SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Semafor " 34 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Zambia agrees health deal with US after resolving dispute
Africa’s second largest copper producer got better terms than its neighbors, and still has a minerals deal to settle with Washington.
Zambia agrees health deal with US after resolving dispute
Africa’s second largest copper producer got better terms than its neighbors, and still has a minerals deal to settle with Washington.
Trump-tied firm helped organize political advisers’ Balkans travel
Chris LaCivita and James Blair’s trip to the Balkans occurred after former Trump campaign adviser Alex Garcia initially reached out, multiple people told Semafor.
France student protests roil politics ahead of elections
Analysts expect unrest to intensify after a teenager’s hand was blown off by a riot police sting grenade.
How Democrats learned to stop worrying about gender politics
As they prepared for Republicans to drop another billion dollars of ads on their heads this summer, Democrats passed around fresh advice on gender politics.
Exclusive: Africa aid cuts provide health ‘opportunity’
Governments across the continent relied heavily on USAID, Washington’s development agency, to fund health programs before it was shuttered last year.
How Harvard Business School’s former dean thinks AI will test today’s CEOs
Nitin Nohria sees the technology as a decentralizing force that will challenge company power structures.
Health wonks question who saves in Trump drug program
President Trump boasted about his administration’s work on drug pricing, announcing the “most-favored-nation” program, but health policy experts question whether the changes will directly save consume...
Klomp, nominated for No. 2 health post, faces Senate gauntlet
The man nominated to be Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s No. 2 has quietly met with nearly 35 senators ahead of his confirmation hearings.
Exclusive: Spotify’s new ‘skip’ button could end the podcast business as we know it
The Swedish streaming giant cast the move as streamlining a feature that already exists, the Spotify app’s 15-second skip button.
India, Japan deepen business ties
The leaders of India and Japan pledged Thursday to strengthen economic ties, as cross-border dealmaking picks up between the two Asian nations.
DeepMind Chief Demis Hassabis says Google’s still winning AI talent
Despite the departure of two top AI leaders that sent the company’s stock price down, Hassabis says Google is still on top.
View: The rise of identity politics
Éric Zemmour’s diagnosis is not the standard analysis of why centrist leaders everywhere have grown so profoundly unpopular.
Sheinbaum decries US ‘interference’ in Mexico’s politics
Mexico’s president delivered her harshest rebuke yet of US “interference,” following Washington’s indictment of 10 Mexican officials for alleged cartel ties.
View: Why we need to domesticate Africa’s health algorithm
As AI transforms medicine, African countries risk becoming the raw material for a revolution whose benefits flow elsewhere.
Trump administration 'eager' to announce business deals during China trip
NBC News correspondents Gabe Gutierrez, Brian Cheung, Courtney Kube and Semafor China Columnist Andy Browne discuss President Trump’s trip to China and what he hopes to get from Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Exclusive: What’s next for Letterboxd?
The controlling investor in Letterboxd, the cinephile social platform, is looking to sell its stake.
‘Iran has to come’ to the US for the World Cup, FIFA’s Infantino says
FIFA chief reasserts his views on Iran's participation, saying 'the players want to play' in the tournament.
Yahoo CEO Jim Lanzone says Trump’s tariffs hit its advertising business
Ads for the automotive industry and consumer packaged goods were the worst hit, he told Semafor World Economy.
Tourism, sports, and entertainment are key to DC’s downtown comeback, investors say
Ted Leonsis and Mark Ein, investors in team franchises, told Semafor World Economy that the US capital could be revived by investing in sports venues.
Tourism, sports, and entertainment are key to DC’s downtown comeback, investors say
Ted Leonsis and Mark Ein, investors in team franchises, told Semafor World Economy that the US capital could be revived by investing in sports venues.
“AI polls” are fake polls
A few weeks after Donald Trump’s second presidential win, I took the train up from London (where I was living at the time) to Oxford to attend a conference on polls and forecasts of the 2024 election. Most of the attendees were pollsters or academics, but I also watched presentations from Aaru and Electric Twin, two companies that do what is interchangeably called synthetic sampling, silicon sampling, or synthetic audiences. Stripped of startup jargon, that means they use large language models (LLMs) to simulate responses to public opinion polls by having AI agents take on the role of survey respondents. I had already heard of Aaru thanks to some articles with eye-catching headlines like “No people, no problem: AI chatbots predict elections better than humans” in the months leading up to Election Day. The founders were making some big, some might even say far-fetched claims, such as: “within two years, we will simulate the entire globe — from the way crops are grown in Ukraine to how that impacts production of oil in Iraq, trade through the strait of Malacca, and elections for the mayor of Baltimore.” When Semafor asked Aaru’s cofounders — Cameron Fink and Ned Koh — about my boss, they said “we respect all those who came before us.” Nate (as he so often does) shared his thoughts on Twitter: Fink and Koh were relatively good-natured about this back-and-forth when we spoke at Oxford. They even offered to mail me one of the t-shirts featuring Nate’s quote they apparently had made. I never took them up on the offer, which I now somewhat regret. These synthetic sampling companies fell off my radar for a while, but they do still exist. In fact, Aaru recently received a $1 billion valuation. Is what they’re doing anywhere close to the most important frontier in AI development? Not by a longshot, especially when Anthropic just developed a model so adept at exploiting software vulnerabilities that it’s only being released to 40 companies. Still, silicon sampling is increasingly finding its way into public polling. Axios reported in March that “a majority of people trust their own doctors and nurses” based on findings from Aaru — without mentioning that the “people” in that sentence were actually LLMs. Around the same time, the Public Sentiment Institute “boosted” their online sample of 373 real survey respondents with 114 AI agents.1 (Spoiler alert: even the co-founder of Electric Twin doesn’t think that’s a particularly defensible approach.) Polling companies like Qualtrics and Ipsos are also developing synthetic data panels. So, what should we make of these … “polls”? Let’s get one thing out of the way: whatever they are, they’re not polls in the way that term is usually defined. Subscribe You can’t replace polls with AI On one hand, using LLMs to essentially make up fake survey respondents sort of sounds like the dumbest idea ever, one that will at best imperfectly replicate real polls while introducing all sorts of biases. On the other hand, with LLMs improving at a remarkable, perhaps even alarming rate, maybe that means I’m a dinosaur at the ripe old age of 24 because I still want to rely on polls that talk to actual people. I’m not going to argue that synthetic samples are completely useless. In fact, as I’ll return to later, there is evidence that some techniques can replicate topline survey results quickly and cheaply. But the marketing from certain companies can be slightly optimistic. “No traditional poll will exist by the time the next general election occurs,” said Fink in 2024. We’re just 206 days away from the midterms, and based on the fact that I still have to collect a bunch of polls every day, I’d say he should have run that prediction by a sample of AI agents before the interview.2 To see why synthetic samples can’t replace polls, here’s a quick primer on how they work. The simplest version of these models involves taking a LLM (like ChatGPT or Claude), giving it a demographic profile (e.g., a white, college-educated woman who lives in Utah and makes $70k a year), and then asking it to respond to a survey question. You repeat that process a few thousand times using different demographic profiles and end up with a sample of synthetic survey responses. The actual models used by private companies are more sophisticated than this, usually because they incorporate more hypothesized demographic characteristics for each agent and provide them with extra information. Aaru, for example, feeds agents a diet of news and information they’d be likely to consume, while Electric Twin incorporates their customers’ proprietary data about the audience they’re trying to replicate. The way Ben Warner, the co-founder of Electric Twin, explained it to me was “we have a large amount of data on […] for instance, 5,000 people. Can we make an accurate prediction of how they would respond to another question?” Still, it should be obvious why synthetic samples can’t replace polls. Polling is fundamentally a data collection process. We might use surveys to make predictions by feeding them into election forecasts, but the main purpose of a poll isn’t prediction, it’s gathering new data about what people think and how they feel. Silicon sampling, on the other hand, produces no new data. It’s simply a model: you input LLM training data, demographic prompts, and a bunch of other information, and it spits out a prediction for what a poll would say. We love models here, but models aren’t polls. That difference is an important philosophical sticking point for most pollsters I talk to. “I think politics should stay away from [synthetic sampling], because we’re trying to […] represent the voice of the people,” said Natalie Jackson, a vice president at GQR Insights. Democratic pollster John Hagner told me: “I think I’m just incredibly skeptical of this idea. I don’t think it’s research. At that point, you’re asking the machine to tell you what you already believe.” Hagner has seen some presentations of early synthetic sampling experiments, but so far, “if it’s being used in a campaign, people are keeping it incredibly quiet.”3 But Eli, I hear you saying, aren’t polls themselves increasingly governed by modeling decisions? Indeed they are: pollsters’ choices on which sampling method to use, how to define their likely voter models, and how to weight their samples can and do lead to dramatic differences in the results they publish. Aaru even referenced these limitations in the methodology statement included with that maternal mortality “poll” — although I’m using the term “methodology statement” loosely here, because it doesn’t really explain how the model works at all. We can ignore the (frankly preposterous) implication that synthetic sampling isn’t subject to a separate set of biases. The important point is that there’s still a meaningful difference between using weighting and other statistical techniques on actual polling data and using a model to predict what a poll would say. The latter is far closer to election forecasts or techniques like MRP — potentially useful models, but not a replacement for polls.4 To be fair, other synthetic sampling companies are perfectly happy with the distinction between polls and models. Warner compared polling and synthetic sampling to different tools in a toolbox. “The mistake I think we make is we think that these new tools should either work in exactly the same way or somehow replace these old tools,” he said. “Rather than thinking of it as, okay, so we’ve always had the hammer, we’ve always had the screwdriver, now we’ve got a saw. But don’t use a saw to try [to] do the job of a hammer.” A quick comment from Nate Eli didn’t ask me for a comment — rather rude of him, don’t you think? But since I’m editing this story, I figured I’d add a few quick thoughts rather than putting words in his mouth. Beyond the frequently misleading marketing, what bothers me about the AI “poll” hype is that as AI tools make statistical inference cheaper and/or better (note that these are not synonyms) that actually increases the comparative value of collecting original data. You might be able to train a model to make a reasonable estimate of what some hard-to-reach poll respondent would say — say, a young Black man who voted for Trump. (Such a person checks a number of boxes for a voter who is usually hard to reach in surveys.) Indeed, this is closely related to what models like the Silver Bulletin forecast already do. They essentially smooth out the kinks in noisy survey data by making inferences based on past voting patterns or national polls or surveys of other states. But you don’t actually know what these voters think unless you’re reaching them directly. If there’s a shift in opinion among this subgroup, you’re not going to detect it. So if I were running a campaign, I’d invest more in going the extra mile to find a representative sample of those voters. And then I’d hire some smart quants — or Claude? — to figure out the implications for campaign strategy based on proprietary data that my competitors didn’t have access to. -Nate Silver Are these models any good? If synthetic surveys are just a new type of model, the next obvious question is whether the models are at least accurate. The answer very much depends on who you ask. On one end of the spectrum, you have the maximalist argument that synthetic sampling is more accurate than actual polls. “It’s an incredibly challenging problem to go to someone and say ‘hey, we’re going to be more accurate at predicting human behavior than you, even when you talk to your customers directly’,” Koh recently told CNBC. In his view, synthetic sampling isn’t a saw to polling’s hammer, it’s “magic.” There’s certainly evidence that synthetic samples can replicate certain survey toplines. But if Aaru does have any examples of their approach outperforming the polls, they’re keeping those to themselves.5 Aaru’s 2024 election model, for example, had Kamala Harris leading in Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on November 4th. And although they’ve since taken down their forecast page, they gave Harris a 50.5 percent chance of winning the race on November 2nd.6 After the election, Fink told Semafor he was happy enough with those results because they were “within margin of error,” a term that is completely meaningless when applied to a “sample” of AI agents. And of course, Aaru says their models have improved since 2024, so supposedly now they’d be more accurate than the polls? Still, their stronger argument is on cost: “We are significantly faster and cheaper than traditional polling, and still more accurate,” said Fink. The first two claims are undeniably true, but the third brings us to the opposite end of the spectrum. Both Jackson and Hagner are skeptical that these models are reliable for anything beyond replicating common survey toplines. “I just […] don’t think the machines are what we want when we’re looking for nuanced views. My example on this is people in Arizona and Nevada in 2024 who voted for Trump and voted for expanding abortion in their states on ballot initiatives,” said Jackson. Hagner identified another issue. Maybe the synthetic respondents, like sycophantic LLMs, are inhuman in one important way: they’re too nice. “The reports that have come through at the meetings that I’ve been at are that the early experiments on this, they cannot get respondents to be as racist or sexist or, frankly, as negative as human respondents,” he said. Academic research mostly agrees on this point. While there are some papers that show promising results when using LLMs to replicate polling data, most show that LLMs suffer from various quirks like producing too few “don’t know” responses and can seriously overpredict the favorability of politicians like Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. They also seem to struggle with too little variation between demographic subgroups, so the difference in predicted opinion between Democrats and Republicans, for example, is too small. When I asked Warner about these studies, his response to these papers was that just because academics can’t get synthetic sampling to work doesn’t mean that the technique doesn’t work in general. “Actually, the argument is, okay, yours does not [work]. That does not mean […] for this complex set of machinery, which uses a lot of investment, a lot of time, a lot of money, you can’t get it to work.” Cards on the table, I’m somewhat sympathetic to this argument because academics aren’t exactly great at making election forecasts. Usually, the people with skin in the game are the most accurate. Warner’s argument is that the approach Electric Twin takes — which includes, for example, making multiple predictions for each synthetic respondent using different models and prompts and subsequently averaging those to get a final prediction in a sort of ensemble forecast — produces better results than the simpler academic models. Warner shared a comparison between his method and the method from a recent academic paper with me, and Electric Twin was indeed able to get more accurate replication. But even still, he acknowledged that synthetic sampling “is not a crystal ball.” “If you asked me, do I think using other data sources will be more accurate than asking somebody who they will vote for, I would probably say no. But if you asked me ‘would your system be useful for our turnout modeling today?’ I would say yes.” For better or worse, it looks like the method is already getting more popular in the market research world. Most of the clients Aaru touts these days are businesses like EY and McDonald’s. And AI will probably begin to pop up in other parts of the political polling process. Pollsters are already using it to code open-ended survey responses, and some firms, like YouGov, are testing using LLMs to ask survey respondents questions. More worryingly, one danger to actual polls is that AI agents can be used to infiltrate online surveys. Most online polls use various checks to prevent that from happening, but there’s conflicting evidence on how effective those filters are and how prevalent AI agents currently are in online panels. If those agents ever become impossible to detect, it might spell the end of online polling, but the solution isn’t to replace all of your respondents with ChatGPT. Silver Bulletin is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber. Subscribe 1 That particular poll obviously doesn’t meet Silver Bulletin standards for aggregation. But we exclude all Public Sentiment Institute polls from our averages because we classify them as an amateur polling firm. 2 You could argue that Fink meant the next presidential election, but (a) I’m also confident we’ll still have real polls in 2028 and (b) in that case he should have asked an LLM to define “general election.” 3 Quick caveat: that’s reporting from a Democratic pollster. It’s possible that Republicans are more willing to use AI in political campaigns. 4 Indeed, Silver Bulletin does not include “polls” produced by MRP in our forecasts or averages, and we think it’s extremely misleading when their practitioners describe them in a way that suggests original data had been collected among a large number of states or Congressional districts. 5 A recent report from Aaru and EY did show two examples of a synthetic estimate being closer than a survey to a real-world benchmark — but I’d take those findings with a grain of salt because the report reads more like an ad and didn’t involve any sort of prediction being made ahead of time. 6 For comparison, our odds for Harris on the same day were 48.2 percent.
View: AI is testing the oldest debate in business: Who’s the customer?
The oldest question in business — who is your customer — turns out to be the one OpenAI still can’t answer.
Riyadh evacuates main business hub over Iran threat
Businesses have been told not to send employees into work at King Abdullah Financial Center.
Trump's phone number 'worst-kept secret,' with 50+ interviews in weeks
The Atlantic and Semafor reported that President Donald Trump's phone number is being traded among journalists in Washington. Was it leaked?
MidEast conflict could hurt Chinese business
Analysts say China may benefit geopolitically from a prolonged Iran war, but it could start to feel the pain economically.
AI is prepared to commit science fraud, research finds
ArXiv, a repository for pre-peer-reviewed papers, has been “overwhelmed” with submissions since the rise of LLMs.
Paramount bets that politics, price will win it Warner Bros.
David Ellison’s new bid puts the media scion back in the running for a company that should have been his from the start.
How the Trump administration learned to stop worrying and love big business
Many analysts still don’t understand how foundational Republican complaints about censorship are to contemporary politics.
Exclusive: Science magazine founder courted Epstein for cash, emails show
The founder of Nautilus referenced Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal past as he sought to build a relationship with the convicted sex offender.
China, US sign off on TikTok US spinoff
The deal caps a yearslong battle between the social media app and the two superpowers.
Saudi’s Joy Awards become a national watch party
Hollywood and Bollywood A-listers were fêted in Riyadh over the weekend.
Moderna chair warns of ‘dystopia’ amid US science pullback
“Corrosive doubt” has led to the return of measles in the US and elsewhere, Noubar Afeyan said.
View: Gulf cash is coming for American entertainment
In Gulf leaders’ techno-optimist view, AI revolutionizes our lives, leaving us with more money to spend enjoying ourselves, including on entertainment.