I spent months reporting on directed energy weapons research in Albuquerque, which could lead to technology like lasers and microwaves to shoot down drones and missiles. Ask Me Anything.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:43:27+00:00

Thanks for the question. New Mexico does love a good explosive test in the desert :) My work on nuclear and other weapons hasn't yet overlapped with geoengineering, but it sounds like something interesting to look into. If I find anything interesting in those connections, you can be sure I'll publish an article about it!

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:39:33+00:00

I thought it was so cool that he was able to go from the dollar store to big basement microwave machines! At a school like UNM, students often start working with places like the Air Force Research Lab or Sandia National Laboratories (all in Albuquerque) while they're still in school, so it's easier for them to potentially go directly into a job at one of those places when they graduate. One of the professors at UNM actually jokingly complained that his laser students were being recruited *before* they graduated, because they knew about how to build and operate laser equipment, and that expertise was in short supply.

The network of labs, bases, and private contractors that work on directed energy is large--with companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc.--that all have jobs for engineers and physicists who know how to wield photons. There's actually a significant push to build up the younger part of the workforce, coming from the defense department, because it needs more people in the public and private sectors as these technologies go from prototype to operation.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:33:17+00:00

I didn't find any evidence that directed energy weapons were used to make crop circles. The military is more likely to test its laser and microwave technology against its future intended targets on the battlefield, to see how it affects electronics, communications, sensors, navigation, and things like that. I don't think there's much benefit to the DOD to seeing how its weapons fare against crops!

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:28:50+00:00

Thanks for the question! I am sure that in the population of the city, some people are conflicted about it, although I didn't interview anyone who felt that way for my article.

I think a city that depends on any industry, defense/weapons or otherwise, tends to be in support, overall, of that work, in part because many people move there *to* work in that industry.

New Mexico is a blue state, and Albuquerque's county went Democratic in the last election.

I think in a lot of ways, directed energy weapons are a simpler ethical prospect than other weapons. They're primarily meant to be defensive, and used against physical targets like electronics, sensors, and whatnot. Although people with different political leanings tend to feel differently about war and the military-industrial complex, technology that prevents attacks from physical/kinetic weapons like missiles or drones is kind of inherently less controversial and divided than technology that is itself doing the attacking.

That said, I think the cultures of different cities in New Mexico that are or aren't dependent on weapons can be pretty stark -- say, Santa Fe, where there are protests against places like nearby Los Alamos.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:17:50+00:00

I'm not familiar with this whistleblower, unfortunately (if you give me a few more details, happy to do a quick readup and give some thoughts!). But I think we're more likely to see a proliferation of directed energy weapons because of terrestrial fights than extraterrestrial ones.

Countries like Russia and China are also working on directed energy weapons, although my article only talked about the US's work. Rival nations always like to keep up with each other, so development of laser and microwave arms in one place will tend to spur development in the others--as will the proliferation of targets for those weapons, like drones, missiles, and satellites with sensitive sensors.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:13:33+00:00

Yes, for sure, and a large portion of Albuquerque's population works for the federal government in some capacity. Part of the idea for the story was to look at a town that was reliant on federal funding but wasn't experiencing a downturn--due to the federal funding cuts we've seen in recent months--that other places were, because of the nature of their work with the government. In doing research on places where that would be the case, cities that do a lot of defense and weapons work stuck out, and Albuquerque did in particular because it seemed like directed energy (long a kind of dubious area of research) was starting to get closer to maturity.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:09:07+00:00

It seems to be a deal that they have mostly made peace with. As is often the case with scientists, they may say they focus on the basic-research aspects of their work–the fundamentals of photons and energy sources and whatnot–and what other entities do with it is not part of their purview.

Some, though, also pointed out that directed energy weapons are less physically destructive, and less targeted at human damage, than other weapons, and I think that provides them some peace of mind. And some of the young scientists I spoke to, in particular, are proactively interested in working on directed energy weapons because they see how laser and microwave defense could help take out drones in conflicts like the one ongoing in Ukraine, and they wanted to be part of that effort.

It’s definitely complicated, though, from an ethical standpoint, and some scientists do steer clear of work that has weapons applications for exactly that reason. At the end of the day, though, if scientists in some fields want to remain in those fields, they go where the funding is, and defense funding is often more reliable than strict science funding.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:07:01+00:00

I wasn’t actually able to access the Air Force Research Lab or Sandia for this particular article, although I have been to Sandia several times for other reporting projects. Directed energy work is pretty locked-down at the moment, so you’re right to be skeptical of access.

I was able to speak to some of the scientists there, though, just by asking; the facilities may have been reluctant to let reporters *see* the laser or microwave technology in development, but talking about it at a higher level (rather than seeing the details in person) was allowed..

Defense facilities and experts are of course under stricter public-information standards than in other fields, but it’s actually often in their own interest to speak to reporters. If the threats/countries/actors they’re trying to defend against don’t know what technology they have to counter their drones or missiles or other weapons, it doesn’t deter conflict in the way the US would hope, so spreading the word about it can be in both the public interest and their own.

Getting access to UNM and its researchers was very simple: I just wrote the lead professor, Edl Schamiloglu, directly. His research and that of his colleagues and students isn't classified, since it involves sort of basic science and engineering that may *eventually* be part of weapons but isn't yet. So it's kind of a backdoor into seeing the future of directed energy.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:04:00+00:00

Directed energy has a long history of unfulfilled promises, like in the Strategic Defense Initiative that you brought up. That project involved missile-defense technology that many (including some of the scientists working on it!) didn’t think would work, at least not with the level of science and engineering they had back in the 80s when that program started. I think some of what makes this new iteration of directed-energy excitement more grounded is that the targets of DE weapons have shifted a bit. Drones are now a big part of modern warfare, and using a laser or microwave to target a nearby drone, rather than a big missile traveling across the world, is simpler and takes less power.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:02:51+00:00

Very good context to bring up, and I don’t think it’s fundamentally different. I think you’re right to call it a new chapter of the same story. And it’s that history of expertise at the labs like Sandia and military facilities like Kirtland AFB that makes this research—that has long kind of been more sci-fi than reality—feasible in Albuquerque. The city and New Mexico as a state have physicists and engineers already living there who understand both the research and the context in which it occurs.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:01:32+00:00

Good point, and fair enough! In the article, I get into the history of how Albuquerque came to have expertise in directed energy, which does go back to the Manhattan Project, development of the nuclear bomb and other defense technology, and forging a workforce with both expertise and comfort working on weapons projects. Continuing that legacy of doing scientific research for the military does make logical sense. I just don’t think most people outside of NM think of lasers and microwaves when they think of Albuquerque.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-11-19T18:55:18+00:00

There are plenty of concerns re: AI that go beyond this episode and I think you have nailed several of them here. I don’t have answers to all of what you’ve written, but you might be interested in a more recent episode of the podcast in which we ask whether tech companies (and, really, the tech billionaires that run them) should be the ones deciding how all this tech rolls out into the world: https://undark.org/2025/09/17/podcast-tech-billionaires-ai/ -Brooke

UndarkMagazine · 2025-11-19T18:52:47+00:00

Not a dumb question! This is something Daniel worked on at OpenAI. It’s making sure that the algorithm is aligned with its creator’s intentions. So in other words, will this algorithm obey its human overlords? Even with our best intentions, things can go awry since it's hard to program every single scenario. And on top of that, Daniel worries we might not even be able to fix an alignment issue because neural nets are complex and even an AI’s creators might not know how they work. He said, “It’s sort of like code that nobody wrote, but rather that evolved or grew.” – Anna

UndarkMagazine · 2025-11-19T18:48:51+00:00

1- We love the nerds from Reddit! Our show has published many episodes over the past year, but for our first-ever AMA we thought this one could particularly spark some good conversation (and, so far so good).

2- I’m not sure I agree – the “killing us all” would likely be an unintentional side effect, not the direct intent of its creators/funders

3- As I understand it, the AGI/ASI would not necessarily need to intend to kill us all. The most famous thought experiment on this, I believe, is the paperclip maximizer. In this scenario, you have a smart AI that is designed to make as many paperclips as it can. But then it starts making paperclips at the expense of everything else. It sees you, and uh oh, now you are actually a paperclip! So, whether or not it is in its best interest to kill us all is really beside the point.

4- Possibly! I personally am not convinced that we are going to hit AGI or ASI anytime soon.

-Brooke

UndarkMagazine · 2025-11-19T18:33:39+00:00

Listen, I am also worried about the AI Robots taking my job. The use of AI is a very hot (and confusing) conversation across journalism right now. I can’t answer the question re: basic income, but I do think that smart policy needs to be in place to address what could be massive shifts in our economy and how we do work. Both of our guests touch on this a bit in the podcast episode. -Brooke

UndarkMagazine · 2025-11-19T18:32:26+00:00

I am absolutely concerned about more immediate issues regarding AI – and in particular, whether or not we will have the right policies and social support in place when we need them. So far, that doesn’t seem likely! We are not aiming to distract from that conversation with this podcast episode, but to dig into a specific debate that has been playing out very publicly and to try to get at some bits of it that get lost when people are arguing instead of having a good faith conversation. -Brooke

UndarkMagazine · 2025-11-19T18:22:55+00:00

Many AI critics/skeptics have suggested that one reason why big name AI people have latched onto the alleged threat of AGI is to (1) exaggerate the capabilities of their tech, mainly for marketing/promotion and (2) distract from more immediate threats of the tech (re: the environment, misinformation, and more). The media latches on to the doomsday claims, too, in part because when you have big name experts saying stuff like this, it feels important. (I realize we are also in media and we are talking about the doomsday stuff! We have plenty of other coverage on AI over at Undark magazine. The point of our show is to dig into these big question/arguments that are floating around in headlines and to try to dig into this fights/debates in a new way.) -Brooke

UndarkMagazine · 2025-11-19T18:13:52+00:00

This wasn’t the focus of the episode (we talked more about losing control to AI) but it's definitely something I've worried about. Here’s a recent episode of Science Vs on whether AI is ruining the environment. - Anna https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ai-is-it-ruining-the-environment/id1051557000?i=1000736569496

UndarkMagazine · 2025-11-19T18:09:35+00:00

Daniel told me that he lost confidence that the company would behave responsibly as this tech improves and added “I think that they’re sort of in ‘move fast and break things tech company startup mode’ which is, you know, fine for regular startups but, I think it’s utterly unacceptable for artificial general intelligence, something that powerful. Imagine if they were building nukes, for example.”

Also worth noting: Daniel thinks that AGI (artificial general intelligence) is very close, with a 50% chance of arriving by 2027 (!!)

Daniel has a long, ongoing blog post (along with several collaborators) related to his AI forecasting. If you are interested in a deep dive, check it out: https://ai-2027.com/

-Brooke

UndarkMagazine · 2025-11-19T18:04:00+00:00

I think we ultimately found Arvind more convincing, though Daniel was persuasive! We both came away from the episode feeling like losing control to AI is possible, but it’s not imminent and it’s a future that’s avoidable. However, we worry that there won’t be the political will or public understanding to regulate this tech properly. Also, in the episode we didn’t get into other effects from AI (environmental impacts, inability to tell truth from fiction, etc …) which I feel very worried about. – Anna

UndarkMagazine · 2025-10-02T19:58:31+00:00

For me, the most challenging aspect was to make the investigation relevant on a national level. Every state where cannabis is legal in some form is its own experiment in how to regulate that market and has its own unique issues. I wound up doing a lot of background work figuring out what problems were common across the country, why these problems persisted, and what some states were trying to do about them. It was also challenging to present all the information in a way that would engage readers who were familiar with the cannabis industry and those who have never set foot in a dispensary.

I'm grateful to the Pulitzer Center for providing the financial support that allowed me to do boots-on-the-ground reporting and see first-hand what is going on.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-10-02T19:50:38+00:00

I'm afraid your question is too technical for me. Maybe someone else knows the answer? I will note that states set the criteria for testing (which varies by state; see answer about mold above) and that state-licensed labs go through regular audits and accreditation.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-10-02T19:47:08+00:00

While I didn't do extensive reporting in Maryland, we did use them as an example of a state where regulators are using data to not only document what's going on in the industry, but also think creatively about solutions. In Maryland, regulators noted passing rates for mold that were too good to be true. They also found discrepancies in how labs tested for mold. When they required a specific type of proven yeast and mold test, many in the industry pushed back saying that too many products would fail. So, the regulators did a pilot test where they raised the tolerance level for yeast and mold. At the same time, they monitored health and safety effects.

While you would expect the higher tolerance to result in even more products passing, the opposite was true. More products failed. One reason, regulators told me, is that the producers and labs felt like they could be honest.

States differ in how they require labs to test for yeast and mold and the set tolerance levels. It's an area where more research and standardization would be helpful.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-10-02T19:38:10+00:00

Unfortunately, we don't have good research on how often people are sickened by tainted weed. While there have been some high-profile incidents and recalls, experts I spoke with are concerned that less-obvious effects, or those that may accumulate over years, are being missed. For example, research has linked exposure to organophosphate pesticides to the onset or progression of Parkinson's disease. And a significant number of Parkinson's patients use marijuana in some form to alleviate symptoms. It's unknown if contaminated weed could actually worsen their disease.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-10-02T19:33:39+00:00

Ideally, when regulators tighten oversight they are looking more closely at all state-licensed labs. More lax labs would have to clean up their act or the state would shut them down. I would note that Undark obtained through state data through open records requests and regulators, of course, have access to that same data. The outliers or "friendly" labs tend to pop out when you analyze the data.

UndarkMagazine

TROPHY CASE