I Cancelled My Unused Subscriptions. The Money I Saved Paid for a Tesla.

My new Tesla was burning a $511 hole in my monthly budget. So I set myself a challenge: Could I cover the cost just by getting rid of cable, Netflix and other subscriptions I didn’t need?

The financially responsible among us might cancel streaming services between seasons of their favourite shows . I tend to add new ones and forget about the old ones, doing my share to support America’s ballooning subscription economy. People pay about $273 a month for subscriptions, which is almost $200 more than they think they do, according to a 2021 survey . (Since then, services like Disney+ and Discovery+ have raised their prices further.)

But I needed to make room for the first car payment in my 41 years. I had taken the family car-shopping when our 2001 Toyota Camry, which we inherited from my wife’s grandmother, started to go. I’m not a car guy and had never once wished I’d owned a Tesla. I booked a demo drive for the Model Y because I thought our kids would get a kick out of it.

The fact that we liked the car was almost as surprising as the fact that it was cheaper than the electric Volvo, Volkswagen and Hyundai options we saw. It felt like a spaceship compared with the Camry, which has 205,000 miles, a broken tape deck and an interior stained with blue and yellow crayon.

Our new monthly payment covered a 12,000-miles-a-year lease with no down payment. Tesla estimated I would save about $100 a month from replacing gas with electric, though I would need to drive (and charge) the car to know for sure. Tesla’s app tracks my estimated savings. For now, that left us with $411 to cut from our other monthly expenses.

My wife was on board. My kids shrugged. I got out my notebook and started making a list.

Cutting the cord

My first stop was my Xfinity bill.

Somehow, it had swelled to $249 a month—basically half the price of the car. In addition to cable and internet, I’d been paying Xfinity for things like a landline because cell service can be spotty in my basement office. So long, landline. After cutting everything but internet, my bill fell to $107. I haven’t dropped a call yet.

Next were the streaming services that I’d been paying for but not watching much. Over the past few years, the only person in the house “watching” Netflix was me. And I wasn’t actually watching it. I was listening to episodes of “Seinfeld” in an earbud when I went to bed. The jokes and the rhythm of their back-and-forths were a pleasant send-off as I fell asleep.

I had joined the growing number of Americans ditching streaming services. I also broke up with BritBox, a streaming service that I’d counted on to watch Agatha Christie’s “Poirot,” as well as Apple TV+. I said goodbye to Hallmark Movies Now, which I’m not ashamed to admit I enjoyed every now and then.

Next up was AT&T .

Paying for cellphone service is like paying the water bill: something I did without protest and never really thought twice about. But I’d started to get curious about the ads I’d been seeing for low-cost services like Boost Mobile and Cricket Wireless. When we agreed to let our 13-year-old son have a phone, part of the deal was that he had to pay for and maintain the account himself. He got a plan with Mint Mobile. It has worked so well for him that we decided to give it a try.

We had been paying AT&T about $128 a month for two lines. Now, we’re paying Mint about $65. If there is a downside to making this move, I have yet to notice it.

I’m still paying for that?

Then my wife and I sat at our dining table going through the last couple months of transactions in our checking account. Seeing how much money we were wasting was painful. We were both paying for subscriptions to Canva, a graphic-design service.

We’ve also been paying for Zoom One Pro, which I probably haven’t used in more than a year. I attempted canceling SiriusXM, but they kept me around by dropping the cost by about $5 a month, which is nice because I have become obsessed with a channel dedicated to country artist and sometimes actor Dwight Yoakam.

Upon further consideration I axed subscriptions to IMDbPro and Encyclopaedia Britannica, which I’m sure I’ve used professionally, but…not for a while. Finally, I cut or got reduced rates on four of my digital subscriptions to news publications. I had been making monthly payments to them more often than I was reading them.

In the end, I was able to cut out about $358 in unnecessary bills and subscriptions. Added to the $100 in estimated gas savings, the cost dropped to $53 for a car we desperately needed.

And since the lease came with six months of free access at Tesla Superchargers, the Tesla app tells me I saved $164 by not pumping gas in January, exceeding the $100 I had estimated. In January at least, my car was free-ish.

“So I love and I hate what you did,” David Bach told me. The author of personal finance books like “Smart Couples Finish Rich” has long preached the merits of cutting out small, fixed expenses. But he’d rather have seen me invest the savings.

“If you’re already a millionaire, go enjoy the Tesla,” he said.

No regrets

It isn’t like we’ve had to revert to our DVD collection to entertain ourselves. We still have Disney+, Hulu, Max, the language-learning service Duolingo and, of course , Spotify. We get three print newspapers delivered and many more digital news subscriptions.

I’m reacquainting myself with some shows on the services I kept, like Billy Bob Thornton’s “Goliath” on Prime Video—featuring an exceptional performance from Dwight Yoakam.

It is possible we’ll start subscribing all over again. Americans resubscribe to about 23% of the larger streaming services they cut within three months. That share rises to over 40% after a year, according to Antenna, a subscription-analytics provider.

I get it. I subscribed to Paramount+ for Super Bowl Sunday (yes, I canceled it the following Tuesday). And I’m tempted to return to Netflix every time I get ready for bed. I still haven’t found a lullaby to replace “Seinfeld,” but at least I am the master of my (financial) domain.

I need something upbeat but not preachy, familiar, but with enough episodes that I don’t get too sick of them. I tried “Bob’s Burgers,” but Louise Belcher’s screams and the high-pitched strumming of the ukulele between scenes kept me awake.

Oh well. Reliable transportation is worth the $511 monthly payment. Come to think of it, that feels a lot like a subscription.

The newly minted Nobel laureate Geoffrey Hinton has a message about the artificial-intelligence systems he helped create: get more serious about safety or they could endanger humanity.

“I think we’re at a kind of bifurcation point in history where, in the next few years, we need to figure out if there’s a way to deal with that threat,” Hinton said in an interview Tuesday with a Nobel Prize official that mixed pride in his life’s work with warnings about the growing danger it poses.

The 76-year-old Hinton resigned from Google last year in part so he could talk more about the possibility that AI systems could escape human control and influence elections or power dangerous robots. Along with other experienced AI researchers, he has called on such companies as OpenAI, Meta Platforms and Alphabet -owned Google to devote more resources to the safety of the advanced systems that they are competing against each other to develop as quickly as possible.

Hinton’s Nobel win has provided a new platform for his doomsday warnings at the same time it celebrates his critical role in advancing the technologies fueling them. Hinton has argued that advanced AI systems are capable of understanding their outputs, a controversial view in research circles.

“Hopefully, it will make me more credible when I say these things really do understand what they’re saying,” he said of the prize.

Hinton’s views have pitted him against factions of the AI community that believe dwelling on doomsday scenarios needlessly slows technological progress or distracts from more immediate harms, such as discrimination against minority groups .

“I think that he’s a smart guy, but I think a lot of people have way overhyped the risk of these things, and that’s really convinced a lot of the general public that this is what we should be focusing on, not the more immediate harms of AI,” said Melanie Mitchell, a professor at the Santa Fe Institute, during a panel last year.

Hinton visited Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters Tuesday for an informal celebration, and some of the company’s top AI executives congratulated him on social media.

On Wednesday, other prominent Googlers specialising in AI were also awarded a Nobel Prize. Demis Hassabis, chief executive of Google DeepMind, and John M. Jumper, director at the AI lab, were part of a group of three scientists who won the chemistry prize for their work on predicting the shape of proteins.

Thinking like people

Hinton is sharing the Nobel Prize in physics with John Hopfield of Princeton University for their work since the 1980s on neural networks that process information in ways inspired by the human brain. That work is the basis for many of the AI technologies in use today, from ChatGPT’s humanlike conversations to Google Photos’ ability to recognise who is in every picture you take.

“Their contributions to connect fundamental concepts in physics with concepts in biology, not just AI—these concepts are still with us today,” said Yoshua Bengio , an AI researcher at the University of Montreal.

In 2012, Hinton worked with two of his University of Toronto graduate students, Alex Krizhevsky and Ilya Sutskever, on a neural network called AlexNet programmed to recognise images in photos. Until that point, computer algorithms had often been unable to tell that a picture of a dog was really a dog and not a cat or a car.

AlexNet’s blowout victory at a 2012 contest for image-recognition technology was a pivotal moment in the development of the modern AI boom, as it proved the power of neural nets over other approaches.

That same year, Hinton started a company with Krizhevsky and Sutskever that turned out to be short-lived. Google acquired it in 2013 in an auction against competitors including Baidu and Microsoft, paying $44 million essentially to hire the three men, according to the book “Genius Makers.” Hinton began splitting time between the University of Toronto and Google, where he continued research on neural networks.

Hinton is widely revered as a mentor for the current generation of top AI researchers including Sutskever, who co-founded OpenAI before leaving this spring to start a company called Safe Superintelligence.

Hinton received the 2018 Turing Award, a computer-science prize, for his work on neural networks alongside Bengio and a fellow AI researcher, Yann LeCun . The three are often referred to as the modern “godfathers of AI.”

Warnings of disaster

By 2023, Hinton had become alarmed about the consequences of building more powerful artificial intelligence. He began talking about the possibility that AI systems could escape the control of their creators and cause catastrophic harm to humanity. In doing so, he aligned himself with a vocal movement of people concerned about the existential risks of the technology.

“We’re in a situation that most people can’t even conceive of, which is that these digital intelligences are going to be a lot smarter than us, and if they want to get stuff done, they’re going to want to take control,” Hinton said in an interview last year.

Hinton announced he was leaving Google in spring 2023, saying he wanted to be able to freely discuss the dangers of AI without worrying about consequences for the company. Google had acted “very responsibly,” he said in an X post.

In the subsequent months, Hinton has spent much of his time speaking to policymakers and tech executives, including Elon Musk , about AI risks.

Hinton cosigned a paper last year saying companies doing AI work should allocate at least one-third of their research and development resources to ensuring the safety and ethical use of their systems.

“One thing governments can do is force the big companies to spend a lot more of their resources on safety research, so that for example companies like OpenAI can’t just put safety research on the back burner,” Hinton said in the Nobel interview.

An OpenAI spokeswoman said the company is proud of its safety work.

With Bengio and other researchers, Hinton supported an artificial-intelligence safety bill passed by the California Legislature this summer that would have required developers of large AI systems to take a number of steps to ensure they can’t cause catastrophic damage. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently vetoed the bill , which was opposed by most big tech companies including Google.

Hinton’s increased activism has put him in opposition to other respected researchers who believe his warnings are fantastical because AI is far from having the capability to cause serious harm.

“Their complete lack of understanding of the physical world and lack of planning abilities put them way below cat-level intelligence, never mind human-level,” LeCun wrote in a response to Hinton on X last year.