AI’s Threat to Privacy — Signal’s Meredith Whittaker with Nicholas Thompson
The Most Interesting Thing in AIShow Notes
AI agents can scour the internet for us, reply to our messages, and add events to our calendars. But in order to do so, they need sweeping access to our data. Handing that over presents an unprecedented threat to privacy, says Signal Foundation president Meredith Whittaker, who directs the Signal messaging app. In conversation with The Atlantic CEO Nicholas Thompson, Whittaker discusses the risks of agentic AI, Signal’s approach to AI coding, and why it’s uncompromising in its commitment to protecting user data.
This episode was recorded prior to Keir Starmer’s resignation announcement.
(00:00) Introduction
(02:52) AI’s threat to privacy
(03:28) The end of the operating system as a safe boundary
(04:15) The dangers of off-device compute and the limits of Apple’s privacy promises
(05:30) Prompt injection vulnerabilities, and the risks of giving agents access to calendars, contacts, messages
(06:50) How Signal mitigates the risk of AI software like Microsoft Recall
(09:15) The accessibility trade-off: Why protecting privacy (at this moment) comes at the cost of screen readers for blind/low-vision users
(12:20) Are AI agents the new root users?
(15:28) The problem of proprietary OS providers
(17:40) Why don’t consumers care about privacy?
(19:35) Can a focus on enterprise customers fix AI’s privacy problems?
(23:30) How government surveillance can undermine private industry privacy efforts
(28:13) How Signal worked with Apple to fix the iOS notification exploit
(30:50) Meredith Whittaker’s critiques of the UK government’s content-scanning proposal
(36:20) The risks of compromising on privacy
(42:30) Would Signal take a different approach to privacy if it were the world's largest messenger app?
(45:36) What would you do with unlimited funding? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
More from The Most Interesting Thing in AI
2026 could be called the year of AI doom. Agents are hacking into websites and communicating covertly, and researchers like Jacob Coxon are quitting their jobs and posting publicly about the risks of the technology they helped build. Discussion around the hazards AI poses to humanity has reached a fever pitch.
Since the AI boom began, industry skeptics have warned it would be the next bubble. They point to massive investments, circular financing, and the technology’s reliability issues. And yet, as revenue rises and the models improve, it might appear that a crash is no longer likely. Ray Dalio says that isn’t the case.
If you want AI to drive your car or simulate a cell or control a robot, it had better be able to understand the world it’s operating within. Eric Xing is one of the leading researchers working on this kind of AI, known as ‘world models.’ Unlike LLMs, which are trained largely on text data and predict the next token, world models aim to understand and simulate physical environments using multimodal data. Xing found his way to the field after a long trek through prestigious institutions, studying cancer before transitioning to machine learning. Now, as the president of Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence in the United Arab Emirates, he’s helping to train a generation of AI builders.
AI wants to be your friend. And your therapist. And your lover. It’s not an entirely new offer, author and MIT professor Sherry Turkle reminds us, but it’s one that’s grown more dire as AI has improved. In a conversation with Nicholas Thompson, CEO of The Atlantic, Turkle describes the dangers of anthropomorphizing generative AI, gleaned from hundreds of conversations she conducted (with real humans) for her new book, Artificial Intimacy: Who We Become When We Talk To Machines. What do we lose when we make machines our best friends? And what, if anything, do we stand to gain? Turkle details her own experience creating a simulation of her mother, and the wounds that we risk reopening.
Among the many eye-popping numbers of the AI industry—from trillions in investments to billions in spending—one stands out: $0 in profit among leading AI companies. According to Bloomberg, “never before has so much money been spent so rapidly on a technology that, for all its potential, remains largely unproven as an avenue for profit-making.” That imbalance, and the industry’s reliance on circular financing, has led to fears of a bubble. But those concerns are overblown, according to Azeem Azhar, author of the Exponential View newsletter, who earlier this year released a report on the AI economy.