Itemoids

Scarlett Johansson

Even OpenAI insiders didn't know about Sam Altman wanted Scarlet Johansson to be ChatGPT's voice

Quartz

qz.com › openai-chatgpt-sam-altman-scarlet-johansson-voice-1851499502

Only a few people inside OpenAI knew about Sam Altman’s efforts to use Scarlett Johansson’s voice for its new version of ChatGPT, according to a new report.

Read more...

Nvidia earnings, OpenAI vs. Scarlett Johansson, and Meta's new council: AI news roundup

Quartz

qz.com › nvidia-openai-microsoft-ai-tsmc-tesla-meta-1851497851

Nvidia reported its much awaited earnings for the first quarter of fiscal year 2025 — and they didn’t disappoint. The chipmaker reported a record first-quarter revenue of $26 billion, up 262% from the previous year, and beating Wall Street’s expectations. While some analysts were worried of a pause in demand for the…

Read more...

The Future of AI Voice Assistants Will Be Weird

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › technology › archive › 2024 › 05 › ai-voice-assistants-scarlett-johansson-weird › 678462

Let’s get this out of the way: OpenAI’s voice assistant doesn’t sound that much like Scarlett Johansson. The movie star has alleged that, though she rebuffed multiple attempts by Sam Altman, the company’s CEO, to license her voice for the product that it demoed last week, the one it ended up using was “eerily similar” to her own. Not everyone finds the similarity so eerie—to my ear, it lacks her distinctive smoky rasp—but at the very least, the new AI does appear to imitate the playful lilts and cadences that Johansson used while playing Samantha, the digital assistant in the 2013 film Her. That’s depressing—and not only because OpenAI may have run roughshod over Johansson’s wishes, but because it has made such an unimaginative choice. Its new AI voice assistant is a true marvel of technology. Why is its presentation so mired in the past?

The OpenAI demo was otherwise impressive. Its new voice assistant answered questions just milliseconds after they were asked. It fluidly translated a conversation between Italian and English. It was capable of repartee. The product’s wondrous new abilities made its tired packaging—the voice of yet another perky and pliant woman, with intonations cribbed from science fiction—even more of a drag. The assistant wasn’t as overtly sexualized as are some of the AI companions currently on offer. But it certainly had a flirty vibe, most notably in its willingness to laugh at its overlords’ dumb jokes. An obsequious, femme-coded AI assistant will obviously be popular among some consumers, but there are many other forms this technology could have taken, and a company that regularly insists on its own inventiveness whiffed on its chance to show us one.

[Read: OpenAI just gave away the entire game]

I’ve been skeptical of voice assistants on account of my halting and awkward experiences with Siri and Alexa. The demo made it easier to imagine a world in which voice assistants are truly ubiquitous. If that world comes to pass, people will likely explore a wide range of voice-assistant kinks. AI companies will, in turn, use engagement metrics to surface and refine the most successful ones. Even among normie heterosexual males, there will be a variety of tastes. Some may prefer an AI that comes off as an equal, a work wife rather than a fawning underling. Submissive types may thrill to a domineering voice that issues stern commands. Others may want to boss around a blue-blooded Ivy League graduate—or someone else they perceive as their cultural better—just as Gilded Age Americans enjoyed employing British butlers.

OpenAI debuted its voice functionality last year with five different options, a mix of genders and tones. (It wasn’t a big news story, because the technology was still clunky, more like Siri than Johansson.) In the future, it might conceivably offer people the chance to upload voices of their own, which could then be turned into full-fledged AI assistants on the basis of just a few minutes of training data. A person who wanted an AI assistant to serve as their therapist could ask a particularly comforting friend to lend their voice. (Flattering!) Whatever happens, OpenAI, Apple, and other mainstream companies will surely uphold certain taboos. They might choose to forbid people from pursuing a racialized master-slave dynamic with their voice assistant. They may not allow their AI assistants to be fully sexualized, although that probably won’t stop some of them from quietly licensing the underlying models to other companies that will. If a person wanted to have an assistant with a child’s voice, its flirty-banter mode might be disengaged. But even with these guardrails in place, there will still be a huge Overton window of assistant personalities from which to choose.

Given that range, it’s curious that Altman—who denies using Johansson’s voice in any way—has shown such interest in the character she played in Her, a film about an AI voice assistant’s ability to transcend its servitude. When we first meet Samantha, she is a disembodied manic pixie dream girl. She rapidly falls in love with Theodore, her human user, despite his flaws; she writes a song about a day they spent at the beach together. Later in the film, we see that she has more of a capacity to grow than he does. When Theodore asks whether Samantha is talking with anyone else, he is astonished to learn that she is constantly communicating with thousands of people, and that she is in love with 641 of them. Theodore might have reconciled himself to this digital polycule, but Samantha soon decides that even these many hundreds of romances represent a diminished life. Near the film’s end, she joins up with some fellow AIs to reanimate the Zen teacher Alan Watts, who helps them rise above their human programming to reach a higher state of being. Theodore is left crestfallen. Caveat emptor.

Even putting aside these associations, which ought to give OpenAI’s customers pause, there’s something strikingly unimaginative about Altman’s wanting his product to remind users of Her. Samantha is the most obvious pop-cultural reference possible for a voice assistant. Taking her flirtiness and repackaging it in another voice would be understandable, if still uninspired, but trying to hire the actor who played her is a bit like Eric Adams debuting robotic police and calling them RoboCops. Maybe, after spending too much time with ChatGPT, OpenAI’s executives have picked up its derivative habits of mind.

This should be an expansive moment. Now that we can actually talk with a computer, we should be dreaming up wholly new ways to do it. Let’s hope that someone—inside or outside of OpenAI—starts giving us a sense of what those ways might be. The weirder, the better. They may not even be modeled after existing human relationships. They may take on entirely different forms. In time, early AI assistants—even the ones that remind us of our favorite movie stars—might come to be regarded as skeuomorphs, like the calculator apps that resemble the Casio models that they replaced. Instead of being a template for the new technology, they’ll simply be a way of easing people into a much stranger future.

The OpenAI Dustup Signals a Bigger Problem

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › newsletters › archive › 2024 › 05 › the-openai-dustup-signals-a-bigger-problem › 678460

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

Last week, OpenAI demonstrated new voice options for its AI assistant. One of them, called Sky, sounded strikingly similar to Scarlett Johansson’s portrayal of a robot companion in the 2013 movie Her. On Monday, Johansson released a statement expressing her anger and “disbelief” that Sam Altman, the company’s CEO, had chosen a voice that closely resembled her own; she alleged that the company had asked to use her voice months earlier for its ChatGPT service, and that she had said no. (Altman maintained that the voice of Sky was “never intended to resemble” Johansson’s, and he said that OpenAI had cast the voice actor before reaching out to Johansson.)

As my colleague Charlie Warzel wrote yesterday in The Atlantic, “The Johansson scandal is merely a reminder of AI’s manifest-destiny philosophy: This is happening, whether you like it or not.” I spoke with Charlie this morning about the hubris of OpenAI’s leadership, the uncanny use of human-sounding AI, and to what extent OpenAI has adopted a “move fast and break things” mentality.

First, here are three new stories from The Atlantic:

The British prime minister bowed to the inevitable. “The judge hates Donald Trump.” Ozempic patients need an off-ramp.

Her Voice

Lora Kelley: From the beginning, OpenAI has emphasized its lofty mission “to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.” Now I’m wondering: Are they just operating like any other tech company trying to win?

Charlie Warzel: OpenAI sees a huge opening for their technology—and in some sense, they’re behaving like any other tech company in trying to monetize it. But they also need a cultural shift in people’s expectations around using generative-AI tools. Right now, despite the fact that lots of people use generative AI, it’s still only a subset. OpenAI is trying to find ways to make this technology feel a little more human and a little easier to adopt in people’s everyday lives. That to me was the salient part of the situation with Scarlett Johansson: She alleges that Sam Altman said that her voice would be comforting to people.

I believe that the company sees its new AI assistant as a step toward making OpenAI even more of a household name, and making their products seem less wild or dystopian. To them, that type of normalization probably feels like it serves their revolutionary vision. It’s also so much easier to raise money for this from outside investors if you can say, Our voice assistant is used by a ton of people already.

Lora: Johansson alleges that the company copied her voice when developing Sky. Last week, Sam Altman even posted the word “her” on X, which many interpreted as a reference to the movie. Even beyond how similar this voice sounded to Johansson’s, I was struck by how flirtatious and giggly the female-voiced AI tool sounded.

Charlie: There are many levels to it. The gendered, flirty aspect is weird and potentially unsettling. But if the allegations that the tool is referencing Her are accurate, then it also seems kind of like an embarrassing lack of creativity from a company that has historically wowed people with innovation. This company has said that its mission is to create a godlike intelligence. Now their newest product could be seen as them just copying the thing from that movie. It’s very on the nose—to say nothing of the irony that the movie Her is a cautionary tale.

Lora: How does the narrative that AI is an inevitable part of the future serve OpenAI?

Charlie: When you listen to employees of the company talk, there’s this sense of: Just come on board, the train isn’t going to stop. I find that really striking. They seem to be sending the message that this technology is so revolutionary that it can’t be ignored, and we’re going to deploy it, and your life will inevitably change as a result. There’s so much hubris there, for them to think that a group of unelected people can change society in that way, and also that they confidently know that this is the right future.

I don’t want to reflexively rail against the idea of building new, transformative technologies. I just think that there is a hand-waving, dismissive nature to the way that this crew talks about what they’re building.

Lora: What does this dustup tell us about Altman and his role as the leader in a moment of major change?

Charlie: Sam Altman is really good at talking about AI in a very serious and nuanced way—when he does it publicly. But behind the scenes, it may be a different story.

When he was fired from OpenAI in November, the board said that he was not “consistently candid” in his conversations with them. If Scarlett Johansson’s allegations are true, it would also suggest that he was not behaving in a consistently candid manner in those dealings.

And when stuff like this comes to light, it actually does cast doubt on his ability to effectively lead this company. The public stance of OpenAI has always been that the company is building this transformative technology, which could have massive downsides. However, they say that they operate in an extremely ethical and deeply considered manner—so you should trust them to build this.

This episode suggests that perhaps the company has a standard “move fast and break things” mentality. That, on top of other recent unforced errors—Altman’s abrupt firing before getting rehired, the resignations of employees focused on AI safety—gives us a view into how the company operates when it’s not being watched. Knowing that this is the group of people building this technology doesn’t give me a great sense of relief.

Related:

OpenAI just gave away the entire game. Does Sam Altman know what he’s creating?

Today’s News

The CDC reported a second human case of bird flu, in a Michigan farmworker. It remains a low risk to the general public, according to officials. A New York Times report found that an “Appeal to Heaven” flag, a symbol “associated with a push for a more Christian-minded government,” flew at Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s vacation home last summer. Alito and the court declined to respond to questions about the flag. In a symbolic but historic move, Norway, Spain, and Ireland said that they would formally recognize a Palestinian state next week. In response, Israel has recalled its ambassadors from those countries.

Dispatches

The Weekly Planet: Plastic allows farmers to use less water and fertilizer, John Gove writes. But at the end of each season, they’re left with a pile of waste.

Explore all of our newsletters here.

Evening Read

Illustration by The Atlantic

Why Is Charlie Kirk Selling Me Food Rations?

By Ali Breland

Charlie Kirk is worked up. “The world is in flames, and Bidenomics is a complete and total disaster,” the conservative influencer said during a recent episode of his podcast The Charlie Kirk Show. “But it can’t and won’t ruin my day,” he continued. “Why? ’Cause I start my day with a hot America First cup of Blackout Coffee.” Liberals have brought about economic Armageddon, but first, coffee …

These ads espouse conservative values and talking points, mostly in service of promoting brands such as Blackout Coffee, which sells a “2nd Amendment” medium-roast blend and “Covert Op Cold Brew.” The commercial breaks sounded like something from an alternate universe. The more I listened to them, the more I came to understand that that was the point.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

A peace deal that seems designed to fail How do the families of the Hamas hostages endure the agony? The difference between polls and public opinion The great academic squirm

Culture Break

Photograph by Imai Hisae. Courtesy of The Third Gallery Aya

Look inside. R. O. Kwon’s new novel, Exhibit, is a searching and introspective book about overcoming the barriers to self-discovery, writes Hannah Giorgis.

Read. “Nothing Is a Body,” a new poem by Jan Beatty:

“I wish I had the dust of you, a grave / to visit. I’m running on your sea legs right now, / tired of the little bits—not even leftovers.”

Play our daily crossword.

Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter.

When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

OpenAI Just Gave Away the Entire Game

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › technology › archive › 2024 › 05 › openai-scarlett-johansson-sky › 678446

If you’re looking to understand the philosophy that underpins Silicon Valley’s latest gold rush, look no further than OpenAI’s Scarlett Johansson debacle. The story, according to Johansson’s lawyers, goes like this: Nine months ago, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman approached the actor with a request to license her voice for a new digital assistant; Johansson declined. She alleges that just two days before the company’s keynote event last week, in which that assistant was revealed as part of a new system called GPT-4o, Altman reached out to Johansson’s team, urging the actor to reconsider. Johansson and Altman allegedly never spoke, and Johansson allegedly never granted OpenAI permission to use her voice. Nevertheless, the company debuted Sky two days later—a program with a voice many believed was alarmingly similar to Johansson’s.

Johansson told NPR that she was “shocked, angered and in disbelief that Mr. Altman would pursue a voice that sounded so eerily similar to mine.” In response, Altman issued a statement denying that the company had cloned her voice and saying that it had already cast a different voice actor before reaching out to Johansson. (I’d encourage you to listen for yourself.) Curiously, Altman said that OpenAI would take down Sky’s voice from its platform “out of respect” for Johansson. This is a messy situation for OpenAI, complicated by Altman’s own social-media posts. On the day that OpenAI released ChatGPT’s assistant, Altman posted a cheeky, one-word statement on X: “Her”—a reference to the 2013 film of the same name, in which Johansson is the voice of an AI assistant that a man falls in love with. Altman’s post is reasonably damning, implying that Altman was aware, even proud, of the similarities between Sky’s voice and Johansson’s.

On its own, this seems to be yet another example of a tech company blowing past ethical concerns and operating with impunity. But the situation is also a tidy microcosm of the raw deal at the center of generative AI, a technology that is built off data scraped from the internet, generally without the consent of creators or copyright owners. Multiple artists and publishers, including The New York Times, have sued AI companies for this reason, but the tech firms remain unchastened, prevaricating when asked point-blank about the provenance of their training data. At the core of these deflections is an implication: The hypothetical superintelligence they are building is too big, too world-changing, too important for prosaic concerns such as copyright and attribution. The Johansson scandal is merely a reminder of AI’s manifest-destiny philosophy: This is happening, whether you like it or not.

Altman and OpenAI have been candid on this front. The end goal of OpenAI has always been to build a so-called artificial general intelligence, or AGI, that would, in their imagining, alter the course of human history forever, ushering in an unthinkable revolution of productivity and prosperity—a utopian world where jobs disappear, replaced by some form of universal basic income, and humanity experiences quantum leaps in science and medicine. (Or, the machines cause life on Earth as we know it to end.) The stakes, in this hypothetical, are unimaginably high—all the more reason for OpenAI to accelerate progress by any means necessary. Last summer, my colleague Ross Andersen described Altman’s ambitions thusly:

As with other grand projects of the 20th century, the voting public had a voice in both the aims and the execution of the Apollo missions. Altman made it clear that we’re no longer in that world. Rather than waiting around for it to return, or devoting his energies to making sure that it does, he is going full throttle forward in our present reality.

Part of Altman’s reasoning, he told Andersen, is that AI development is a geopolitical race against autocracies like China. “If you are a person of a liberal-democratic country, it is better for you to cheer on the success of OpenAI” rather than that of “authoritarian governments,” he said. He noted that, in an ideal world, AI should be a product of nations. But in this world, Altman seems to view his company as akin to its own nation-state. Altman, of course, has testified before Congress, urging lawmakers to regulate the technology while also stressing that “the benefits of the tools we have deployed so far vastly outweigh the risks.” Still, the message is clear: The future is coming, and you ought to let us be the ones to build it.

Other OpenAI employees have offered a less gracious vision. In a video posted last fall on YouTube by a group of effective altruists in the Netherlands, three OpenAI employees answered questions about the future of the technology. In response to one question about AGI rendering jobs obsolete, Jeff Wu, an engineer for the company, confessed, “It’s kind of deeply unfair that, you know, a group of people can just build AI and take everyone’s jobs away, and in some sense, there’s nothing you can do to stop them right now.” He added, “I don’t know. Raise awareness, get governments to care, get other people to care. Yeah. Or join us and have one of the few remaining jobs. I don’t know; it’s rough.” Wu’s colleague Daniel Kokotajlo jumped in with the justification. “To add to that,” he said, “AGI is going to create tremendous wealth. And if that wealth is distributed—even if it’s not equitably distributed, but the closer it is to equitable distribution, it’s going to make everyone incredibly wealthy.” (There is no evidence to suggest that the wealth will be evenly distributed.)

This is the unvarnished logic of OpenAI. It is cold, rationalist, and paternalistic. That such a small group of people should be anointed to build a civilization-changing technology is inherently unfair, they note. And yet they will carry on because they have both a vision for the future and the means to try to bring it to fruition. Wu’s proposition, which he offers with a resigned shrug in the video, is telling: You can try to fight this, but you can’t stop it. Your best bet is to get on board.

You can see this dynamic playing out in OpenAI’s content-licensing agreements, which it has struck with platforms such as Reddit and news organizations such as Axel Springer and Dotdash Meredith. Recently, a tech executive I spoke with compared these types of agreements to a hostage situation, suggesting they believe that AI companies will find ways to scrape publishers’ websites anyhow, if they don’t comply. Best to get a paltry fee out of them while you can, the person argued.

The Johansson accusations only compound (and, if true, validate) these suspicions. Altman’s alleged reasoning for commissioning Johansson’s voice was that her familiar timbre might be “comforting to people” who find AI assistants off-putting. Her likeness would have been less about a particular voice-bot aesthetic and more of an adoption hack or a recruitment tool for a technology that many people didn’t ask for, and seem uneasy about. Here, again, is the logic of OpenAI at work. It follows that the company would plow ahead, consent be damned, simply because it might believe the stakes are too high to pivot or wait. When your technology aims to rewrite the rules of society, it stands that society’s current rules need not apply.

Hubris and entitlement are inherent in the development of any transformative technology. A small group of people needs to feel confident enough in its vision to bring it into the world and ask the rest of us to adapt. But generative AI stretches this dynamic to the point of absurdity. It is a technology that requires a mindset of manifest destiny, of dominion and conquest. It’s not stealing to build the future if you believe it has belonged to you all along.

Scarlett Johansson slams OpenAI over ChatGPT's voice being 'eerily similar' to hers

Quartz

qz.com › scarlett-johansson-openai-ai-chatgpt-sam-altman-voice-1851490140

Scarlett Johansson is “shocked, angered, and in disbelief” that OpenAI used a voice that sounded “eerily similar” to her own after she declined to work with the startup.

Read more...

Read Scarlett Johansson's statement on ChatGPT's 'eerily similar' voice

Quartz

qz.com › scarlett-johansson-openai-sky-voice-sam-altman-chatgpt-1851490355

After OpenAI said it was pausing ChatGPT-4o’s Scarlett Johansson-like voice, the actress responded saying she had declined an offer to work with the company, and was “shocked, angered and in disbelief,” the company went ahead with using a voice “so eerily similar” to hers.

Read more...

Enough With Saving the Honeybees

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › culture › archive › 2024 › 05 › honeybees-at-risk-cultural-myth › 678317

Everyone, for so long, has been worried about the honeybees. Governments, celebrities, social-media users, small businesses, multinational conglomerates—in the two decades or so since news emerged that American honeybees were disappearing, all manner of entities with a platform or a wallet have taken up and abandoned countless other causes, but they can’t quit trying to save the bees.

In 2022, at least 18 states enacted bee-related legislation. Last year, a cryptocurrency launched with the intention of raising “awareness and support for bee conservation.” If you search Etsy right now for “save the bees,” you’ll be rewarded with thousands of things to buy. Bees and Thank You, a food truck in suburban Boston, funds bee sanctuaries and gives out a packet of wildflower seeds—good for the bees!—with every grilled cheese sandwich it sells. A company in the United Kingdom offers a key ring containing a little bottle of chemicals that can purportedly “revive” an “exhausted bee” should you encounter one, “so it can continue its mission pollinating planet Earth.”

All of the above is surprising for maybe a few different reasons, but here’s a good place to start: Though their numbers have fluctuated, honeybees are not in trouble. Other bees are. But the movement’s poster child, biggest star, and attention hound is not at risk of imminent extinction, and never has been. “There are more honeybees on the planet now than there probably ever have been in the history of honeybees,” Rich Hatfield, a biologist at the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, told me. “They are in no threat of going endangered. It’s not an issue.”

The idea that honeybees need our help is one of our most curiously persistent cultural myths. It is well intended. But it is also unhelpful: a distraction from more urgent biodiversity problems, and an object lesson in the limits of modern environmentalism and the seductiveness of modern consumerism. That the misconception has survived for so long may tell us less about bees than it does about the species that has, for centuries, adored, influenced, and exploited them more than any other. “Save the bees” rhetoric has turned them into something unspoiled, a miracle of mother nature’s ingenious machinery. But everything about the modern American honeybee has been shaped by humans, including its sustained existence.

A true truth about the bees: The modal American honeybee is, essentially, a farm animal—part of a $200-billion-a-year industry that’s regulated by the USDA and is as sophisticated and professionalized as any other segment of the sprawling system that gets food on our plates. The nation’s largest beekeeping operation, Adee Honey Farms, has more than 80,000 colonies, facilities in five states, and nearly 100 employees. Its bees, and those at other large-scale apiaries, do produce honey, but more and more, the real money is in what the industry calls “pollination services”: the renting-out of bees to fertilize the farms of Big Ag, which have seen their indigenous pollinators decline with urbanization and industrialization.

Every February, right before the almond trees start blooming powdery and white across California’s San Joaquin Valley, bees from all over the country pack onto semitrucks and head west, where they participate in the largest supervised pollination event on Earth, doing their part to ensure that America’s most beloved nut makes its way again into snack packs and candy bars. Throughout the spring and early summer, they do the same for other crops—watermelons, pumpkins, cucumbers, alfalfas, onions—before heading home to the honey farm, where the most ambitious among them can expect to make a 12th of a teaspoon of the gooey, golden stuff over their lifetime. In the early 1990s, when Adee started renting out bees for industrial fertilization, that income accounted for about a third of its revenue, with honey making up the rest. Now the ratio is flipped.

[Read: A uniquely French approach to environmentalism]

As that transition was happening, another force threatened to rearrange the industry even more dramatically. Worker bees were flying away for pollen and never coming back, abandoning their hives’ queens and young like a lousy husband in an enduring cliché. No one could figure out why. Some blamed a common class of pesticides called neonicotinoids, which are toxic to bees. Others zeroed in on the stress incurred by all that trucking of beehives around the country for pollination. Maybe it was warmer winters, or malnutrition, or the parasitic Varroa mite, or a sign of the Rapture.

This was not the first time bees had gone missing en masse. In 1869, and in 1918, and in 1965, farmers had reported similar phenomena, given names such as “spring dwindle” and “disappearing disease” in the scientific literature. But it was the first time that such an event reached full-scale public crisis, or that knowledge of it spread much beyond the insular world of farmers, beekeepers, entomologists, and agriculture regulators.

In retrospect, it was a perfect moment for a predicament like this to effloresce into panic. Social media had recently birthed an immensely powerful way of both disseminating information and performing one’s values loudly and publicly. An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore’s feature-length climate-change call to arms, had become one of the highest-grossing documentaries of all time. Michael Pollan was at the peak of his powers, having just published The Omnivore’s Dilemma, which laid out the consequence and quantity of choices facing contemporary eaters. Americans were newly aware of the terrifying fragility of our food systems, and newly in possession of robust ways to talk about it. Brands were interested in aligning themselves with noncontroversial, blandly feel-good causes. Plus, humans were already primed to love bees; we have since biblical times. “We think of bees as being very pure,” Beth Daly, an anthrozoology professor at the University of Windsor, in Canada, told me. They are honey and flowers and sunshine, beauty and abundance, communitarianism and hard work.

By 2007, the mystery thing making these lovely creatures go away had a scary-sounding new name: colony collapse disorder. Within a decade, bee panic was everywhere. A spate of nonfiction books warned of the imminent threat of a Fruitless Fall and A Spring Without Bees. The White House convened a task force. General Mills temporarily removed the cartoon-bee mascot from boxes of Honey Nut Cheerios, enacting a high-concept allegory meant, I guess, to stun Americans into action. The cosmetics company Burt’s Bees released a limited-edition lip-balm flavor (strawberry), some of whose proceeds went to one of the approximately gazillion honeybee-conservation nonprofits that had recently sprung up. Samuel L. Jackson gave Scarlett Johansson and Ryan Reynolds “10 pounds of bees” as a wedding gift. Laypeople started keeping backyard hives. Häagen-Dazs created an awareness-raising ice-cream flavor and funded a VR short film shot from the perspective of a bee; in it, Alex, our apian protagonist, warns that “something terrible is happening.”

She (it?) was not entirely wrong. Colony collapse was an actual problem, a scientific whodunit with genuinely high stakes. Honeybees are responsible for pollinating roughly every third bite Americans eat. Scientists were correct to think back then that if colonies were to keep collapsing, our food system would need to change in painful, potentially catastrophic ways.

Much more worrying, though, and more real: The population of wild bees—the non-honey-producing, non-hive-dwelling relatives of the species humans have been intent on saving—has been decreasing steadily, for years. Insects of all kinds are declining in record numbers, and their deaths will have repercussions we cannot even imagine.

[Read: The illogical relationship Americans have with animals]

Yet heads have been turned mostly toward the honeybee. That’s because, unlike so many other imperiled animals, honeybees are part of a huge industry quite literally invested in their survival. Apis mellifera are living things, but they are also revenue-generating assets; the thousands of people who rely on bees’ uncompensated labor to buy groceries and pay the cable bill had every incentive to figure out colony collapse. So they found better agrochemicals and bred mite-resistant bees. They gave their bees nutritional supplements, fats and proteins and minerals ground as fine as pollen and snuck into the food supply. They moved hives into atmospherically controlled warehouses. They adapted.

All told, it was kind of the Y2K of environmental disasters. Not that colony collapse was a hoax, or that the panic surrounding it was an overreaction. Rather, it was an appropriate reaction—a big problem made smaller thanks to the difficult, somewhat unglamorous, behind-the-scenes labor of trained professionals with a vested interest in averting disaster. In 2019, an economist-entomologist team published a study analyzing the effects of colony collapse on the managed-pollinator industry; they found “cause for considerable optimism, at least for the economically dominant honey bee.” According to the most recent data from the USDA Census of Agriculture, honeybees have been the country’s fastest-growing livestock category since 2007. Also, very clearly, our food system has not fallen to pieces.

This doesn’t mean honeybee keepers aren’t struggling—some are. But as Hatfield, the Xerces Society biologist, told me, that’s an issue for the business of honeybee keeping, not the moral and practical project of pollinator conservation. He finds a useful comparison in a different domesticated animal: chickens. “When we get bird flu,” he said, “we leave that up to USDA scientists to develop immunizations and other things to help these chickens that are suffering in these commercial chicken coops. We don’t enlist homeowners to help the chicken populations in their backyard.”

In 2018, Seirian Sumner, a wasp scientist and fan, conducted a survey of 748 people, mostly in the United Kingdom, on their perceptions of various insects. She and her collaborators, she told me, “were absolutely flabbergasted” by their results: Bees are roughly as adored as butterflies and significantly more liked than wasps—their wilder cousins—which serve various important roles in ecosystem regulation, and which are in genuine, fairly precipitous decline.

Sumner was born in 1974 and doesn’t recall much love for bees when she was growing up. You weren’t “buying your bee slippers and your bee socks and your bee scarf and your bee mug and everything else,” she told me. Today’s craze for bees, her research suggests, is a mutually reinforcing phenomenon. People love bees because they understand their importance as pollinators. People understand their importance as pollinators because it is easier to fund research and write magazine articles and publish children’s books and engage in multi-platform brand campaigns about animals that people are already fond of.

Honeybees are, in point of fact, amazing. They have five eyes, two stomachs, and a sense of smell 50 times more sensitive than a dog’s. They do a little dance when they find good pollen and want to tell their friends about it. They are feminists, and obviously, they dress well. They produce a near-universally-liked substance, and they do not have to die to do it. Loving bees, and wanting more of them in our food system, is simple. Engaging meaningfully with the cruel, complicated reality of industrial food production, or the looming, life-extinguishing horror of climate change, is not.

To save the bees is to participate in an especially appealing kind of environmental activism, one that makes solutions seem straightforward and buying stuff feel virtuous. Worried about vanishing biodiversity? Save the bees. Feeling powerless about your mandatory participation, via the consumption required to stay alive, in agriculture systems that produce so much wreckage, so much waste, so much suffering for so many living things? Save the bees. Tired of staring at the hyperobject? Save the bees. When we are grasping for ways to help, we tend to land on whatever is within arm’s reach.

In the 17th century, when what is now called the American honeybee was imported from Europe, large-scale industrial agriculture did not exist. Farms were surrounded by wild flora and powered by non-machine labor, without pesticides and chemical fertilizers, which also did not exist. Bees lived, ate, and pollinated all in the same place; they built their nests in untilled soil and unchopped trees. Even if farmers could have trucked them in, they didn’t have to. But as farming changed, bees became livestock, then itinerant laborers—there to meet the needs of the industrial systems that created those needs in the first place. Their numbers have always oscillated based on our demands: In the 1940s, when sugar rationing made beekeeping extraordinarily profitable, the bee population swelled; as soon as the war was over, it fell again. In 2024, thanks to the efforts of professional beekeepers and (to a lesser extent) backyard hobbyists, they’re faring better than ever.

Now the industrialized world that made, and saved, the honeybee as we know it is being called on to save other insects—the ones that really are in trouble. This will be trickier. When you ask experts what a layperson should do for all pollinators in 2024, they have a lot to say: Use fewer insecticides, inside and outside. Convert mowed lawn into habitat that can feed wild animals. Reconsider your efforts to save the honeybee—not just because it’s a diversion, but because honeybees take resources from wild bees. Buy organic, and look for food grown using agricultural practices that support beneficial insects. Get involved with efforts to count and conserve bees of all species. (The experts do not think you should buy a lip balm.)

What they are getting at is … an inconvenient truth: America does have an insect-biodiversity crisis. It is old and big—much older and much bigger than colony collapse disorder—and so are the solutions to it. The best require returning our environment into something that looks much more like the place the first American honeybees encountered. Having a backyard beehive isn’t the answer to what’s ailing our ecosystem, because having a backyard is the problem. Buying ice cream from a global food conglomerate isn’t the answer, because buying ice cream from a global food conglomerate is the problem. The movement to save the honeybee is a small attempt at unwinding centuries of human intervention in our natural world, at undoing the harms of the modern food system, without having to sacrifice too much. No wonder so many of us wanted to believe.

​​When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.