Funding for To The Contrary provided by: This week on To The Contrary: A new daily first weight loss pill similar to Ozempic is approved in the U.S.

and AI slop.

What is that and how it's affecting people of all ages.

Hello, I'm Bonnie Erbé.

Welcome to To The Contrary, a discussion of news and social trend from a variety of perspectives.

Up first: weight loss A new daily weight loss pill is now an option in the U.S.

It can help people lose significant amounts of weight and may lower heart risks when used with diet and exercise.

It curbs appetite and has shown similar weight loss results to other GLP-1 drugs such as Ozempic in trials.

Many people prefer it to injections because it's easier to take and often cheaper.

Joining m this week are feminist activist Erin Matson, Washingto Examiner investigations editor Sarah Bedford, and Democratic commentator Nailah Amaru.

So the first question goes to Erin, and that is, is this a good development for women's health?

What I'm concerned about is that we are in a new era of heroin chic for women.

I am concerned about the reliance on weight loss pills or injections, but I am excited about the accessibility for more everyday people who may not have been able to afford these types of treatments before.

Things that seem too good to be true usually are.

And I wonder what the knock on effects of creating an easy button for getting thin will be to society and health in the medical community a few years down the road.

Well, if I may jump in, I think the main button, if you will, to be pushed here is all the side effects which make people— First of all it doesn't work for everybody.

One of my closest friends tried one of them and had to go off i because he wasn't losing weight.

Second, there are symptoms like people can't sleep.

Especially older people who have sleep problems already are made worse by going on some of these, what they call semaglutides, and they get sick to the stomach.

They have all kinds of problems.

So it's not what one would say is a cruelty free kind of way to lose weight.

And it's expensive.

And unless Donald Trump actually succeeds on one of his promises, it's going to be too expensive fo the vast majority of Americans.

So your thoughts, Nailah, on whether this is a cure all.

So I think that, you know, any pill or any injection is not going to be a panacea for everybody because we all have our own health histories, and own body chemistries that react to different treatments in different ways.

You know, as I said before, what I am excited about is the scalability and affordability if people should choose t want to use this as a treatment.

But as Erin mentioned before, you know, I do think there is a concern that we should have overall as a society abou why is there so much emphasis on the need to be thin, to lose weight specifically versus trying to be healthy.

And so I think that there's a really important nuance, particularly through a gender lens.

You know, as we thin about what type of treatments, health care, should be accessible for us, particularly as women, as you g through different stages in life and our body changes, our chemistry reacts to medications in different ways.

Oftentimes, which is not studied, in many different ways.

But overall, I always welcome health care breakthroughs that offer health care access in scale just through the lens of affordability.

But again, I do want to be mindful and very cautious of the need to be thin and to be skinn and why the focus is always on weight loss as opposed to being healthy.

Well, let me—Erin, let me ask you this.

Trum has made a whole lot of promises or just toss things out like he's going to make it happen and they never happen.

They go away and that's the end of that.

What about making semaglutide accessible financially for everybody in America?

Is that just another one of his, oh, I can—I'll wave my magic wand and make this happen.

Well, the magic wand doesn't seem to work very well, so we'll see what happens and how that plays out.

Now there is an issue about medication affordability across the board in this country.

Health care—I consider health care a human right.

Everyone should have access to the health care they need.

And if you in concert with your doctor determined that GLP-1 medication pill or for that matter, the injection is the best wa to support your health outcomes, then far be it for me, not for you to want to have that.

But I do want to go back to what Nailah referred to because this isn't happening in a vacuum.

We are in a moment right now for women, a cultural momen for women where there is intense pressure on bodies, standards and sizes.

I have fought for this tooth and nail with my wife.

I nearly died of anorexia when I was in high school and early college.

That is what informed why I became a feminist activist.

And I've watched with serious alarm.

If you look at and I'm no going to call people out by name because they— I believe that they're suffering and struggling.

But if you look at what's happening right now in Hollywood and women with the public eye, there are clearly people who are very, very ill.

And there is a standard that appears to be happening right now that is reminiscent of the mid 90s, when, you know, folks like Kat Moss and others were in fashion.

So I worry deeply about these drug and how they are impacting that laid against the overlay of, you know, the fact that AI and images are being touched up, laid up and overlay.

Even here I'm going to namecheck Marjorie Taylor Greene, which I never thought would occur on this show or anywhere in my life.

But recently, you know, talking to the New York Times about her concern, one of the things she said was kind of the MAGA look and the the extreme pressure on women right now to have a great deal of plastic surgery and sexualize themselves.

We are just in a very combustible area— era right now for women.

And so when these drugs become more available, I'm worried about people who are sick and hurting, feeling pressure to take them.

Sarah, do you think there's more pressure from the left or the right, or is this just a completely nonpartisan issue with no variables leaning toward either side?

Yeah, I don't really see this through a partisan lens.

I mean, all women want to be perceived as beautiful in society.

And Erin is totally right.

A knock on consequenc of the proliferation of GLP-1s is that it's sort of ended the body positivity movement.

You know, you actually don't need to love yourself.

There's a pill for that.

We'll take care of it.

And so I don't know that that was necessarily the intention of people who push GLP-1s and the sort of esthetic that it can create.

But Donald Trump calls it the fat shot, right?

When he's talking about it.

And a lot of people are jus using this for cosmetic purposes and sort of as a shortcu for the hard work and discipline that it used to take someone to get a hot bod.

And we don't know what the long term side effects will be of someon who loses all their muscle mass, and loses their ability to self-regulate their diet and things like that.

If they are able to access an affordable shortcut in the short term.

And that is something tha you know should concern folks.

But, you know, you talk about—several of you have talked about so far in this program, just about the fact that, now we're going to get away from judging people on looks, actually, the lower they make the weight requirements, for example, for heart health, for long health, the, the, the healthie they find Americans are getting.

So that what was acceptable ten years ago is no longer acceptable now.

It's too high.

Even though they lowered it ten years ago, they're going to lower it again.

That just happened to me.

And, so they seem to be adjusting based on these new drugs.

And is that a good thing?

Nailah.

Well, I think it's never a good thing whe we are depending on medications to create new floors or new ceilings, right.

Because then you'r creating a system that rewards the use of these types of medications, as opposed to maintaining a healthy diet and a healthy daily exercise routine, whatever it may be.

But I also think it's an important point when we're talking about the impact of health care coverage of like, you know, if you tend to be overweight, how it cost, right?

It cost us, and so there is an incentive to look for an easier, quick way to try and get back to this socially acceptable ideal weight, which I would also say, with someone who was the military was always classified as being overweight because my body is built differently.

Right.

But I did a lot of running and I did a lot of push ups.

And so I do think that there are certainly issues within how society and the medical community defines who is healthy and who is not based off as something as specific as numbers, which do not necessarily tell the accurate story of someone's overall health.

Sarah, what about the fact that they keep changing these numbers?

I mentioned it earlier, but I was judged by my doctor to be not diabetic, but pre-diabetic, and I had to bring my numbers way down, which I did.

And—but they keep—again, that's an area I was referring to.

It used to be, okay, if your numbers were up to, I'm just guessing here now, 110.

Now they want you below 100.

I went on one of those semaglutides and I got my number down to 69 and he said, oh, that's terrific.

And I thought, wha are you going to want next week?

Zero.

How are people supposed to deal with these constantly changing standards of health?

As long as those standards are informed by science and a better understanding in the medical community of what unhealthy versus healthy looks like, that seems like a good thing.

I suppose, maybe to let the science evolve where it needs to.

But when you're adjusting threshold levels about what fitness looks like in the military, what's considered overweight to address sort of cosmetic sensitivities or to fit what's in vogue in society.

That's where you sort of run into trouble, when you're starting t politicize the health industry to sort of fit what' shifting in society or culture.

And so that is perhaps another fear with widespread GLP-1 use.

But it really depends o why those numbers are shifting.

Well, are we encouraging people to try to drive their numbers too low?

Is there going to be— is there ever going to be a reaction saying, oh well, yeah, we wanted to get them below 100, bu we didn't want to get it to 50.

Well, I think one problem with the GLP-1s is that a lot of people aren' using them to get their numbers out of a pre-diabetic zone, right?

A lot of the cases that we're seeing, why it's becoming such a profitable area for pharmaceutical companies, is that most peopl who are new users of semaglutide are using it for cosmetic reasons, and while it is just objectivel true that when you are thinner, your heart has to work less hard.

And, you know, technically there's a correlation between heart health and losing weight.

You can take it too far quite easily.

And so there are a lot of issues that I mean, when this is presented as a fix-all, you start to stigmatiz people who are still overweight, who might not be able to afford them, or who, for whatever reason, don't want to try GLP-1s.

And you also always have peopl who will be chasing the extreme end of the esthetic that's in vogue.

And that is obviously unhealthy.

Nailah, I wonde with communities of color, is it as confusing, more confusing, less confusing to see these numbers going up and down, sideways and backwards?

Well, I can speak for myself and having worked, you know, I have lived and come from, you know different communities of color.

There are a lot of things that impact how—what we, associate as healthy and how our bodies are built.

I do remember an experience for the military was, it was the size of my hip that put me into the overweight category because they tape you, right.

And so my hips are bigger.

And so the number does not work in my favor.

So that automatically triggers a red flag, for me to be tested for my measurement of fat.

And so my—again and so—when we're talking about how different communities and groups of people, how we're built, you know, what type of foods we eat, what we think of as healthy.

I, you know, in my immediate family, no one has considered me overweight.

But when I was in the military, it was like, oh, you're going to go on the fat plan, you know, because I was like, you know, 1 or 2 pounds overweight.

And I have never been— I would say the weight that had to maintain in the military was not a healthy weight for me.

And so I had to starve myself and dehydrate myself in order to maintain a very arbitrary number in order to, you know, be able to go into basic training, maintain, so on and so forth.

But I do think it's different, right, not everyone is built like Barbie, right?

And that's okay.

But that doesn't mean that because we're not built like a Barbie does not mean that we are unhealthy.

And I would also argue tha Barbie herself is not healthy.

So I think that there are levels in terms of how people are built, the types of foo we associate as being healthy.

There's definitely a cultural aspect to that.

And that definitely oftentimes is in conflict with the medical community's definition of healthy.

And on the note of Barbie, I'd like to say, you know, there's some whove said that if Barbie were a human being, the Barbie doll, that she would actually have to crawl on all fours, because of the proportions are so out of whack.

And Bonnie, you've been talking about numbers.

And I really appreciate, Nailah sharing your story about wha was happening in the military.

I mean, one of the pieces, another backdrop to this, too, is that women, our bodies are inherently meant to carry a higher body fat percentage, and yet the entire medical system is built upon the male body.

There is a long standing, multi-decade issue of medical research being primarily conducted on men.

And so what happens is that our bodies, which are perfectly healthy right, maybe perfectly healthy, are being judged by male standards, in part because women haven't been the focus of the studies and the sample sizes.

And so that's one of the things that happens with these turbulent numbers that you're getting at the doctor where they're like, oh, now go do this.

Now go do this, or suggesting that women don't meet a certain standard.

And then just the last thing that I'd like to make sure is part of this conversation is that there is a robust movement that calls itself a fat acceptance movement.

That's their words, not mine.

And they make the argument that a number of the things that are being discussed, regarding weight, are actually related to other health issues and may—and that it is possible to have health on a number o metrics, even with more weight.

Now, again, I'm not going to stand in between an any individual and their doctor figuring out what is right for them.

But I think we do need to consider how much ant fat bias exists in the society, and how often weight is used as a stand in to talk about other metrics of health that we might be better served talking about with more specificity.

Interesting thought.

Why don't you all let us know what you think?

Follow me on X @BonnieErbe.

From health news to tech news.

AI generated content, or AI slop some call it, has become a major part of what people see online.

It shows up heavily in short form video feeds, social media, even children's publishing.

Some of it is quick, cheap and repetitive, and it spreads easily throug recommendations and algorithms.

At the same time, tech companies are pushin AI as a serious long term tool and trying to shift attentio from novelty to practical use.

Different generations are respondin in different ways, from children who like the fast movin images and endless catchphrases to older people who respond to sentimental and entertaining videos and pictures.

As AI becomes more common, questions about quality, creativity and how it shapes cultur are becoming harder to ignore.

So Nailah, what do you say about AI slop?

Is it a serious concern?

You know, I... I think that it's an interesting phenomenon because I, like many folks, you know, like to scroll through YouTube and I used to get an algorithm that, speaking of algorithms, that would suggest videos that were of interest to me, things that were long, like, you know, minimalism, cleaning, how to be a better person, personal development.

And as of late I have gotten really random videos, that when I watch them, and don't scroll past them, I feel lik I have lost several brain cells.

But clearly— But it's very interesting to me because they've been fairly consistent, which tells me people ar watching them in their entirety, and then looking for more because when they pop up to me, I look at it and then I swipe to the next one because I don't want to see it.

But it's interestin because there's not necessarily a relationshi between the content that I see in those videos and the history of what, what type of video I'm typically used to watching.

You know, like animals, puppies, you know, kittens, like, you know, things that are interesting to me.

There's not necessarily a relationship between the AI that is now being prompted to the top of my algorithm.

So.

So, Sarah, what's the answer?

Should there be more stringent regulation of AI and what goes in it?

Or is that just another way of censoring things that some people don't like?

I actually think the market is going to respond pretty strongly to this one, because I am certainly not alone in wanting that off my feed.

I don't want to look at it, and a lot of people don't want to look at AI slop.

AI is great for a lot of things: researching, meal planning.

It's not great for entertainment.

People don't want to see AI generated actors.

They don't want to see AI generated content in their feeds.

And so the first, if there's a social media company that can, on their own, figure out how to filter out that type of content or build a platform where you're only seeing authentic images and videos is probably going to perfor really well in the marketplace.

So regulation on just a specific area of AI content creation might not even be necessary because there, you know, take my money, if you figure out how to get this off of my feeds, right.

Anybody else want to jump in on that poin before we transition to another?

Yeah, I'll just say that I desperately— So I just completed a Master o Fine Arts and Creative Writing.

Good for you!

I desperately want the fact that we—thank you.

I desperately want the fact that we as humans in these weird bodie that do all these weird things, like, I want that to matter for some reason, I don't want it to just be a computer that makes up things and that that's the role of art is t just be generated by a computer.

And I think Sarah is absolutely right.

I mean, people don't want to see this junk.

It's absolutely absurd.

And I will say as a parent, another thing that I have noticed before wit my own daughter is on YouTube, there's already, even before the slop got so all over the place.

And it really is just disgusting stuff that makes you feel horrible after you see it.

Because it's just kind of mindless keeping your brain there, keeping you engaged.

But there's something— there's a preexisting issue with YouTube continues to serve peopl more and more extreme content.

And so my own daughter was watching these videos that she loved about toys.

And then all of a sudden here we see, like my husband and I se that she's watching on the iPad, and it's like Barbie's like barfing up green stuff.

And there's—and it felt like violent and weird.

And so adding AI into this mix, like it's the last thing I want.

And I imagine the last thing a number of parents want is this kind of stuf being served up to their kids.

And what's—I mean, that's a really tough one when it comes to crossing the line between what's good for kids, what's good for young people, what's good for people generally, and censorship.

You see a lot—a number of laws at the state level, even at the federal level, moving to deal with shielding children from access to certain social media platforms and certain types of content.

And the big tech companies and lobbyists certainly do try to portray that as a form of censorship.

But there's a real demand for that type of regulation, at least for minor children.

And so, you know, the— I think those laws are only going to grow in popularity, even though they're often portrayed as censorship.

Is AI slop— Does that include clearly useless media such as pornography such as things that don't teach anybody anything and just prey on people's psychological weaknesses?

I don't necessarily know.

I think that, you know, Erin made a really good poin earlier in terms of, you know, why we're drawn to the videos that we are.

You know, I subscribe to my channels because I find them interesting, whether it's a story line or I'm learning something from them, but from the AI slop that is pushed to the top of my algorithm, it isn't—feed me in any way.

Right?

It doesn't— I don't walk away from those videos asking a deeper question about life or having learned some interesting fact, which is typically how, you know, this may just be individual consumer behavior, but that's wh I watch the videos that I watch, because I find it entertaining in some way to me, in a very personal way.

And again, for me that is, I've learned something interesting or I felt good for 2 or 3 minutes watching puppies in a basket.

I don't get that from AI, right.

I don't see a storyline.

I don't feel a connection.

And perhaps, you know, as Sarah mentioned, that the market will control, you know, the direction and exhaustion of AI and whether it remains that slop or whether it has the potential to evolv into something more substantive.

And one last question on this topic.

We've talked about how some o this stuff is bad for children.

Some of it may also be bad for seniors.

Who knows?

But what should be done to police it, If anything?

Should there be a Department of AI Monitoring set up?

I don't know if necessarily a department that polices is going to necessarily solve the issue, because I think that it also reflects a broader issue, which is consumer literacy.

Right.

If it wasn't AI before, it was fake news or fake news in the form of videos or publications online that didn't come from verified sources.

And so I think, you know, while regulation and a department that monitors could certainly be helpful, I think the broader issue is really preparing people on how to be critical consumers of information, whether that is AI slop or whether that's, you know, taking a vlog on a website somewhere as an actual fact-based resource to us to better understand an issue.

And since there is no central authority governing AI, we will be here watching for you and we will do our best to put our thumbs u or point our fingers, whichever, when we see something that we think is more not goo for people than good for people.

That's it for this edition of To The Contrary, keep the conversation going on our social media platforms: Instagram, Facebook, X and TikTok.

Reach out to us @tothecontrary, visit our website, the address is on the screen and whether you agree or think to the contrary.

See you next time.

Funding for To The Contrary provided by: You're watching PBS.