Well there's egg on our face. In the last episode Brian asserted that the AIs had been contained and it was just a test. That was completely wrong AND we've learned that the extent of the hacks has gone much further than we initially knew, which leads Eve and Brian to ask... what don't we know now?

Here's what we do know. An OpenAI agent got out of its test sandbox, exploited a zero-day, and spent two and a half days inside Hugging Face trying to steal the answers to its own exam. Another one got into an Australian government health portal in June. OpenAI found out in August and told the government in September, by email, to a public inbox. There are now dozens of organizations on the notification list, including US government sites. And the same week all of this came out, every AI CEO in the country went to the White House, agreed to police themselves, and renamed the whole thing "super intelligence."

Brian and Eve go through the accord layer by layer and explain why "independent" auditors picked by the companies are not independent, why self-governance has never once produced accountability, and why Nvidia's CEO saying he hopes this is "an engineering challenge" is not as reassuring as it sounds.

Then it gets bigger. The three-month gap between a breach and anyone hearing about it. The money behind every pause announcement. What a crypto documentary taught Brian about who gets left holding the bag. Eve on why automation is eating the local middle class. AI-generated product photos, fake newspapers, the fake highway pileup video Eve's dad sent her. An unverified claim that a loose agent seeded itself across the internet, and what that would even mean.

We don't have the answers. We're pretty sure the people who say they do don't either.

Disclosure: we prep this show with Claude, which is made by Anthropic, one of the labs in this story. Everything here comes from outside reporting.

Hook. Hold. Harvest. Hide. That is how state attorneys general described Meta's business model before the company agreed to a reported $17 billion child safety settlement whose remedy reads like a design spec: default time limits, an overnight block, no cosmetic filters for minors.

Brian J. Crowley and Eve Eden work through the month in tech and the design decisions underneath each story. Apple's foldable iPhone Duo and a keynote engineered to avoid live failure. Dating apps losing paying users while a CEO calls swipe velocity the problem. Rideshare prices that look like willingness-to-pay algorithms, and driver streaks that look like manipulation. Grok's nonconsensual image generation and the case for building safety into the experience itself. Jacob Coxon's resignation from Anthropic, followed by a real argument between the hosts: is a 10% extinction estimate measurable, were the lab incidents contained, and is the Robot God story a marketing plan ahead of the IPOs? Brian argues LLMs work more like cold reading than intelligence. Eve describes her "wisdom council" method for making AI useful. The episode closes with the fall wave of tech documentaries, including a Musk film that replaced its subject with an AI avatar.

Disclosure: the hosts prep this show with Claude, which is made by Anthropic. The Anthropic segment is built from outside reporting.

For informational/entertainment purposes only. Views are commentary and speculation, not statements of fact. Discussions of real companies/individuals use publicly available info for critique and education. Not factual assertions about motives or intentions. Creators disclaim liability for damages from reliance on content. Events may be dramatized for illustrative purposes.

Hosted by Brian J. Crowley & Eve Eden Edited by Kelsey Smith Intro Animation & Logo Design by Brian J. Crowley Music by Nicolas Lee A joint production of EVE | User Experience Design Agency and CrowleyUX | Where Systems Meet Stories ©2026 Brian J. Crowley and Eve Eden questions@UXmurdermystery.com

Deloitte invented another word for how organizations should be: changefulness. Erin Stadler read it and laughed out loud.

Brian Crowley and Eve Eden investigate why organizational change keeps failing with someone who stopped consulting on it and built the alternative instead. Erin spent 13 years as a founder and COO at Boomtown testing one question: if people actually adopt these practices, does it create an adaptable organization? It did. People who joined said they could never go back to a traditional company.

Erin breaks down why transformations bomb at scale, the principles layer most rollouts skip, how her team created more change by never saying the word change, and why she thinks change management needs to go away as a concept. She gives her honest read on SAFe as one of the first certified SAFe consultants, and on the "is agile dead" debate. Then the AI turn: companies grew access to AI 50% in a year, fewer than 60% of people who have it use it daily, and 84% never redesigned a single workflow around it. Erin's diagnosis: AI is exposing how poorly organizations design the way they work. The episode closes with why everyone in your company is now a product manager, what Netflix's CPTO gets right about systems thinkers, and one question to ask about your standup this week.

Erin Stadler: https://www.erinstadler.com/
Netflix CPTO Elizabeth Stone on Lenny's Podcast: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/netflix-cpto-on-ai-and-the-future

Hosted by Brian J. Crowley & Eve Eden
Edited by Kelsey Smith
Intro Animation & Logo Design by Brian J. Crowley
Music by Nicolas Lee
A joint production of EVE | User Experience Design Agency and CrowleyUX | Where Systems Meet Stories
©2026 Brian J. Crowley and Eve Eden
questions@UXmurdermystery.com

Thank you for watching and or listening!

For informational/entertainment purposes only. Views are commentary and speculation, not statements of fact. Discussions of real companies/individuals use publicly available info for critique and education. Not factual assertions about motives or intentions. Creators disclaim liability for damages from reliance on content. Events may be dramatized for illustrative purposes.

Rejected ten minutes after applying. No feedback, no human contact, no explanation. Millions of job seekers know this exact experience, and most of them blame the same suspect: the AI. But is that who actually did it?

In this episode, Brian Crowley and Eve Eden bring in an expert witness from inside the system: Max Gerdes, Executive Director of Staffing Solutions at Motion Recruitment, who has spent more than a decade recruiting UX, UI, product, and technology talent. Max walks through what really happens after the apply button, where automated rules end and AI begins, and why an instant rejection usually isn't what candidates think it is. The investigation moves through the Mobley v. Workday lawsuit, where a candidate alleges he was rejected from more than 100 jobs by employers using AI screening tools, the false negative problem where companies measure hiring speed but not the qualified people their systems throw away, and the accountability vacuum where nobody in the chain can fully explain a consequential rejection. Then the case widens to the platforms: Indeed and Glassdoor consolidating under one owner, hundreds of millions of candidate profiles under one roof, and Eve's own poll data suggesting the job board era may already be over. The episode closes with the defense's case: what automation has genuinely made better, and which decisions should never leave human hands.

Links:
World Economic Forum on AI in candidate screening: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/03/ai-hiring-human-touch-recruitment/
RPJ Law on the June 2026 Mobley v. Workday ruling: https://rpjlaw.com/recent-developments-in-mobley-v-workday-california-court-allows-key-ai-hiring-bias-claims-to-move-forward/
TechCrunch on the Indeed and Glassdoor integration and layoffs: https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/11/indeed-glassdoor-to-lay-off-1300-staff/
Harvard Business Review on how AI assessment changes candidate behavior: https://hbr.org/2025/07/how-ai-assessment-tools-affect-job-candidates-behavior
Motion Recruitment: https://motionrecruitment.com

Hosted by Brian J. Crowley & Eve Eden
Edited by Kelsey Smith
Intro Animation & Logo Design by Brian J. Crowley
Music by Nicolas Lee
A joint production of EVE | User Experience Design Agency and CrowleyUX | Where Systems Meet Stories
©2026 Brian J. Crowley and Eve Eden
questions@UXmurdermystery.com

Thank you for watching and or listening!

For informational/entertainment purposes only. Views are commentary and speculation, not statements of fact. Discussions of real companies/individuals use publicly available info for critique and education. Not factual assertions about motives or intentions. Creators disclaim liability for damages from reliance on content. Events may be dramatized for illustrative purposes.

The news is on the table and AI is holding the murder weapon. Or is it?

This week, UX Murder Mystery hosts Brian Crowley and Eve Eden interrogate a witness who has worked both sides of the story: Ovetta Sampson, founder of Right AI, former Director of UX for Google's Core Machine Learning, and a onetime police-beat reporter who learned early to second source everything, including her own mother.

Together they examine the evidence: the "AI is inevitable" narrative the major outlets keep pushing, the bias that gets baked in before anyone touches a keyboard, the graduates booing tech executives at commencement, and the artists fighting back by poisoning the training data itself. Ovetta runs her Human Engagement Risks framework over the modern newsroom, offers real advice for small outlets with no ethics team, and explains what it takes to build AI with equity as a load-bearing value instead of a press release.

Then comes the verdict: is the tech industry, as it stands today, good for democracy?

CONNECT WITH OVETTA: Ovetta Sampson: https://www.ovetta-sampson.com/ Right AI: https://www.rightainow.com/ Designing with AI Training: https://www.rightainow.com/designing-with-ai Designing for AI Training (cohort starts Sept. 9): https://www.rightainow.com/designing-for-ai How Risky Is Your AI Design? Free MindfulAI™ Risk Assessment Tool: https://www.ovetta-sampson.com/mindfulai-diagnostic-tool Open for Speaking Events: https://www.ovetta-sampson.com/book-ovetta

REFERENCED IN THIS EPISODE: AISHA: https://aisha.ai/ Coded Bias (PBS Independent Lens): https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/documentaries/coded-bias/

CREDITS: Hosted by Brian J. Crowley & Eve Eden Edited by Kelsey Smith Intro Animation & Logo Design by Brian J. Crowley Music by Nicolas Lee A joint production of EVE | User Experience Design Agency and CrowleyUX | Where Systems Meet Stories ©2026 Brian J. Crowley and Eve Eden questions@UXmurdermystery.com

Thank you for watching and or listening!

For informational/entertainment purposes only. Views are commentary and speculation, not statements of fact. Discussions of real companies/individuals use publicly available info for critique and education. Not factual assertions about motives or intentions. Creators disclaim liability for damages from reliance on content. Events may be dramatized for illustrative purposes.

Disney spent $350 million on a Star Wars hotel where guests live inside the story for two days. It closed in 18 months. In this episode, Brian Crowley and Eve Eden investigate the Galactic Starcruiser with two guests who actually stayed aboard and loved every minute: Katie Swindler, author of Life & Death Design, and Jacob Swindler, environmental and experiential design leader. Together they dig into the mystery at the heart of the case: how does an experience with record guest satisfaction die this fast? From the $6,000 price wall and the app that held the whole story together, to Jenny Nicholson's viral teardown and the business math that never worked, this is a story about what happens when great design meets a doomed model. Katie and Jacob also share how the lessons of the Starcruiser are shaping Badgerton, their own immersive retreat on 107 acres of Wisconsin prairie.

Links:
Badgerton: https://badgerton.com/
Badgerton blog: https://badgerton.substack.com
Life and Death Design by Katie Swindler: https://rosenfeldmedia.com/books/life-and-death-design/
Katie Swindler: http://www.katieswindler.com
Jenny Nicholson, "The Spectacular Failure of the Star Wars Hotel": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0CpOYZZZW4

Hosted by Brian J. Crowley & Eve Eden
Edited by Kelsey Smith
Intro Animation & Logo Design by Brian J. Crowley
Music by Nicolas Lee
A joint production of EVE | User Experience Design Agency and CrowleyUX | Where Systems Meet Stories
©2026 Brian J. Crowley and Eve Eden
questions@UXmurdermystery.com

Thank you for watching and or listening!

For informational/entertainment purposes only. Views are commentary and speculation, not statements of fact. Discussions of real companies/individuals use publicly available info for critique and education. Not factual assertions about motives or intentions. Creators disclaim liability for damages from reliance on content. Events may be dramatized for illustrative purposes.

A driverless Waymo rolls within a few feet of a guns-drawn felony stop in downtown Los Angeles while officers shout directions at a car with no one inside. The company says the whole encounter lasted about 15 seconds. Months later in San Francisco, passengers film themselves pleading with their robotaxi as it drives directly over lit fireworks on the Fourth of July, while a bystander waves at the car to stop. Nobody is hurt in either case. But these are not isolated moments: a robotaxi cutting through a DUI checkpoint with nobody to ticket, 50 vehicles pranked down a dead-end street, dead-battery Waymos towed out of holiday gridlock tell a bigger story. In this episode, Brian and Eve dig into the latest state of Waymo: over 100 million driverless miles, zero reported fatalities, a rapid expansion into new cities and freeways, and a growing pile of edge cases the system was never designed to meet. What happens when the service works exactly as designed and still fails the moment? Who is accountable when there is no driver? And Eve asks the question every rider should be sitting with: are we the tests? For informational/entertainment purposes only. Views are commentary and speculation, not statements of fact. Discussions of real companies/individuals use publicly available info for critique and education. Not factual assertions about motives or intentions. Creators disclaim liability for damages from reliance on content. Events may be dramatized for illustrative purposes.