Entertainment
The AI vibe shift is real: Why the backlash is growing
You’ve heard of AI vibe coding, one dictionary’s phrase of the year for 2025. As of this week, 2026 is shaping up to be the year of the AI vibe shift.
You wouldn’t know the shift existed from the tech world’s top pronouncements of late; it is, after all, always sunny in Silicon Valley. Microsoft’s Build conference, like Google I/O in May, featured tons of techies talking about tokens, the metric by which AI prompts and answers are measured (a token, weirdly, is about three-quarters of a word on average).
Both conferences also centered claims about frontier AI that are dubious to say the least. DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis at Google I/O: “Artificial General Intelligence is just a few years away… we are standing in the foothills of the Singularity.” Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman: “scaling laws are holding… we are building towards what we call Humanist Superintelligence.”
Wall Street was still buying it, but investors were wavering. The ultimate AI bellwether, Nvidia stock, tumbled for a few days, rallied after CEO Jensen Huang insisted AI agents will run everything, everywhere in the future (presumably once they’ve stopped deleting databases), then got pummeled again on Friday.
Still, for now, Anthropic, OpenAI, and SpaceX continue to chase trillion-dollar IPOs, the latter based in large part on the untested concept of AI data centers in space.
Regardless, outside the AI bubble, a backlash has been brewing for some time — and not only among students booing pro-AI commencement speakers.
Just 10 percent of Americans say they’re thrilled about the future of AI, a Pew poll found in March; that same month, some 80 percent of registered U.S. voters in an NBC poll said neither Democrats nor Republicans are doing a good job on the AI front.
That number also appears in an April survey of white-collar workers: 80 percent are straight-up refusing to use AI even when it’s mandated. In the last 30 days, 54 percent of workers reported bypassing company AI tools and completing jobs themselves.
Those numbers suggest general strike-levels of discontent with AI across every industry, out there in the real America beyond Silicon Valley and Wall Street, if not an outright revolutionary mood.
Data center protests, fueled by the 70 percent of Americans who say they don’t want data centers near them, are only likely to grow going forward — especially now that they are producing tangible results.
At least 48 data center projects were blocked or delayed in 2025, according to Data Center Watch, and the fight is only getting more fierce. Take the planned Stratos data center in Utah, where local opposition just forced VC and Shark Tank investor Kevin O’Leary to downsize his land usage by 75 percent.
“We screwed up,” O’Leary told local TV news Friday. “We pissed off a lot of people.”
‘Let them eat tokens’
And the threat of electoral guillotines may explain why politicians are starting to propose serious action.
This week alone, Senator Bernie Sanders came out in favor of the U.S. public owning a 50 percent stake in AI companies, former presidential candidate Andrew Yang proposed an AI tax, and President Trump finally signed an executive order on AI regulation that his AI czar, Silicon Valley titan David Sacks, has long opposed.
On Friday, New York State legislators sent a one-year data center moratorium to the governor’s desk — and Trump seemed to come around to Sanders’ way of thinking on the government taking an ownership stake in OpenAI. Some who doubt OpenAI’s current worth saw it as a bailout.
The White House’s AI executive order was announced while Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella was making rosy pronouncements on AI at Build, adding to the surreal sense that we’re watching a tale of two worlds — the anti-AI people versus an out-of-touch AI regime that says, essentially, let them eat tokens.
But hold the revolution: Just below the surface (and the Microsoft Surface Ultra), the AI regime is showing signs of cracking all on its own — and it’s all down to those tokens.
Silicon Valley’s AI backlash begins
When it comes to AI true-believer companies, they don’t get much truer than Uber. The rideshare giant says 90 percent of its engineers use AI tools, mostly Anthropic’s Claude Code. As much as 10 percent of Uber’s codebase is written by AI agents.
Uber also had leaderboards that encouraged as much usage of AI tokens as possible; in Silicon Valley, this is known as tokenmaxxing, and it was really hot in 2025.
Then the tokenmaxxing bill came due. “The budget I thought I would need [for 2026] is blown away already,” CTO Neppalli Naga told The Information on April 14 — less than four months into the year.
At the time, however, the information didn’t make much of a dent in the AI news cycle — not until Uber’s COO confirmed what it meant at the end of May. Naga’s busted budget was a “head-exploding moment,” Andrew MacDonald told the Rapid Response podcast. Such spending “becomes harder to justify because AI is not free…we’re going to have to start talking about token consumption.”
Mashable Light Speed
Just like that, we started talking about token consumption. Axios reported an unnamed company had burned through half a billion dollars of tokens in a single month “after failing to put usage limits on Claude licenses.”
Next, we learned Amazon and Meta had shut down their own internal AI leaderboards; other companies like Walmart and Starbucks have scaled back their AI agent plans.
In a leaked email, one Amazon senior vice president told employees to “stop using AI just for the sake of using AI.” You’d be forgiven for thinking this obliterates a large chunk of OpenAI and Anthropic’s business model.
Both companies have spent years building models that, for the most part, consume more tokens. Now they’re promoting agents who can consume tokens on steroids — often as much as 24 times as a regular model.
As high-minded as their missions might be, both companies are in it to sell tokens.
Why tokenmaxxing died
A scene from a data center protest in Tucson, Arizona.
Credit: Mamta Popat/Arizona Daily Star via Getty Images
Some AI leaders, sensing the shift in the wind, are starting to say that sort of thing openly. Ravi Kumar S., CEO of AI IT firm Cognizant, called tokenmaxxing “a vanity metric” at a Fortune conference on Monday. Kumar took aim at OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei, accusing them of “fearmongering.”
Altman and Amodei have walked back previous predictions of an AI jobs apocalypse now that they have IPOs in the offing — reason enough for a vibe shift of its own. But what’s really hurting the two CEOs is that they’re also cashing in on user confusion over the complex cost of AI.
Earlier this year, Anthropic quietly changed the price of Claude for many customers, charging them per token. OpenAI is looking at dropping its “unlimited” ChatGPT plans — quite a change from a year ago, when Altman promised “intelligence too cheap to meter.”
The shift isn’t just happening at the two AI giants. Microsoft started cutting token costs for itself and raising token prices for everyone else — even before those rosy pronouncements at Build.
Microsoft began revoking developers’ access to Claude Code, pushing them to Microsoft Copilot instead, in May. On June 1, Github Copilot users were switched from a fixed subscription to a per-token subscription model.
Reddit filled with angry users noting how expensive their AI prompts have suddenly become. In one extreme case, a Claude user blew 50 percent of his monthly credits on a single prompt.
“At the beginning of the year,” Altman said in an OpenAI livestream this week, “people were totally happy with the amount they were spending… now, all of a sudden [it’s] a huge issue.” In a CNBC interview Monday, Altman admitted to a “ton of waste” in AI spending, and said companies were asking, “how long do I have to wait for [AI benefits] to show up in revenue?”
This was, Altman said, a “fair issue.” And the closest Altman came to an answer? “The industry will figure that out pretty quickly… in another year or two.”
Will the vibe shift burst the AI bubble?
How long OpenAI and Anthropic have to figure out this issue, however, depends largely on what happens in their IPOs.
“Nobody knows when this will all collapse, but 2026 will be remembered in hindsight as the year in which retail investors were left holding the bag,” Gary Marcus, a professor and leading generative AI critic, predicted Monday.
Marcus, who has been increasingly proven right in the AI problems he’s foreseen since 2022, may yet be off base here. But he does have a hunch, based on comments from Anthropic cofounder Daniela Amodei, that both companies had burned so much money they were “months from bankruptcy” and had “run out of options” other than to file for trillion-dollar IPOs.
In particular, OpenAI has long been losing more than a billion dollars a month — the cost of serving ChatGPT for free to hundreds of millions of people.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
Financial bubbles built around technologies invariably end with an Emperor’s New Clothes moment. Eventually, enough people are pointing and laughing that courtiers can’t carry off the hype any longer.
That’s what happened to end the dotcom bubble in 2000. A business deal came along that was so ridiculous on its surface (the world’s largest media empire, snapped up by the guys who gave away dial-up internet via CDs?!) that markets couldn’t help but point and laugh. The vibe shifted. Overhyped, profitless dotcom companies began to look naked, and a stock collapse soon followed.
Human hiring and hallucinations
Times have changed, and the AI bubble is a hardier thing than its dotcom predecessor. It is built atop the one company currently making a fortune out of all this. NVIDIA has sold the picks and shovels to AI gold rush seekers for so many years now that they’ve started to seem invulnerable. Yet even Nvidia is learning lessons about the prohibitive growing cost of AI.
“The cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees,” one Nvidia executive told Axios in April. So even Nvidia is vulnerable to tokenmaxxing. And that’s why the hottest thing in AI these days is hiring humans, because they’re getting to be cheaper than AI — and are needed for quality control on AI’s output anyway.
Cognizant’s Kumar boasted about his AI company hiring 20,000 graduates last year, and more this year — a vibe shift if ever we’ve seen one.
So the jobspocalypse vibe has shifted. The tokens vibe has shifted. And the AI data center-building vibe has shifted, too — not just in terms of public and environmental opposition, but in the fact that there aren’t as many data centers under construction as we’d been led to expect. (Gadfly journalist Ed Zitron has done yeoman’s work here, scouring satellite photos of data center sites for signs of construction).
What’s left? Arguably, the only vibe that hasn’t shifted is the hallucination vibe, in that users still aren’t aware how often most AI models hallucinate. Google, for example, won’t say how often Gemini 3.5 Flash hallucinates, but a December Google study found that Gemini may only be accurate 68.8 to 83.8 percent of the time.
And hallucinations aren’t hard to find these days. The hallucination that OpenAI, Anthropic, and SpaceX are genuine trillion-dollar AI giants that deserve to be listed in top index funds despite being unprofitable (breaking news: as I wrote this, the S&P 500 officially opted out of that hallucination).
The hallucination that Nvidia will always remain on top, even as companies making up a majority of its business are developing their own AI chips (which is exactly why Michael Burry, the Big Short guy, continues to short the stock).
The hallucination that customers want AI in everything, when survey after survey says the opposite. The hallucination that AI content will dominate the future, when the generation that will take us there points and laughs at AI slop.
If these hallucinations fade from the fevered brains of Silicon Valley and Wall Street, the great AI vibe shift of 2026 will be complete.
This article reflects the opinion of the author.
Disclosure: Ziff Davis, Mashable’s parent company, in April 2025 filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.
Entertainment
R-Rated 90s Sci-Fi Thriller Somehow Has Better CGI Than Most Movies Today
By Robert Scucci
| Published
I’ve been putting it off for a very long time, but I finally revisited 1999’s Deep Blue Sea this past weekend, and I’m so glad I did. The funny thing about movies from this era is that the CGI is pretty terrible because it was relatively new technology, generally speaking. I remember laughing at the creature design when I was 11 years old, but after a few decades of CGI in movies somehow getting exceptionally worse, I was actually impressed by what I saw.
I think Deep Blue Sea’s real charm is its willingness to show us the monster, which is normally the worst thing you can do. Have you seen the Jurassic World movies or Disney’s Haunted Mansion (2023)? The screen is so dark during some sequences that you can’t even see what’s going on half the time, and it’s by design. Bury the CGI in darkness and nobody will notice how bad it is. But here’s the problem: nobody can see what the heck is going on, so everybody loses.
Deep Blue Sea, on the other hand, shows us shark attacks up close, for better or worse. Fortunately, everybody brings their A game to the table, and it never feels like a bunch of actors on a soundstage talking to a green screen. It feels lived in, even if it doesn’t always look like it. The moral here is that if you thought movies like Deep Blue Sea were crappy back in the ’90s because of their visual effects, it’s time to revisit them. They look so much better by comparison when pitted against the crap coming out today.
Let’s Make An Apex Predator Even Smarter, What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
Oh boy, where do we begin? Deep Blue Sea centers on the idea that shark brain tissue may be the key to curing, or at the very least slowing, the damage caused by Alzheimer’s disease. We’re introduced to doctors Susan McCallister (Saffron Burrows) and Jim Whitlock (Stellan Skarsgard), who are basically trying to play God in their underwater research compound. When one of the sharks escapes and wreaks havoc on the public, Samuel L. Jackson’s Russel Franklin, a corporate executive, is sent down to see what all the hubbub is about.
While visiting, he’s introduced to ex-con shark wrangler Carter Blake (Thomas Jane), marine biologist Janice Higgins (Jacqueline McKenzie), and engineer Tom Scoggins (Michael Rapaport), who are all moments away from watching all hell break loose in the form of a super-intelligent shark destroying the facility and eating anybody who gets in its way. Their one goal is to escape back into the ocean, which would be a terrible outcome because we soon find out that, in order to speed up their research, the scientists genetically engineered the sharks to have larger brains. That means there’s not only instinct behind all those razor-sharp rows of teeth, but advanced intelligence as well.
It wouldn’t be an action thriller without some comic relief, though, and that’s where LL Cool J’s Sherman Dudley comes in. Sherman spends most of his time cooking for the crew, quoting scripture, and getting into verbal spats with his pet parrot. He knows how to make the perfect omelet, and he wants the world to know it more than anything else.
Straight Up Popcorn Spectacle That We Should Fully Embrace
Deep Blue Sea is one of those movies you go into with low expectations thanks to hindsight and the film’s reputation for swinging and missing with its special effects. But even Roger Ebert, who once commented that the sharks looked like cartoons, gave the movie three out of four stars for being an effective thriller. Once the setup is out of the way, the whole thing is basically one action sequence after another in rapid succession, and sometimes that’s all you need from a movie.
The best way to think about Deep Blue Sea is as a big-budget B movie. It’s your standard monster movie survival fare, but with $82 million thrown at it, and it couldn’t be cast more perfectly. While it’s a far cry from Jaws, it still has a lot more going for it than the Sharknado films when it comes to set design and its overall level of seriousness.
Don’t get me wrong, Deep Blue Sea is a fun movie and has plenty of comic relief to go around, but at the end of the day it’s a big-budget sci-fi thriller that holds up shockingly well nearly 30 years after it made its initial splash.
As of this writing, Deep Blue Sea is streaming for free on Tubi.
Entertainment
Phoebe Gatess Phia helped shoppers find deals — and may have helped itself to commissions
Phia’s browser extension was supposed to help shoppers find better deals, but it may also have redirected affiliate commissions to itself. Let us explain.
A celebrity-backed shopping startup co-founded by Bill Gates‘s daughter Phoebe Gates and her former Stanford University roommate Sophia Kianni has been suspended from affiliate platform Impact.com. The suspension came after a July 9 Bloomberg investigation found that its browser extension claimed credit for purchases it did not actually generate.
Testing conducted separately by Bloomberg, Capital One Shopping, and independent researcher Ben Edelman found that Phia could silently open a new browser tab during checkout and load its own affiliate link to the retailer. In some cases, that replaced the tracking code belonging to the website, advertisement, or publisher that originally sent the shopper there.
The practice is known as “cookie stuffing” or attribution fraud. In plain terms, Phia could receive credit, and potentially a commission, for a purchase even when the shopper had not discovered the product through Phia or interacted with one of its recommendations.
Our big Guessing Game is back! Enter now for a chance to win an Apple watch.
Affiliate marketing normally works by assigning a unique link to a publisher, creator, or shopping platform. When a shopper follows that link and completes a purchase, the retailer can identify which affiliate generated the sale and pay it a commission.
According to Bloomberg, Phia’s extension sometimes inserted itself at the end of that process. A shopper could arrive at a retailer independently or through another publisher, only for Phia to replace the original referral code as the shopper approached checkout.
In one test described in the investigation, Bloomberg followed a Nordstrom link from a Wirecutter article about Fourth of July deals. Phia allegedly opened another tab in the background during checkout and replaced Wirecutter’s referral information with its own. The extension reportedly behaved similarly when Bloomberg reached a shopping site through a paid advertisement from another publisher.
Impact.com suspended the company after being alerted to the behavior, and the platform told Bloomberg that activity within the extension appeared to be inconsistent with its policies and that it was reviewing potentially affected transactions. Social media immediately was abuzz with conversation, with some people upset while some defend the 23-year-old co-founder.
Mashable Trend Report
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
Phia acknowledged that there had been a problem, although the company characterized it as a software issue rather than an intentional business practice.
“Within the last 24 hours, we were made aware that in a recent release our codebase was causing misattributions from a subset of users,” a Phia spokesperson told Bloomberg. The company said its team worked through the night to identify and correct the issue.
Bloomberg retested the extension after contacting Phia and found that it had stopped automatically claiming the referral click. Independent researchers also reportedly confirmed that the behavior was no longer occurring. It remains unclear whether the fix will be enough to satisfy Impact.com, retailers, and other affiliate partners reviewing the affected transactions.
Phia launched in April 2025 as an AI-powered shopping assistant available through a mobile app and browser extension. The product is often described as a version of Google Flights for shopping. While someone browses clothing or accessories online, Phia searches more than 40,000 retail and resale websites for the same item, similar products, lower prices, and discount codes. It can also compare a full-price product with secondhand listings, helping shoppers decide whether to buy it new or look for a cheaper resale option.
The company makes money in part through affiliate commissions. When Phia directs a user to a retailer and that person completes a purchase through its link, the retailer may pay the startup a percentage of the sale. That makes accurate referral tracking central to Phia’s business model: The code attached to the purchase determines which platform gets credit and potentially gets paid.
Phia grew quickly after its launch. Within its first week, the app reportedly reached No. 21 on Apple’s App Store and by September 2025, the company said it had crossed 500,000 downloads.
Its funding grew almost as quickly. Phia raised an $8 million seed round in September 2025, followed by roughly $35 million in additional funding in January 2026. The later round pushed its reported valuation to approximately $185 million less than a year after launch and brought its total funding to more than $43 million.
Phia has also attracted an investor roster that looks less like a cap table and more like a Coachella lineup. Backers include Khloé Kardashian, Hailey Bieber, Sydney Sweeney, Paris Hilton, Priyanka Chopra Jonas, Jessica Alba, Mindy Kaling, Ice Spice, Alix Earle, Karlie Kloss, and The Chainsmokers, alongside a collection of tech executives and venture capital firms.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
Some have compared the situation to Honey, the PayPal-owned coupon extension that has also been accused of replacing creators’ affiliate links with its own during checkout. Honey remains the subject of an ongoing class action lawsuit, and PayPal has disputed claims that the extension improperly took commissions from creators.
The Phia allegations also arrive after an earlier controversy involving the amount of information collected by its browser extension. In November 2025, cybersecurity researchers found that the extension was transmitting copies of webpages users visited back to the company’s servers, including pages unrelated to shopping.
Those pages could include sensitive websites such as email inboxes and bank accounts, according to the report. Phia said the data was anonymous, was used to determine which websites involved shopping, and was not stored. The company removed the feature after concerns were raised and said it would limit its collection to website URLs.
Phia says the affiliate issue has been fixed, but Impact.com is still reviewing what happened and whether any transactions require further action. The extension may have stopped opening tabs in the background, but Phia’s affiliate business is now getting a very public checkout.
Topics
Artificial Intelligence
Entertainment
How to watch Norway vs. England online for free
TL;DR: Live stream Norway vs. England in the 2026 FIFA World Cup for free on ITVX. Access this free streaming platform from anywhere in the world with ExpressVPN, an Official Supporter of the FIFA World Cup 2026.
The 2026 FIFA World Cup is reaching its dramatic conclusion. One half of the semi-final stage has already been decided, and now Norway face off against England for a place in the final four.
England came through an epic clash with Mexico in the last round, relying on goals from Bellingham and Kane. Norway shocked the world by beating Brazil thanks to two goals from Erling Haaland. Can the Manchester City striker do the same against England? It’s going to be a fascinating battle between two confident sides.
If you want to watch Norway vs. England in the 2026 FIFA World Cup from anywhere in the world, we have all the information you need.
When is Norway vs. England?
Norway vs. England in the 2026 FIFA World Cup kicks off at 5 p.m. ET on July 11. This fixture takes place at the Miami Stadium.
How to watch Norway vs. England for free
Norway vs. England in the 2026 FIFA World Cup is available to live stream for free on ITVX.
Mashable Top Stories
ITVX is geo-restricted to the UK, but anyone can access this free streaming platform with a VPN. These tools can hide your real IP address (digital location) and connect you to a secure server in the UK, meaning you can unblock ITVX to live stream the 2026 World Cup for free from anywhere in the world.
Live stream Norway vs. England for free by following these simple steps:
-
Subscribe to a streaming-friendly VPN (we recommend ExpressVPN)
-
Download the app to your device of choice (the best VPNs have apps for Windows, Mac, iOS, Android, Linux, and more)
-
Open up the app and connect to a server in the UK
-
Visit ITVX
-
Watch Norway vs. England for free from anywhere in the world
$12.99 only at ExpressVPN
The best VPNs for streaming are not free, but most do offer free-trials or money-back guarantees. By leveraging these offers, you can access free live streams of the 2026 World Cup without actually spending anything. This obviously isn’t a long-term solution, but it does give you enough time to stream Norway vs. England (plus more World Cup fixtures) before recovering your investment.
ExpressVPN’s regular 30-day money-back guarantee is not available for any subscriptions purchased during the FIFA World Cup between June 10 and July 11. ExpressVPN remains our top pick for sport, but you will need to pay the monthly rate. Alternatively, Proton VPN still offers that all-important money-back guarantee.
What is the best VPN for ITVX?
ExpressVPN is the best choice for bypassing geo-restrictions to stream live sport on ITVX, for a number of reasons:
-
Servers in 105 countries including the UK
-
Easy-to-use app available on all major devices including iPhone, Android, Windows, Mac, and more
-
Strict no-logging policy so your data is secure
-
Fast connection speeds free from throttling
-
Up to 10 simultaneous connections
A two-year subscription to ExpressVPN is on sale for $68.40 and includes an extra four months for free — 81% off for a limited time. Alternatively, you can get a one-month plan for just $12.99. That covers you for the duration of the World Cup.
Live stream Norway vs. England in the 2026 FIFA World Cup for free.
R-Rated 90s Sci-Fi Thriller Somehow Has Better CGI Than Most Movies Today
Giants, Rockies have little turnaround time for next contest
