our Substack: https://centerforhumanetechnology.substack.com/

YouTube video by Center for Humane Technology

Announcing CHT’s new work on “AI and What Makes Us Human”