This digest compiles the latest from VOX.
Today’s VOX Roundup
What baseball’s “robot umpires” tell us about the future of work
25 Mar 2026, 12:30 pm by Bryan Walsh
For a sport that’s more than 150 years old, the opening of the 2026 Major League Baseball season is set to feature an unusual number of firsts. The official Opening Day on March 26 is the earliest in baseball history. The first official game of the season tonight between the Giants and the Yankees — which is Opening Night, not Opening Day, totally different — will be the first-ever game streamed on Netflix.
And chances are that some time during that game, a player will tap his helmet or hat after a pitch is thrown, challenging the umpire’s call and triggering baseball’s first-ever Automated Ball-Strike (ABS) system review. The robot umpires are here.
The system is remarkably straightforward. Each team gets two challenges per game, retaining them if successful, losing them if wrong. Only the pitcher, catcher, or batter can challenge, only over balls and strikes calls, and only within two seconds of the pitch.
Once a challenge is made, a network of 12 high-speed cameras installed around the stadium tracks the pitch’s exact location, and then software creates a 3D model of the pitch’s trajectory — on the Jumbotron for everyone to see — against the batter’s individualized strike zone. The verdict is made instantly. The umpire doesn’t go to a monitor and reconsider for minutes, like in NFL or NBA replay. He is merely the conduit to announce what the machine has decided.
This change should in theory make everyone better off. Teams have an appeal in the event of a potential blown call at a crucial moment (such as the brutal game-ending strike call for the Dominican Republic in this month’s World Baseball Classic). Challenges are limited and rapidly decided, so the game doesn’t slow down. The automated system is accurate to within 0.25 inches — roughly the width of a pencil — and quick enough to catch an Aroldis Chapman 103-mph fastball. Human umpires are still largely in charge of the game.
All in all, the ABS system appears to be an ideal compromise — preserving human judgement while allowing machines to correct the worst mistakes. While the system isn’t AI-powered, it seems like an example of how humans and AI could fruitfully work together in the future, with humans firmly in the loop but aided by the machines.
Except there’s a problem with splitting the difference between human and machine. Once you’ve conceded that the machine is the final authority on whether a call is right — which is exactly what baseball has done here — you’ve quietly eliminated the case for having the human there at all. What might seem like a stable equilibrium isn’t stable at all.
Calling balls and strikes
You can see this breakdown already underway in the minor leagues, which has been experimenting with the ABS system for years. Baseball reporter Jayson Stark has written about umpires in the AAA minors who, having grown tired of being overturned for all to see by the machine, began to change the way they handled the game, “calling balls and strikes the way they think the robot would call them.”
Because the league has given the machine final say, the human behind the mask doesn’t stay independent — he starts mimicking the machine. The umpire — once the lord of the diamond, whose word was law — becomes in effect the rough draft for the AI. Human knowledge and expertise becomes degraded.
To which a baseball fan might respond, perhaps with more colorful language, “they’re all bums anyway.” Which wouldn’t be quite fair to our carbon-based umpires, not that fairness to umps has ever been a concern for baseball fans. MLB estimates that umpires call 94 percent of pitches correctly, which on one hand is good — I’m not sure I’m 94 percent accurate on anything — but on the other hand, means they’re still making mistakes on around 17 or 18 pitches a game on average.
And even though the data suggests umpires have actually been getting better, we’re now able to see replays and precise pitch-tracking data that make it crystal clear just when a call has been blown. A guy named Ethan Singer even created an independent project called Umpire Scorecards, which uses publicly available Statcast/pitch tracking data to score every umpire, every game. The new ABS system just ratifies what previous technology made obvious years ago.
So the technological assault on the umpire’s authority has been underway for some time, and while even the ABS system has its margin of error, the end result of introducing machines will be a more accurately called game. But real human skills will be lost along the way. The best catchers are experts at framing pitches to make them look like strikes, even if they aren’t. Good batters learn an umpire’s individual strike zone and adjust game to game. (The Red Sox great Ted Williams used to say there were three strike zones: his own, the pitcher’s, and the umpire’s.) All of these skills were built on human imperfection, and all of them will become less valuable even as machines make the game “fairer.”
The one-way street of automation
To get a glimpse of baseball’s possible future, just look at tennis.
In 2006, pro tennis introduced the Hawk-Eye challenges, which allowed players to appeal a limited number of line calls to an automated camera system. The players were, initially, not fans. (As Marat Safin put it: “Who was the genius who came up with this stupid idea?”)
But the logic, especially as the sport got faster and faster, was undeniable. By 2020, the US Open had eliminated human line judging altogether, and Wimbledon followed suit in 2025. Human umpires are still employed, but mostly for the purposes of match management; i.e., shushing the crowd. The challenge system turned out to be just a stop on the path to near full-scale automation. And now baseball is stepping onto the same road.
The ABS system is what you get when an institution knows that the machine is better at the job but isn’t ready to say so. That’s exactly the position that a lot of organizations find themselves in right now, as AI grows ever more capable. The result, for the moment, tends to be a hybrid approach that leaves too many workers feeling stressed and disempowered, while failing to capture the benefits of more complete automation.
But over time, automation tends to prove to be a one-way street. The question isn’t whether machines will eventually call balls and strikes. It’s how much longer the halfway point can hold — for those umpires we love to hate, and for the rest of us.
A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here!
How Iran’s cheap drones are changing warfare
25 Mar 2026, 10:30 am by Hady Mawajdeh
After more than three weeks of war in Iran, the US has destroyed major components of Iran’s military, including ballistic missile sites and much of the country’s navy.
One advantage Iran retains, though, is the Shahed-136. The Shahed, a one-way, single-use attack drone, is small, inexpensive, and highly accurate. Iranian drone attacks have led to the death of six US service members, damaged oil and natural gas facilities in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, and are quickly depleting America’s interceptor stockpiles.
Michael C. Horowitz is a senior fellow for technology and innovation at the Council on Foreign Relations and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. He says these drones have ushered in a new era of warfare: “The way that I would think about this is just like the introduction of the machine gun at scale in World War I,” he told Today, Explained co-host Noel King.
Noel talks with Horowitz about what the drones can do, how the US can counter them, and what they mean for the future of warfare.
Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
The US has done damage to Iran’s missile sites and military bases. But Iran still has cheap, easy-to-assemble drones that pose a real threat on the battlefield. Michael Horowitz, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, tell us about them drones!
These one-way attack drones, like the Shahed-136, are used essentially as a substitute for a cruise missile. Iran is using them to do things like target American air defense radars, which are necessary to find other drones and shoot them down. Iran is using them to target government buildings like embassies. Iran is using them to target critical infrastructure that countries in the Middle East use for oil and gas.
The thing that somebody like me worries about is that American aircraft carriers in general are extremely well protected. A drone in and of itself would never take out an American aircraft carrier. They’re just too small. But a lot of them could. And the real risk here is that suppose you fired not one, not a hundred, but 500 at an American aircraft carrier at once. Even if the US could shoot down 450 of them, that’s still a lot that are getting through it.
The scale of these one-way attack drones that you can launch generates the potential ability to not just target the kinds of infrastructure and things that we’re seeing Iran doing, but really important military targets as well, including our ships.
Iran presumably does not have an infinite number of these drones. How many do they actually have on hand?
We don’t actually know exactly how many Iran has on hand, but we know that they have thousands. We also know, for example, that Russia has the ability to produce a thousand or more every couple of weeks of their knockoff of the Shahed-136.
Iran likely has the ability to do something in that range as well. The US and Israel are obviously targeting their manufacturing capabilities, but Iran has a lot of manufacturing that’s more underground, and because you can use commercial manufacturing to build these systems, you can do that almost anywhere.
That’s one of the reasons why I have been very vocal that the United States needs to invest more in these capabilities. And why I was thrilled, frankly, in the context of this conflict, regardless of what one thinks of the conflict itself, to see the US use its first precise mass system, the LUCAS drone, against Iran.
The American military arsenal is based on quality over quantity. It’s based on having small numbers of exquisite, expensive, hard-to-produce systems that are the best in the world, but they were designed to be essentially bespoke products. They were not designed for mass production. The issue is that that’s not enough anymore.
In a world that required having those expensive, exquisite systems to do things like accurately fire weapons at your adversaries, then that was a unique advantage for the United States military. But because everybody — both smaller states and militant groups — can launch more accurate precision strikes at lots of different targets, it means that just having those kinds of systems is not enough for the United States.
If Iran is firing a $35,000 Shahed-136 at the United States, and the United States is shooting it down with a weapon that costs anywhere between $1 million per shot and $4 million per shot, you do not need to be a defense planner to understand that that cost curve is in the wrong direction.
How did Iran get so well-armed?
Necessity is the mother of invention. A country like Iran has felt intense security threats in the region. In part that’s because of Iran’s own ideology: If you’re going to roll around chanting “death to America,” then you need to be prepared for the United States and the region to have some questions.
Iran fought a war against Iraq in the 1980s. Iran has been in continual tussles with various neighbors over the years. And so Iran built up a pretty extensive military arsenal. Not anywhere near as good as the United States or Israel, but Iran, in some ways because they had to, was a pioneer in developing these low-cost, long-range precise mass weapons that they then shared with Russia. And Russia’s used hundreds of thousands against the Ukrainians.
Is there a way for the US to defend against these Iranian drones without spending so much money?
The US has options. It’s just going to take some time to get there.
Another country where necessity has been the mother of invention has been Ukraine, facing down the Russian invaders now for four years. And because Ukraine is the victim of dozens to hundreds of launches of these Shaheds almost every day, Ukraine has pioneered lower-cost air defense systems using even less expensive drones, for example, to take out those $35,000 drones, or even in some cases using old World War II-style anti-aircraft guns.
If a fairly cheap unmanned drone can overwhelm a billion-dollar aircraft carrier, does the US need to start rethinking the way it fights wars?
One hundred percent. The plan to rely only on these exquisite, expensive, hard-to-produce weapons is no longer going to be enough for the United States. That would especially be true in a war against the most sophisticated potential adversaries the United States could face like China or Russia.
What the United States needs to pursue is what’s called a high/low mix of forces. Some of those high-end systems like Tomahawk missiles and F-35s, things that the United States has worked on for a generation, but then also a new wave of these lower-cost systems that need to be treated not as the kind of thing you might hold onto for 50 years, but as cheaper, more disposable, and upgraded on a regular basis.
What do you think war looks like a generation from now?
The character of warfare is always in flux. The way that I would think about this is just like the introduction of the machine gun at scale in World War I. It fundamentally changed the character of warfare.
The machine gun then just became a ubiquitous weapon. Everybody had machine guns. And then in World War II it was the tank. And everywhere since then, there have been tanks.
What we are now seeing between the Russia-Ukraine War and this war with Iran is these one-way attack drones. It’s not that they’re the only things that militaries need, but these are now going to be part of the arsenal moving forward. And if you don’t have them, and if you can’t defend against them, you’re going to be in trouble.
End of today’s VOX roundup.
