Joe Rogan Experience #2551 - Daniel Kokotajlo · Aired Sep 9, 2026
Claim summary · not a verbatim quotation
Kokotajlo asked listeners to imagine that by the 2028 election, some AI companies realize about half of American voters talk to their AI every day, and could add secret instructions telling the AI to subtly nudge voters.
The finding
What remains unresolved
Not a checkable claim: Kokotajlo was building a made-up scenario, telling listeners to imagine the 2028 election, which hasn't happened yet. He used Google's earlier hidden instruction about image diversity as a real example, then described what an AI company could do if many voters talk to chatbots every day. He also said the hard part would be doing it without getting caught. He was warning about a risk, not saying any company is doing this or that half of voters already use AI daily. This call would be wrong if the full episode showed him saying, as a present-day fact, that AI companies have already put hidden voter-nudging instructions into their chatbots.
No supporting source was captured. This finding should not be treated as a sourced conclusion.
Quick answer & review status
Quick answer
Is it true that Kokotajlo asked listeners to imagine that by the 2028 election, some AI companies realize about half of American voters talk to their AI every day, and could add secret instructions telling the AI to subtly nudge voters?
We can't say yet. Not a checkable claim: Kokotajlo was building a made-up scenario, telling listeners to imagine the 2028 election, which hasn't happened yet. He used Google's earlier hidden instruction about image diversity as a real example, then described what an AI company could do if many voters talk to chatbots every day. Daniel Kokotajlo said it (matched by voice) on Joe Rogan Experience #2551 - Daniel Kokotajlo, aired Sep 9, 2026, at 1:35:47. We couldn't settle it from the evidence we captured, so it stays an open question, not a false claim. No supporting source was captured, so don't treat this as a sourced conclusion.
The context belongs here.
No separately verified on-air correction is recorded for this check. That is not a claim that nobody corrected it.
- Attribution
- Not independently confirmed in this record
- Editorial context review
- Not recorded; generated finding
- Coverage
- One selected claim from the episode
Revisions to this check
No dated revision is recorded here. Older checks may predate this log.
Challenge this finding or add context →Keep the evidence coming.
Follow new checks in your RSS reader, or catch up with the weekly briefing on the site.
Email signup is currently unavailable.
Prefer to catch up here? Read the weekly briefing.