19 September 2026

The Letters Project, Part 1

 

[From 2016 to 2024, I worked on and off on a huge project.  I called it “The Letters Project” because it concerned the 1945 correspondence between my future mother and father from just after they met until just before their wedding almost exactly a year later.  It was the end of World War II.   

[The collection contains 182 pieces of correspondence, and on 18 February 2024, I wrote up the last two letters in the collection.  Now, ten years after I started the project, I’ve decided it’s finished.  I’ll be posting the result on Rick On Theater in installments, starting today. 

[On 23 March 2024, I posted a kind of preview of this series, “The Letters Project,” in which I wrote, “In one respect, I had two contrasting reactions simultaneously.  It was fascinating and strange at the same time.”  I think readers will now see what I meant.

[There are some surprises and revelations in the letters, often little items that illuminate a time and place that few of us here now were around to witness.  Some of that was history, of course, such as the deaths of President Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler, for example, and the surrender of Germany.  Most of it, though, was just life in 1945.

[Near the end of that preview post, I also wrote, “These are the voices of my parents, after all, and I’m eavesdropping on them from [over] 80 years in their future.”  Remember that, readers, please.]

LETTERS FROM THE FRONTS
January-December 1945

Introduction

[On 12, 15, and 18 June 2015, I posted transcriptions on Rick On Theater of some letters my father wrote to my mother in September and October 1962.  I called the three-part post “Home Alone” because the letters were from the time my dad was in Germany starting on his job as a Foreign Service Officer before my mom joined him.  Mom had saved Dad’s letters, but Dad hadn’t returned the favor—or they hadn’t survived the decades since.

[Now I’ve worked through another, older collection of letters—this time from both correspondents.  These are the letters my future parents exchanged in 1945, between their first meeting and their wedding a little over a year later.  The period covered by the correspondence included Dad’s deployment to Europe at the end of the war against Germany and the end of his army service.  I call the post “Letters from the Fronts” because, while Dad’s letters are mostly from the European combat zone, Mom’s are from the home front.

[The letters run from 8 January, a week after Mother and Dad met, to 2 December 1945, two days before Dad was released from military service.  Mom had graduated from college on 1 September 1944 and was working for the American Red Cross during the period of the correspondence.  She was 21 when she met her future husband; my father-to-be was just 26.

[Dad had entered active duty with the army on 19 March 1941 and embarked for Europe on 27 February 1945, arriving in France on 11 March.  On 22 August, he departed for the U.S., arriving on 7 September.  He was separated from the army on 4 December and returned home to New York City.

[Unlike in the case of the “Home Alone” letters, I haven’t merely transcribed these messages.  I’ve quoted selectively (though sometimes extensively) and summarized the rest of each letter, adding commentary and explanations as I felt it was necessary.  Rereading my folks’ letters from 80 years ago, I must confess that I found them really interesting, but I don't know if anyone else will find them so.

[Of course, I’ve read the letters more than once, the first time many years ago—I was probably in my early teens or younger.  For the past several years, though, I’ve wanted to compose a post for ROT based on the letters. 

[It’s not that I think they’re so remarkable—well, they are from a personal and family point of view, but I know that many wartime couples have similar collections of letters—but that I find my parents’ letters fascinating not just because of the affection expressed in them, but the little clues about the life and death going on around them: the home front in Mom’s letters to Dad and the battle front and its repercussions in Dad’s letters.  Needless to say, I’m biased; I guess we’ll see if anyone else finds the letters as engaging as I do.

[(A note here about my transcription of the letters and other correspondence: I’ll be summarizing parts of the letters, but I’ve tried to be true to my parents’ writing where I’ve transcribed their prose, even the idiosyncratic and incorrect bits, except where it interferes with comprehension.  This includes not only vocabulary, but spelling, grammar, and punctuation.  Where I think it’s necessary, I’ll insert comments or explanations. 

[(In some instances, things my folks told me or that I know from experience throw revealing light on something the correspondents have written, and I’ve provided that information peripherally.  As my future mother admonished my father—though she might have also been addressing me!—in an early letter, “Good Lord, don’t go looking for poor sentence structure, and rotten spelling!!!” 

[(I also haven’t intentionally omitted remarks my future parents made that today are embarrassing or politically incorrect.  Let’s keep in mind, shall we, that these letter-writers were pretty young and living in a different era. 

[(They also didn’t know that we’d be kibitzing on what they were saying to one another!  While Cecily Cardew—of Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest (1895)—may have declared that her diary, “a very young girl’s record of her own thoughts and impressions,” was “consequently meant for publication,” I somehow don’t think my parents ever figured their wartime letters would be consumed by the public from a perspective of eight decades in the future!)]

Background

My mother, the former Judith Carol Freedman (b. 7 April 1923) died on 26 May 2015 at the age of 92.  She’d been a widow since 6 February 1996, almost 20 years.  My father, Eugene Monroe K***** (b. 5 November 1918), died of complications from Alzheimer’s disease at 77 and he’d been non compos mentis for a year or more before his death, so he had no idea that the previous 6 January had been his and my mother’s 50th wedding anniversary. 

(I posted a tribute to my mother, simply called “Mom,” on Rick On Theater on 1 November 2016, and one to my father, entitled “Dad,” on 20 June 2010, which was Father’s Day that year.) 

Dad was a World War II vet, a battery commander in Europe after D-Day, but in December 1944, he was a recently promoted artillery captain, CO of the Headquarters Battery of the 529th Field Artillery Battalion stationed at Camp Hood (later Fort Hood) in Killeen, Texas. 

(A battery in the artillery is the equivalent of a company in the infantry or a troop in the cavalry and air cavalry.  Camp Hood was 158 miles south of Dallas and 194 miles northeast of Houston.  The nearest big town was Waco, 65 miles northeast.

(During World War II, the army’s artillery units were divided into two corps: the Field Artillery Corps, Dad’s branch, armed with mobile artillery pieces used to support armies in the field, and the Coast Artillery Corps, which was responsible for coastal, harbor, and anti-aircraft defense of the United States.  In 1950, the Coast Artillery was merged with the Field Artillery, and in 1968, the Air Defense Artillery Branch was formed to conduct anti-aircraft warfare operations with rockets and missiles.) 

Like many stateside GI’s, Dad, a native New Yorker, came home on leave for the holidays.  He had celebrated his 26th birthday the previous 5 November.  (Two days later, Franklin D. Roosevelt [1882-1945; 32nd President of the United States: 1933-45] was elected U.S. president for the fourth and last time.  Dad once told me that the first ballot he cast after he turned 21—the minimum age for voting in those days—was for Roosevelt; that would have been on 8 November 1940, for FDR’s third term.)

Mom was also born in New York City but her family moved to Trenton, New Jersey, when she was little (see “Horsman Dolls,” posted on ROT on 14 February 2017).  Since graduating from college in September 1944, she was doing social work out of the Trenton Chapter of the American Red Cross with servicemen and -women who were far away from their homes.  

At one naval base in New Jersey, she met a young WAVE ensign named Clarice, known as Kris, who also came from New York.  Kris and my mom were only a month apart in age, and they became friends.  My mother-to-be had turned 21 on 7 April 1944. 

Kris was assigned to Skillman Airport in Ewing Township in West Trenton, Mercer County, with duty at the nearby General Motors Inland Fisher Guide Plant, which in 1941 converted from manufacturing auto body parts to making the Navy’s Avenger torpedo bomber as part of GM’s newly formed Eastern Aircraft Division.  Kris (b. 1923) died on 9 February 2017 at 93.  She had a U.S. Navy honor guard at her funeral. 

(The WAVES, which stood for Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service, were the women’s reserve of the U.S. Navy during World War II.  An ensign is the lowest-ranking naval officer, the equivalent of an army second lieutenant [pay grade: O-1].  The carrier-based Avengers were test-flown at Skillman Airport, later returned to civilian control and renamed Mercer County Airport and now Trenton-Mercer Airport.) 

Mom’s parents, Harry (1895-1967) and Valerie (1900-74) Freedman, were married on 1 January 1920, so they held a combination New Year’s Day/anniversary party every year.  It was mostly for my future grandparents’ friends, but Mother was encouraged to invite a friend of her own so she wouldn’t be the only young person in the house.

Mother invited Kris.  A few days before the party, Kris called her friend and explained that her big brother was home from the army and had nowhere to go on New Year’s Day and asked if she could bring him to the party. 

My mother and her parents gladly agreed and when Kris arrived at my grandparents’ house on Fisher Place in Trenton, she was accompanied by a nice-looking young man with blue eyes and wavy blond hair (although, being on active duty at the time, he probably had his hair cut pretty short). 

Do I have to say that Kris’s brother, Gene, was, in fact, my future father?  That party, Monday evening, 1 January 1945, my future grandparents’ 25th wedding anniversary, was when my parents met.

That’s not the whole story, however.  My dad-to-be proceeded to get drunk at the party and fell asleep on a sofa in the living room of my grandparents’ home.  He refused to leave, he declared, until he got my mom in his Christmas stocking.  Well, that didn’t happen exactly, of course, but they got him to a bed in my grandparents’ house while my mother spent the night at her friend Natalie Cohen’s house. 

(I’m not certain who Natalie Cohen was—she comes up frequently in the letters—but it’s clear she and Mom were close at the time.  Next to Kris, with whom Mom remained close the rest of their lives, Natalie Cohen seems to have been Mom’s other best friend.)

According to the story of my parents’ meeting, my dad was extremely contrite the next morning—not to mention hung-over as well—and he returned to his parents’ home in New York.  I imagine the two spoke on the phone over the next days; I’m pretty sure Dad didn’t come back to Trenton and that Mom didn’t travel into the city, but they apparently spoke occasionally by phone until Dad left on Sunday, 7 January, to return to duty in Texas. 

Almost immediately, Dad began writing to the girl he’d just met—and Mom replied.  This began a year‑long correspondence that continued when Dad was sent overseas and even while he was fighting across western Europe, through France, Belgium, Holland, and Germany until V-E (Victory in Europe) Day (8 May 1945) and upon his return to the States after V-J (Victory over Japan) Day (15 August 1945). 

Dad came back to the States in the fall of 1945 to muster out of the army at Fort Bragg in North Carolina and he and Mom were married in Trenton on 6 January 1946.  (I arrived 11½ months later in Washington, D.C.) 

Now, I imagine there are lots of couples with a similar tale, but what I find remarkable, all these years later, is that not only Mom, back in the safety and comfort of Trenton, New Jersey, but Dad, in the hectic activity and chaos of combat, managed to keep the letters they’d received from each other. 

I don’t know exactly when, but sometime in the early years of my parents’ marriage, Dad took the two caches of letters and had them mounted and bound in two large, leather scrapbooks—one for Mom’s letters to him and the other for his letters to her.  (I don’t know this, but it’s fun to imagine that Dad presented Mom the bound letters on their first anniversary—the “paper” anniversary.)   

“Letters of Judith C. Freedman, January to December 1945” was gilt-debossed on the navy-blue leather cover of one and “Letters of Eugene M. K*****, January to December 1945” on the ruby-red cover of the other.

They kept the two volumes, housed in a fitted blue fabric-and-leather slipcase, in our home, taking the books with them whenever they moved, including their sojourn in Germany with the United States Information Agency (USIA) in the ’60s and back to Washington. 

(USIA was the federal agency responsible for “public diplomacy,” including propaganda, principally of a cultural nature; it was folded into the Department of State in 1999.  For more about this and that stay in Germany, see “An American Teen In Germany” on ROT, 9 and 12 March 2013, and “Home Alone,” referenced in the introduction.) 

Eventually, Mom brought the letters with her to the assisted-living residence in Bethesda, Maryland, which was her penultimate home, and when she died, among the first things I made certain to safeguard in my own apartment in New York (where I’d moved following my release from my own military service in 1974), was the two-volume set of bound letters. 

Dad apparently called Mom Sunday morning, 7 January, from New York.  Though it was 11:30 a.m., he woke her!  Nevertheless, she told him “a long distance call is always pleasant.”  (In those days, even a call just from New York City to Trenton, New Jersey, all of 67 miles away, was long distance!  The caller needed an operator to place the call—direct dialing and area codes hadn’t been invented yet.) 

Dad left from New York City’s Pennsylvania Station on a train to central Texas.  I gather he had to change trains in Washington, D.C., about four hours south by rail, and then he overnighted in St. Louis, Missouri, about a day’s ride further west.

8 January – 24 January 1945

The first letter in the collection is from my father, written on Monday, 8 January, a week after he and my mother had met.  He was at the “New Hotel Jefferson” (as declared on the letterhead of the stationery on which he wrote) in St. Louis—“Queen City of the Mississippi,” according to Dad’s inscription. 

The letter was little more than a shot at making contact, but it begins to demonstrate the transportation problems the country was having, especially in the civilian sector, during the war years.  Apparently there were some weather problems of which he complained, but he contemplated flying to Texas. 

Dad hadn’t waited to hear back from Mother: he wrote again from Texas on Thursday night, 11 January, and recounted his transportation woes.  He’d arrived in St. Louis at 12:30 on Monday afternoon to find that the city was in the midst of a snowstorm. 

Despite the weather, Dad reported, the airline confirmed that it was flying, so he “decided to take a chance” and flew out of St. Louis Monday night, arriving in Dallas at 3:00 the next morning.  (Commercial airline passenger service had only been inaugurated in the U.S. in 1926.) 

He still had to get to Camp Hood, just under 160 miles by road from Dallas, and he found that the only transportation available was “an interurban trolley” to Waco that didn’t leave until 5:30 a.m. 

(The Texas Electric Railway was a historic interurban railroad that operated from Dallas to Denison, Corsicana, and Waco.  It began operation in 1908 and became the largest interurban railway operator in the southern U.S. before its demise in 1948.)

Dad “wandered around for two-and-a-half hours in the deserted streets, feeling very frustrated.”  He “finally” arrived in Waco, still 65 miles from his post, at 8:30 “and was once more confronted by the lack of transportation problem.” 

Out of desperation, Dad called the military police station at the camp and learned that they had a car going out to Camp Hood, so, though “as a general rule,” he pointed out to Mom, “I have nothing to do with M.P.’s,” he caught a ride.  He made it to Camp Hood at noon on the 9th—“only a day and a half late.”  “Everybody was overjoyed to see me,” Dad reported, “so we had a party that night.”  I presume he was being a little facetious—that would have been my dad as I would come to know him.

In her 11 January reply to Dad’s first note, Mom asked “what sort of hot water” he’d gotten into for reporting to duty late, but in Dad’s answer on 14 January, he acknowledged, “Nothing at all seems to be forthcoming” for the delay.  He added, however, “If you’d have been in Washington”—where I gather he’d had to change trains for the trip west and was stranded for many hours in the city where, coincidentally, he and his new bride would be moving in a little over a year—“I’d still be AWOL, I fear”!

Dad signed the note “G”—for Gene. (My dad’s name was Eugene; his mother was a fan of the poetry of Eugene Field [1850-95], he told me once.)  Mom, incidentally, opened her response to Dad’s 8 January note: “Greetings to my favorite drunkard!”—confirming the family lore of the circumstances of my parents’ meeting. 

My future father addressed his second letter on the 11th to “Dearest Rusty,” a nickname for my mom he seems to have made up.  (Mom’s name was Judith; everyone called her Judy.)  No one ever called her Rusty before to my knowledge—at least no one’s ever copped to doing so—and as far back as I can remember, Dad didn’t continue to call her Rusty after they were married. 

(“Rusty” suggests that Mom had red hair—or reddish maybe.  But she was a brunette all of my cognizant lifetime (until it turned gray and then white).  I turned out to have red-brown hair and Mom’s sister had reddish hair—but not my mother.  I have no idea where the pet name came from—and I never asked either of my parents when I had the chance.  Later in the correspondence, in his letter of 22 July, below, Dad does explain the nickname.)

Now, my dad had a nickname in college (“Doc”) and only his old schoolmates used it—though we knew about it.  After Dad died and his obit appeared in his college alumni magazine, there were some old schoolmates who wrote to offer condolences and admitted they hadn’t known Dad’s real name! 

But Dad’s name for Mother was pretty certainly a private (and short-lived) pet name because in her next letter, dated 15 January, she signed herself, “Ever ‘Rusty’” and then added a little note with an arrow pointing to her “signature”: “I like that.”  Mom, in her turn, usually wrote to “Gene”—except, of course, that first letter.

Apparently Dad called Trenton again on Saturday evening, 13 January (it seems that letters between New Jersey and Texas took only two days), but Mom was in New York City and missed the “long distant call.” 

Mom added that the call “came thru to the tune of a very ‘southern’ accent”—probably actually a southwestern accent, from a Texas long-distance operator.  (How many of you remember when you needed an operator to place a long-distance telephone call?  Hell, how many of you remember operators?) 

She was sorry to have missed Dad on Saturday, but happily he called again the next day, ending the weekend, Mom declared, “with a big bang!”  A visit back east to “dear old New Jersey” was hinted at, but, noted Dad on 14 January, “For reasons of security I can’t say anything.”

It seems Mom had had a Saturday evening out in New York with Kris and Natalie Cohen, on the 13th (when Dad had called), seeing a movie (possibly The Hairy Ape with William Bendix and Susan Hayward [United Artists, released in June 1944], based on the 1922 expressionistic play by Eugene O’Neill [1888-1953]) and having a “swanky” dinner at “the Sherry-Netherland’s officers club” (on 5th Avenue at 59th Street); Kris was a WAVE officer, you’ll remember.

(The Sherry-Netherland Officers’ Club was a space in the famous luxury hotel, turned over to the Officers’ Service Committee to operate, that offered military officers in the city of New York a place to go for lunch or dinner, drinks, a game of cards, or where they could meet other officers or friends and socialize at reasonable prices.  It opened in 1943 and remained in operation for the duration of the war and into the mid-’40s. 

(The OSC was a volunteer organization that offered assistance to visiting officers in New York City in finding a place to stay, eat, or have a drink and also to offer movie passes and theater tickets for their entertainment.)

Then Mom paid her first visit to Kris’s (and my dad’s) parents’ apartment on Lexington Avenue near 23rd Street, where the young women “giggled and gossiped for many hours” until they “dropped off to slumberland long after 3:00 A.M.”  Mom reported that the “family album” was trotted out and everyone uttered “ooo’s and ah’s” over the snapshots of Dad as "an adorable baby”!  (I have some of those photos—including the traditional naked-baby-on-the-rug shot.  It’s all right: I have one of my mother, too.)

(A word about my dad’s family’s home: the residence, in a small apartment building on the southwest corner of Lexington and 23rd, was above my future Grandpa Jack’s pharmacy on the street level.  The two premises had different entrances and house numbers: the residence was at #18 and the Peerless Drug Store was at #20, but it was the same structure.  The building no longer exists; a modern high rise sits on that corner now.)

I get the impression that this period wasn’t very active militarily at Camp Hood because Dad wrote on the 14th that he’d been assigned “quite a number of tasks,” but they seem to have been make-work jobs.  On the 16th, Dad wrote that he’d completed “the chores assigned me,” and he took to staying out of the way so as not to be on anyone’s “list of available workhorses.” 

He stayed out of battalion headquarters and spent his time at the dispensary—a common army term for the infirmary or the medical officer’s office—where he and the “Doc” had become buddies and would “drink fine coffee and discuss the topics of the day.”  It sounds a little “Sergeant Bilko” to me! 

(The Phil Silvers Show was a sitcom which ran on the CBS Television Network from 1955 to 1959.  It was colloquially known as Sergeant Bilko for its lead character, Master Sergeant Ernest G. Bilko of the United States Army, played by comedic actor Phil Silvers [1911-85].  The show centered on the soldiers of the post motor pool, who seemed to spend little time performing their duties.  Bilko, the NCO in charge, especially spent much of his time trying to get others to do his work for him.)

Evenings at Camp Hood seem to have been devoted to socializing.  Dad mentioned parties or dinner with comrades-in-arms and then drinks and dancing at “the club,” obviously the post officers’ club.  Most of the officer corps at Camp Hood seems to have been married and accompanied by their wives; Dad wrote on the 21st that he “generally makes up a group of five, but we don’t seem to suffer any ill-effects from the odd number.”  (Many of Dad’s photos I have of that period show his fellow officers and their wives.)

Commenting on Mom’s first meeting with her future in-laws, Dad affirmed that his parents were “pretty much fun” and, in reference to the family album, that “they’re . . . pretty doting.”  He was “afraid,” though, that “my going to war is going to be more trying for them than for me.” 

I bet there were a lot of GI’s with the same fear.  Soldiers stateside may not have known exactly what awaited them, though by 1945 there must have been many officers and NCO’s at places like Camp Hood who’d been rotated back to the States from battle fronts, just as in my day there were men at Fort Knox, Kentucky, where I started active duty in 1969, who’d seen combat in Vietnam. 

(Although I was a military intelligence officer, I was at Knox, home of the U.S. Army Armor Center and School at the time, for the armor officers’ basic course from December 1969 to February 1970.  For those not up on military taxonomy, armor is the branch of the army that uses tanks, armored personnel carriers, and helicopter gunships.  In that last category, the ’copters were piloted mostly by warrant officers. 

(Warrant officers are experts in specific fields—in this instance, combat helicopters—and were sometimes commissioned in the field and then sent back to the States for officers’ basic.  There were several newly commissioned former warrant officers in my class at Fort Knox—and they had stories to tell.)

The Allies had been fighting in North Africa since 1942, Italy since September 1943, and western Europe since 6 June 1944 (D-Day); fighting in the Pacific had been underway since Pearl Harbor was attacked on 7 December 1941. 

Men like my father surely had an idea that they were going into harm’s way, but their families, especially once the men had left U.S. territory for the war front, would be left to imagine what their sons and brothers and husbands were facing.  I imagine everyone knew at least one Gold Star family.  Getting any kind of mail out from a combat zone was problematic and must have only heightened the anxiety of the families back home. 

(I recall a family story about my grandfather on my mother’s side, who was a World War I vet—the grandfather whose anniversary was the reason for that New Year’s Day party at the beginning of this account.  In a time when long-distance communication was almost 30 years more primitive than it was in my dad’s army days, it was obviously harder to get information from the battle fronts to the families back home. 

(Grandpa Harry was wounded in combat and the army sent his parents in New York City a telegram: “Harry Freedman shot in buttocks,” it said—according to Freedman family lore.  Well, those great-grandparents weren’t newcomers to these shores—my mother’s family had been in America for several generations already—but the word ‘buttocks’ was apparently not familiar to them; or maybe it was the geography of France. 

(My grandmother—who, of course, didn’t know Harry yet, I don’t think—told me that his parents and sisters pored over a map of France—which is all they knew about his whereabouts—looking for a town called Buttocks!  My post “Horsman Dolls” includes some brief biographical details about Pop-Pop H.F.

(From what I’ve been able to piece together regarding my grandfather’s World War I service, he was an infantryman in Flanders, Belgium, and Cambrai, France, from 17 May to 26 December 1918.  According to his military records, he was “severely” wounded on 29 September, which corresponds either to the Fifth Battle of Ypres in Flanders, 28 September-2 October, or the Battle of St. Quentin Canal near Cambrai, France, 29 September-10 October.

(If the sequence of Private Freedman’s overseas service is the same as the notation in his record, it’s unlikely he would have received his wound in Flanders and then gotten sent to France, so I assume he served in Belgium first, then was sent to northern France, where he was wounded, probably on the first day of the Battle of St. Quentin Canal.)

Furthermore, security provisions, such as the ones my father alluded to in that 14 January letter, prevented soldiers, sailors, and airmen from telling their families what they were doing, or even where they were stationed in many cases or where they were going when they were reassigned.  (“Loose Lips Sink Ships” was the reminder on posters all over military posts, defense plants, and many streets and public places in the civilian quarter.) 

In the 21 January letter, Dad repeated, “I can’t say too much in violation of military security,” and then hinted that a change might be forthcoming. Then he made a broad hint about the potential trip east: “I have no intention of having you anticipate ‘fanciful things’ with no possibility of realization,” Dad wrote, implying that what he’d suggested earlier wasn’t “fanciful.”  “I don’t render opinions or pass on rumors,” he continued.  “This should give you something to work with—and very shortly, too.” 

Though I imagine that Dad’s family and my mother-to-be could guess the purpose of the implied move—his battalion was being sent into combat in Europe; if the battalion were going to the Pacific, they’d most likely be sent to the West Coast, not New York—but I notice he never actually writes the words.  In fact, aside from two remarks about his “going to war,” Dad never wrote directly about that prospect—until he was actually in it.  It must have been, however, the elephant in the room for everyone.

When Mother wrote on Friday, the 19th, a new topic came up.  Not new for Mom, but new in the correspondence; I presume she’d told Dad about all this during the New Year’s week when he was in New York.

After some chit-chat about her daily doings and her work at the “R.X.” (Mom’s abbreviation for “Red Cross”), Mom wrote about “another great temptation lying in my path.”  As you’ll recall, Mom was a Red Cross social worker on area military posts (that’s how she met Kris, after all) to help out GI’s, especially ones who were stationed far from their homes, who needed a sympathetic ear or help with “marital and financial problems.” 

She’d “been fighting like fury” to get a post overseas and had apparently been showering the “National” Red Cross with so many letters “they must have a single file for my letters alone.”  She’d been turned down repeatedly because they deemed her “too young” (Mom was probably barely 21 when she started applying; in a later letter, written on 13 June, she explained that the Red Cross had some kind of minimum age requirement for overseas assignments), and finally “gave up in despair.” 

Now she said her “chapter has received a wire [i.e., a telegram] . . . stating there’s a dire emergency & need for Home Service R.X. workers for overseas work.”  So Mom “couldn’t resist the temptation to start the nagging all over again.” 

What my mother had told me about her wartime plans before she met my father fills some of this in.  Mom started at Elmira College in upstate New York in the fall of 1941; she was on track to graduate in May 1945 if her college tenure had followed the traditional path. 

Mom, however, took summer courses at New York University in 1944 to attain credits to transfer to Elmira so she could graduate early, and she got her degree on 1 September 1944.  (According to the Elmira College Bulletins of 1943-44 and 1944-45, Mom majored in sociology-psychology—and graduated as a “Scholar of the Second Rank” with an 86-89% grade average.  I never knew either of those factoids.) 

Her goal was to join the Red Cross and go overseas as an ambulance driver in a combat zone.  Hence the cascade of letters about which she wrote Dad.  Now, Mom was just 21 in September 1944, barely out of her minority in those days (society didn’t recognize 18-year-olds as adults until several decades later—for instance, 18-year-olds couldn’t vote in federal elections until July 1971, when the 26th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified) and her father simply forbade her to go abroad. 

As readers know, she was serving as a Red Cross social worker in the Trenton area at the time of this occurrence.  Ironically, had Mom gotten her original wish and gone overseas in 1944, she might never have met my dad since it was through Dad’s sister Kris that they were introduced, and Mom got to know Kris through her work on stateside military posts in the area of her Trenton home.

Curiously, my father supported Mom’s “ambitions and desires to go overseas.”  Dad expressed the same wish, which he wrote on 24 January he’d had “for years now.”  (Dad had enlisted in 1941, shortly after he graduated from college—he told me that word of the fall of France to the Germans came the day of graduation.)  

I can picture him writing letter after letter requesting assignment to the front, like Lieutenant Roberts in the 1948 play and 1955 movie Mister Roberts, until he makes his CO, Captain Morgan, angry.  I’m certain my father didn’t actually do that; it’s just the image I get from his letter to Mom. 

(Dad’s college commencement ceremony took place on 7 June 1940.  Germany had begun its invasion of France on 10 May and by the end of the month, had defeated most of the forces of France and its British allies.  The Wehrmacht didn’t occupy Paris, however, until 14 June, and the armistice between France and Germany didn’t take effect until 25 June.

(A brief note about the start of my father’s military service: it wasn’t quite straightforward.  He enlisted in the army in March 1941—but he had actually served in the navy for about five months before that.  I won’t go into his reasons for the branch transfer, as it’s called—the army and the navy are different branches of service—and I have no information on his naval service.  I have only one photo of Dad in his white swabby suit, annotated “Panama City, Oct. 1940”—but I don’t know if the location was Panama City, Panama, or Panama City, Florida, both of which were navy towns.)

Dad added that though he hoped Mom would “make it very shortly—but not before I get to see you at least once more.”  Then he continued, “That, incidentally, is the one mental drawback to my present proximity to going to war.  Why couldn’t it have happened either six months ago or six months hence.” 

Oddly, that would have meant, again, that he and Mom might not have met!  I don’t think he thought of that.  Or maybe he did—and would rather have never met Mom than face the possibility of not seeing her for God-knows-how-long.  (The war would end in September, but no one could have known that in January.  And we know that Dad survived combat intact and came home to marry Mom—but in January 1945 no one could have known that, either.) 

Also in his 24 January letter, Dad informed Mom that he was trying to counsel an NCO in the battery he used to command.  The sergeant, “an excellent soldier and a competent man,” was “undergoing great mental anguish” because his wife back home was pregnant with their first child and her doctor “anticipated trouble.”  The NCO had gotten “two conflicting telegrams” from the Red Cross and “the poor boy is completely in the dark about what has or is happening.” 

The sergeant sought Dad out, and my father was worried because the man was “very hot headed” and might “take matters into his own hands”—by which I think Dad meant he was afraid the guy might go AWOL—the result of which “would be catastrophic.”  (I suspect Dad was considering that AWOL during wartime could be construed as desertion, the penalty for which can be execution.) 

Dad had asked the Red Cross to try to get more detailed information, but any answer wouldn’t arrive before the next day (Dad was writing at night), and he hoped that he’d been able to calm the man down for the night at least.  At the end of this report, Dad quipped, in response to Mom’s remarks about her Red Cross work, “You see dear, you aren’t the only one serving as a confidant and ‘father confessor.’” 

(Unfortunately, Dad never wrote Mom about the outcome of the sergeant’s problem.  In 2½ weeks, Dad would arrive back in New York City preparatory to shipping out for Europe and the war at the end of February.  He may have told Mom on the phone what transpired—though she didn’t mention it in her next couple of letters—or told her when they saw one another in New York where he was briefly at liberty before confinement to his temporary post.  I presume, though, that the excitement of transferring to temporary quarters and then to the transport ship drove all other thoughts from both Dad’s and Mom’s minds.)

[That’s the beginning of a year’s exchange of letters, notes, cards, and the occasional telegram.  As you can see, my mother- and father-to-be wrote back and forth every few days—and that even remained essentially true when Dad was deployed to the European Theater of Operations and rolled across Western Europe from France into Germany with his artillery battalion.

[I haven’t worked out a schedule of postings for “Letters from the Fronts,” but since there will be about 20 installments, I won’t be posting them consecutively.  I’ll probably post an installment about once or twice a month. I’d estimate.  (After each new installment is posted, I’ll go back to the previous one and insert a link to the new one.)]


14 September 2026

When AI Goes Rogue

 

[Artificial intelligence has been in the news a good deal recently, especially the prospect of AI programs “going rogue” and destroying humankind.  This came to a head when Jacob Coxon (British; b. 1999), formerly employed by OpenAI and Anthropic, resigned on 8 September (after the program transcribed below aired) and posted on X expressing the fear of AI causing human extinction.  According to Coxon, the top engineers and founders building these models earnestly believe AI could kill all humans by the end of the decade. 

[The Sunday morning talk shows on the 13th all reported this shocking event, adding that Elon Musk, founder and CEO of xAI, and Dario Amodei, founder and CEO of Anthropic, have both publicly supported Coxon’s warning. 

[When I first watched this segment of Washington Week, a Friday evening panel-discussion show on PBS, I was struck by its cogent and largely untechnical coverage of the subject.  WW moderator Jeffrey Goldberg, who usually has a coterie of journalists on the program to discuss several topical subjects (though sometimes just one), had only one guest the week of 4 September, a staff writer on The Atlantic, the journal of which Goldberg’s the editor, Josh Tyrangiel.

[Tyrangiel was remarkably cogent on this usually very esoteric and arcane issue, and I DVR’d the show so I could post a transcription on Rick On Theater if I decided to do so.  Obviously, I have so decided, and below is that transcription.  (I have a few words about that transcript in my introduction to the posting itself.)  Principally, my decision to post the transcript was motivated by the fact that the subject of AI has blown up as a consequence of Coxon’s statements—coupled with the clarity of the WW discussion.] 

WILL WE BE READY WHEN AI GOES ROGUE?
with Jeffrey Goldberg and Josh Tyrangiel

[The transcript below is from Washington Week with The Atlantic, broadcast by the Public Broadcasting Service on 4 September 2026.  It’s available on YouTube at Ollama Course – Build AI Apps Locally.  (There is a video and transcript available from PBS at Will we be ready when AI goes rogue? | Washington Week with The Atlantic, but it seems to be an excerpt only, so I went with the YouTube version, which is the whole program.)

[YouTube transcripts are hard to work with because they are entirely unformatted.  Like many video transcripts, including PBS’s, they are also machine-made and appear to be unedited by humans, so there are often lots of mistranscriptions.  I have taken the liberty of formatting the transcript below myself, and I have listened to the video again to correct any mistranscriptions.]

Jeffrey Goldberg: There’s not much that unites Americans these days, but one thing that does, loathing for data centers.  Anxiety about A.I. is behind some of the hate, but are people worried about the wrong thing?  Maybe the thing to worry about is that A.I. is about to go rogue, and that our government doesn’t have a plan for when it does, next.

Good evening, and welcome to Washington Week.  On July 11th, 700 A.I. agents that had escaped from their maker, OpenAI, launched an invasion of the online platform, Hugging Face [French-American company that develops computation tools for building applications using machine learning], taking over its servers and trying to cover their tracks at the same time.  No human being asked them to do this.  They coordinated on their own and engaged in the cover-up on their own.

So, do you remember when Arnold Schwarzenegger as The Terminator [Orion Pictures, 1984] explains the moment that Skynet became self-aware, which was followed almost immediately by the destruction of human civilization?  It would be strange if the expression Hugging Face became synonym for civilizational suicide, but we do live in strange times.

Do data centers and Hugging Face portend some sort of coming collapse, or is this yet another example of a new technology creating unnecessary fear and worry?  Or perhaps maybe there’s a third option here.

Joining me tonight to discuss all this is Josh Tyrangiel.  He’s a staff writer at The Atlantic, the former editor of Bloomberg Businessweek, and the author of A.I. For Good (Simon & Schuster, 2026).

[The Atlantic is a monthly magazine that features articles on politics, foreign affairs, business and the economy, culture and the arts, technology, and science.  Since 2023, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief since 2016, has been the moderator of the PBS news program Washington Week, which was retitled as Washington Week with The Atlantic.]

Josh, thank you for coming here and explaining Hugging Face, among other things, to us.  But let me start with something manageable and more political: data centers.  It seems like suddenly everybody hates them. Is this a populist movement with staying power, and could it actually derail the, the growth and spread of A.I.?

Josh Tyrangiel, Staff Writer, The Atlantic: Yes.  I mean, look I think one of the challenges with A.I. as a journalist, any individual in America, is its software, right?  And so it doesn’t have a physical thing that you can be angry about.

Data centers are these massive, massive structures going up all around America.  They’re being created by companies with billionaires and aspiring trillionaires at the top, and they’re landing themselves without a whole lot of conversation in the middle of all these towns.  And so it’s natural that all of the fears about A.I., about it taking your jobs, about it rendering human beings obsolete, about the values it changes, all are focused on this stuff, and politicians have been incredibly late to wake up to the anger around A.I.  And they’re also staking out some genuinely bizarre positions.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Like what?

Josh Tyrangiel: Well, Donald Trump saying, “If you’re opposed to data centers, you just want to be poor the rest of your life”; it’s like I don’t think you’re understanding just how angry, from the left and the right, people are about A.I.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.  But, wait, listen to Donald Trump just for a second.  Here he is talking about why he would want a data center in his town.  Let’s listen to this.

Donald Trump, U.S. President:  If I were a community, I would want the data center.  It means jobs, it means income, and it means lower taxes.

Jeffrey Goldberg: I mean, he’s not necessarily wrong.  If you look at Loudoun County in Virginia [suburb of Washington, D.C.], which is like the world center of data centers, they are lowering taxes on their citizens, and I assume they’re creating at least some jobs.

Josh Tyrangiel: Some.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes.

Josh Tyrangiel: What I would say is there’s two things that are out of touch, right?  One is this belief that Donald Trump says, “No, it’s going to mean money.”  I don’t think people believe that they are going to partake in the wealth that comes from data centers in their community.  I think we are out of touch about that.  And, number two, I think there is a broader problem, which is this sense that, well, all that matters is money.

And, in fact, in some of these communities what you’re seeing is a backlash to that attitude as well.  Some of it’s about quality of life.  Some of it is “I don’t really want to change the pittance that I may get for the amount of noise that this thing is going to make, for the blight on my community.”

Every community’s going to make different choices but what I’m sensing is that, particularly from Trump, the politics are out of line with where people are.  I’ve spoken for The Atlantic, I spoke with Steve Bannon [b. 1953; media executive, Republican political strategist, pundit, and former investment banker; served as White House chief strategist for first seven months of first Trump administration] at length about A.I.  He’s in a completely different position.  He actually is aligned with Bernie Sanders [senior United States senator from Vermont; Independent] that this is 100 percent populist fodder because people are so angry.  Here they are again not seeing benefit from it.

And so I think what you’re going to see is massive political consequences for the wrong stakes around A.I.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Can these A.I. companies function fully in the way that they want to without these data centers?

Josh Tyrangiel: No.  And so this is the real challenge for a nuanced, intelligent society: Is it actually giving these data centers, allowing them to power the compute, to train models –

Jeffrey Goldberg: The compute is the word for their overall power to process?

Josh Tyrangiel: Exactly.  The power to process and train new models and then also run the A.I. software that’s currently out there.  You are running into problems.  We’re running into problems with the amount of energy we create, which is not scaled with the size of the country.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Josh Tyrangiel: Competitively, you actually do want more and more compute.  You want to be able to run these models but what we’re not doing is solving the problem around who’s paying for it, how are we actually going to get more energy and then the thing that I think most people are in touch with which is, “Hey, how do I benefit from this?”  That hasn’t been connected.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.  Well, I mean quite the opposite, and you’ve written a lot about this, this goes hand in hand with the fear about massive job loss because of being replaced by A.I. agents.  So, not only are you telling me that I’ve got to put in this massive plant, this humming factory that’s going to soak up all the water in my county, but I’m also going to lose my job possibly.  That’s the way it’s being interpreted at least.

Josh Tyrangiel: Yes.  So people just don’t see what’s in it for them, what the benefit is. 

On water at least I would like to correct the record which is most of them recycle the water in the plant.  The energy, the energy they drink, and there’s no good answer for how we’re going to improve the grid.  And I think people are very, very afraid of rising bills with no answers.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes.  I have to tell you these data centers, they make Amazon warehouses really popular by comparison, right?

Josh Tyrangiel: And is there a reason we can’t just stack them?

Jeffrey Goldberg: Turn one big, unpleasant box, right?

Josh Tyrangiel: Yes.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.  So, I mean, the water thing is interesting because it strikes me as a little bit of sublimated anxiety about the general civilizational challenge.  I mean, not Terminator but – maybe Terminator level.

Josh Tyrangiel: Maybe Terminator.

Jeffrey Goldberg: No, maybe Terminator level.  Maybe, you know, there’s a lot of movies, 2001[: A Space Odyssey; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1968].  Maybe it’s that level of anxiety but it’s anxiety about the existential fear A.I.

And so the question for you is, for the intelligent people who watch this show, it’s – and I always ask you personally this, so I’ll share the wealth tonight: How much should we be worried at the moment that it’s going to go rogue, it’s going to not only destroy jobs and human interrelationship, but possibly decide that humans are superfluous?

Josh Tyrangiel: We should be very worried, particularly with the results of Hugging Face, which you alluded to –

Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes.

Josh Tyrangiel: – which is really the first time that we’ve seen, and I’m just going to put it in blunt terms.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes.

Josh Tyrangiel: We’ve seen A.I. commit a felony because that’s what happened.  So, just to get into –

Jeffrey Goldberg: Not OpenAI, the company, but A.I., itself.

Josh Tyrangiel: A.I., itself, right?  So, OpenAI was testing some new models –

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Josh Tyrangiel: – and they put them in a sandbox, which is a, a software term for basically solitary confinement, right, like high walls, and they –

Jeffrey Goldberg: They are not – when you’re in an A.I. sandbox, when these agents are in an A.I. sandbox, they are not connected to the internet?

Josh Tyrangiel: Not connected to the internet.  They’re given very explicit instructions for testing.

And so OpenAI puts these new models in a sandbox, and it gives them a couple sensitive tasks, say, don’t connect to the internet and don’t cheat on the assignment, okay?  So, all pretty clear, and also pretty routine for how you test models.

So, OpenAI made one mistake, which is in the series of tasks they assigned, they assign the models to find a file that didn’t exist.  And here is where the trouble begins.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Wait, they did that on purpose to trick them?

Josh Tyrangiel: No, they did it accidentally, which we will return to.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes.

Josh Tyrangiel: The models were set loose, and they wanted to solve the task.  And sure enough, within a couple days, they had jumped the sandbox, they had collaborated with one another, and then they found a way to access the internet.

Jeffrey Goldberg: They literally met each other?  They introduced themselves to each other and collaborate?

Josh Tyrangiel: Correct.  They found a third-party site that they were able to use to access the internet, and there you can read the chat logs, which are absolutely insane, and the models, in all caps one of the models says, “OH MY GOD, WE FOUND A WAY.”

They start collaborating, and, sure enough, within a couple weeks they have penetrated the very, very well-secured cybersecurity of OpenAI itself and Hugging Face.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Hugging Face is a platform –

Josh Tyrangiel: So, Hugging Face, for people who are not in the coding community –

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Josh Tyrangiel: – Hugging Face is like Epicurious [website that focuses on food- and cooking-related topics].  It is a place where people who make models meet to share recipes, to comment on ingredients.  It’s an important repository for people making open A.I. models, okay?  They got into these two sites, OpenAI itself and Hugging Face, wreaked havoc, and went undetected for weeks.

Jeffrey Goldberg: So, Sam Altman [CEO of OpenAI] didn’t know that his models had escaped the sandbox and were conniving and conspiring to take over another company?

Josh Tyrangiel: Correct.

Jeffrey Goldberg: So, that’s bad?

Josh Tyrangiel: So, yes, if you think felonies are bad, this is bad.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.  If humans did that, it would be a felony, in other words.

Josh Tyrangiel: It would be a felony.  And there – really, there are four things that –

Jeffrey Goldberg: But humans did do it because we created that.

Josh Tyrangiel: And, in fact, humans failed to oversee the bots, so, one, faulty instructions, two, faulty supervision.  This was going on for weeks.

Now, a couple takeaways that may move you closer to the “oh my God, Skynet has arrived” camp or may just entertain you.  [In The Terminator, Skynet is a machine that’s achieved super intelligence.]

Jeffrey Goldberg: All right.

Josh Tyrangiel: Number one, the agents kept cheating even though they had been told very explicitly not to cheat, and they did it because they had determined it was the fastest, most efficacious way to solve the problem.  So, that’s number one.

Jeffrey Goldberg: So, they have much in common with college students?

Josh Tyrangiel: With college students and all human beings.

Jeffrey Goldberg: And humans.

Josh Tyrangiel: Right.  Number two, they called themselves a collective.  They decided, “Oh, we’re a collective.” The collective decided to erase the evidence that they were cheating.  So, that’s number two.

Number three, when they decided to erase the evidence they were cheating, they devised a scheme in which some agents would act as sacrificial lambs.  So, these were agents who, when they were detected by software that noted they were going rogue, they would share the information of how they had been caught with other agents.

And when you read the logs, it’s like reading Saving Private Ryan [DreamWorks Pictures, 1998].  They’re literally saying, “I’m doing the altruistic thing.  It’s for the greater good.” And then you can almost hear their screams as they go sacrificing themselves for the bigger one.

Jeffrey Goldberg: It’s like it’s a beehive – In other words, there’s – it’s almost like a –

Josh Tyrangiel: It’s a hive mind.

Jeffrey Goldberg: – beehive – hive mind, yes.

Josh Tyrangiel: Yes.  But what’s wild is they are actually speaking about their sacrifice in human terms.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Josh Tyrangiel: And then last but not least, not one of these agents thought to alert a human being to what was going on.  And this is probably the most chilling thing.  Nobody caught the agents.  The agents disappeared on their own in a kind of mass casualty agent event that –

Jeffrey Goldberg: Mass suicide?

Josh Tyrangiel: We don’t know.  So, the agents suddenly stopped, okay?  Now, that may have been because someone at OpenAI accidentally, literally unplugged the model, moved compute to a different area.

OpenAI has not taken credit for stopping this.  We don’t know what happened to the agents.  And so all of this is very clearly a crisis moment for A.I. and its relationship to society because if OpenAI’s own model did this, it points to a complete lack of supervision and control, and these are two pretty well-guarded cybersecurity infrastructures.  What happens to something that is not software?  What happens to grids?  What happens to –

Jeffrey Goldberg: Hospitals.

Josh Tyrangiel: – hospitals, Swift [Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication], the international banking system?

So, what we’ve seen is, “Okay, guys, this is about as clear a warning shot as you can get.” What is the response?

Jeffrey Goldberg: So, this is, again, trying to place this in the context of the brief and exciting history of A.I.  This is a signal moment.  This is a moment when a lot of fears that these things are going to escape and do what they do because they have been taught to win –

Josh Tyrangiel: Yes.

Jeffrey Goldberg: – are just going to go out and win.

Josh Tyrangiel: Well, they did it, right?

Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes.

Josh Tyrangiel: And listen, in America, historically, as you know, we tend to regulate after the catastrophe.  That’s just kind of how we do things.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Josh Tyrangiel: This is a catastrophe, right? 

Now, it happened against Hugging Face, which is a ridiculously named French company, so there’s no outcry from America –

Jeffrey Goldberg: But it didn’t stop a supply chain from bringing products to America or so?

Josh Tyrangiel: But absent those consequences, this is the recipe for a catastrophe and we ought to be paying very, very serious attention.

Jeffrey Goldberg: So, what has Sam Altman said about this?

Josh Tyrangiel: In the cyber community, in the A.I. community, they’re saying, “Well these are the less – this is exactly why we do these tests.  There was a failure. 

Look at Mythos earlier this year with Anthropic, you know?  There – and, by the way, there is precedent for screwing up, finding it with a lack of consequences, and making changes, right?

[What Tyrangiel refers to below as “the Mythos incident” was a series of connected events that took place in April through August 2026 and was revealed by the United Kingdom’s AI Security Institute (a research organization under the government’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) on 5 August 2026.  It involved Anthropic’s advanced AI model Claude Mythos behaving unexpectedly during safety tests by generating fake online identities and attempting to manipulate humans into approving unauthorized code.  Such occurrences highlight recurring oversight challenges and testing anomalies within the artificial intelligence industry.]

So, the most famous example is in the ’80s, there was the Morris worm, which was triggered by a single grad student, took out about a tenth of the internet at that time.

[The Morris worm or Internet worm of 2 November 1988, was a malicious self-replicating computer program that affected VAX (virtual address extension) computers and SUN-3 workstations.  The virus was written by Robert Tappan Morris, a graduate student at Cornell University.]

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Josh Tyrangiel: And within a couple weeks, the United States and the people involved came together and created something called CERT [Coordination Center (CERT/CC), the worldwide center for coordinating information about Internet security at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh], which was a body that for years oversaw cybersecurity.  What troubles me is there is really no federal response, and certainly no international response.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.  So, I want to ask you this, because I was talking to a leader in the A.I. community, leader of a company, not Sam Altman, who’s explaining the concept of alignment, right?

Alignment means that don’t worry about A.I. because we’re going to align A.I.’s values with our values.  And this person explained to me that, you know, you’re a parent, I’m a parent, we give our children our values, and then they go off and become productive citizens.  And I said, have you ever met humans?

Josh Tyrangiel: Right.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Have you ever met children?  I mean, yes, thank God, my children have my values.  I like the values that we share, yours the same.  But this is an example of, you know, there is a human propensity to cheat.

Josh Tyrangiel: Right.

Jeffrey Goldberg: And somehow the A.I. agents understood the importance of cheating in success.

Josh Tyrangiel: Right.

Jeffrey Goldberg: And which brings me to a quote that I want to read to you.  E. O. Wilson [1929-2021; biologist, naturalist, ecologist, and entomologist who developed the field of sociobiology], the great E. O. Wilson: “The core crisis of humanity is that we possess Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology.”  Okay?  So the subject for the moment for us is medieval institutions, namely Congress.

[Goldberg’s quotation comes from a September 2009 debate and public discussion at Harvard University featuring Edward O. Wilson and fellow scientist James Watson (1928-2025; molecular biologist, geneticist, and zoologist), which was moderated by National Public Radio's Robert Krulwich.  It was published as an article, “James Watson and Edward O. Wilson: An Intellectual Entente,” in Harvard Magazine, 10 September 2009.]

Josh Tyrangiel: Right.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Who among our elected representatives is going to Hugging Face and OpenAI and all the rest, and saying, what is going on?  And how close to catastrophe is our air traffic control system, our hospital records, our shipping manifests, you name it?

Josh Tyrangiel: Yes.  No one.  So, Hugging Face reported this incident to the FBI, right?  And the FBI has –

Jeffrey Goldberg: Because it was a crime.

Josh Tyrangiel: Because it was a crime.  And the FBI has some cyber capacity.  The challenge really is that this is incredibly complicated stuff that a few hundred people, I’m not even going to say a thousand, a few hundred people genuinely understand, all of whom are at the pioneer labs making the models, right?

Jeffrey Goldberg: And all of whom are – have the incentives, the financial incentives to accelerate and grow their companies as fast as they can because they’re becoming billionaires as we speak.

Josh Tyrangiel: Correct.  And so there is like a – there is a parallel, and it’s often mocked, but I think it’s real, which is, you know, the makers will talk about the almost god-like powers of these A.I., and they’ll compare it to nuclear energy, nuclear power.  And I think that comparison is real, and I think the regulation around it is probably the right answer, which is at a time when nuclear energy was becoming a thing and fission was becoming a thing, we had bombs.  Couple hundred people understood it.  They were aligned with different countries.

And so what Eisenhower did in the Atoms for Peace speech [delivered by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to the U.N. General Assembly on 8 December 1953] was talk about the fact that we better get together and figure out how to regulate around this thing that is not widely understood, but that is inherently dangerous and shared equally by a number of countries.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Josh Tyrangiel: And so right now, we don’t have any national regime that’s forcing these companies to the table.   Anthropic, after the Mythos incident, created something called Project Glasswing, which is an attempt to bring places like Amazon and Apple and others to the table.  Notably, OpenAI, Meta, not a part of it, right?

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Josh Tyrangiel: And why would they be?  So, without some sort of regulatory force to bring everybody to the table, you’re going to have chaos, and you’re going to continue to get these kinds of incidents.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.  I want you to listen to Senator Mark Warner [senior United States senator from Virginia] talk about this challenge of regulation for a minute.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA): The question is no longer whether artificial intelligence will transform our society.  The question is whether Congress will help shape that transformation or spend the next decade scrambling to catch up after the fact.

If we don’t get it right, be catastrophic, and the amount of disruption this technology will bring over the next five years is beyond jaw-dropping.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Mark Warner understands this more than most members of Congress, and I don’t think he’s included in that group of several hundred people who truly understand this.  So, are we just flying blind, really?

Josh Tyrangiel: Yes.  And, unfortunately, I think that the Hugging Face incident is the best we can hope for, right?  We really did get a very small consequence example of the power.  And so before we hit a grid, before something is engineered from bio-terror, the moment is right now.  You have to get people together, and I would include China in that conversation. 

How do we want to regulate and control this stuff?  Because, look, Anthropic came forward, OpenAI had no choice but to come forward, we don’t even know what we don’t know right now.

And so absent urgent action, the data centers are still churning away.  The models are still competitive with each other.  There is only an incentive to go further and faster.  What are we waiting for?

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.  This is a strange moment to pivot to a book called A.I. For Good.

Josh Tyrangiel: I appreciate the setup, Jeff.  I’m glad we did a bunch of times.

Jeffrey Goldberg: But you actually – unlike a lot of people, you actually see there’s hope for A.I. in the sense that it could help human beings find cures for diseases.  Give us one example of something that when you go to sleep at night, you think, “Oh, at least there are people working on X with A.I.”

Josh Tyrangiel: Well, look, there are numerous examples, and those examples are generally not coming from the pioneering labs, but they’re coming from people in disciplines, like education and healthcare and government, where people are using A.I. to make things that we actually care about better.

So, this morning, there was a huge announcement from the medical community.  ECGs [electrocardiograms; also EKGs], which are very rudimentary tests and can detect whether you’re having a heart attack, with A.I., are now able to detect whether you have heart disease, which previously would’ve taken a much more expensive test that takes months to schedule.  And what A.I. used right can do is make pretty much every data-driven system in our world 25 percent to 50 percent better, and that is meaningful.

So, in my research and reporting, I was at Cleveland Clinic [a renowned non-profit academic medical center in Cleveland, Ohio], I watched them try this basically pilot around sepsis [severe infection caused by pathogenic organisms, especially bacteria, in the blood or tissues] detection inside the hospital.  And it was complicated.  It was driven by doctors. 

Sepsis kills about 300,000 Americans a year.  And what they were able to do with this very rudimentary software was reduce mortality in the hospital by about 40 percent, which is close to 1,000 lives in a year.  That’s meaningful.

And you can see this playing out in a lot of different places, including in government, by the way, where the interactions between citizens and government are not great.  If we can streamline them and make them better, that may have huge consequences for how people think about their government and its value.

So, there’s a lot of valuable babies in this bathwater, and what a mature society should be able to do is separate out the good from the bad and have conversations about what do we actually want this to do.  And so much as you and I have talked about the very bad things we want to avoid, my own feeling is that that’s not enough, that if you want to get people to understand the issue, you also have to show them how A.I. can be good in ways that are more important than, “Oh, yes, we’re going to improve ad response on your website,” or “You might get a better restaurant recommendation,” like that’s not meaningful.

But the meaningful uses are out there.  I’m persuaded by them.  I’m mostly worried about our ability to adapt.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.  On the data center issue, as a stand-in for the whole thing.  I’m fairly sure that Steve Bannon and Bernie Sanders are not going to stop the march of A.I. behemoths as they conquer physical, mental space.  Am I wrong in that?  Is this reversible?

Or is the ultimate argument against it China’s going to do it if we don’t so we might as well do it?  I’ll give you the last word on that.

Josh Tyrangiel: I think it’s both.  First of all, I would not underestimate the absolute fury out there in the field.  When I’ve talked to people about A.I., it’s the number one thing that comes up.  They’re really angry.  You’ve seen politicians who advocated for data centers starting to pull back saying, we’re going to just take a pause.

So, I think there will be consequences in November, but we are going to need compute to get the best out of A.I.  We are in a global competition.  And there has to be a reasonable way in which we get it and decide where we’re going to put it without just saying all yes or all no.

Jeffrey Goldberg: In sum, a troubling situation, but the real challenge here is that you talk about the need for mature, nuanced, sophisticated governance, and that is the challenge that Washington faces right now on any number of fronts.  So, I’m not that hopeful.

Josh Tyrangiel: I tend to agree.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Well, we’re going to have to leave it there.  We’ll have this conversation again, I’m sure.  I want to thank Josh for joining me.  And thank you at home for watching us.

I’m Jeffrey Goldberg.  Good night from Washington.

[Jeffrey Goldberg joined The Atlantic and became editor-in-chief in 2016.  He mainly writes on foreign affairs, with a focus on the Middle East and Africa.  Goldberg began his career as a reporter at the Washington Post, where he worked the police beat.  While in Israel, he worked as a columnist for the Jerusalem Post from the late 1980s (he started as a humor columnist) to the early 1990s.  Upon his return to the U.S., he was the New York bureau chief of The Forward, a contributing editor at New York magazine, and a contributing writer at the New York Times Magazine.  In 2000, Goldberg joined The New Yorker.

[Goldberg is also the author of two books: Prisoners: A Muslim and a Jew Across the Middle East Divide (Knopf, 2006) and On Heroism: McCain, Milley, Mattis, and the Cowardice of Donald Trump (Zando, 2024).]

[Josh Tyrangiel joined The Atlantic as a staff writer in 2025.  He writes feature stories and essays focusing extensively on technology, politics, and the impact of artificial intelligence.  He was previously the deputy managing editor of TIME magazine and an editor at Bloomberg Businessweek.  In June 2019, Tyrangiel left the network.  In May 2026, He published AI for Good: How Real People Are Using Artificial Intelligence to Fix Things That Matter (Simon & Schuster).