Trade EverythingJul 11
free markets are responsible for our prosperity. letâs build more of them.
Tarek MansourGood news for the Pirate Nation: weâre expanding the âTuesday Reportâ into a bi-weekly update, which weâll deliver Tuesday and Thursday in a similar manner. Welcome to the Pirate Wires Morning Report. In addition to the MR, weâre still sharing the White Pill every Saturday morning, an original banger from yours truly every other Friday â which Iâll send from âMike Solanaâ to help you better sort your inbox â and a wide variety of fire guest reporting from the intersection of technology, politics, and culture.
Empire rising. Tell your friends (seriously though, Jeff Bezos inspired me, and I would also like a statue of my hot lover on my next megayacht â tell them, tell everyone goddamnit).
One last, important update: we are finally live on the butts app. Follow us on Instagram.
Onto the lead â
---
Happy Memorial Day, weâre all gonna die (again). Tuesday, some time after the soft release of Mark Zuckerbergâs newly-jacked body, and just before the Washington Postâs inevitable, full-throated endorsement of the nationâs most popular Chinese spy app (on grounds itâs helping âstigmatizedâ people), hundreds of high-profile leaders in the field of artificial intelligence signed another open letter warning the entire project could lead to human extinction. The warning, so consistently made to the utter confusion of our American press, public, and government, has thus finally evolved from novel bit of clownery to entire, cherished genre in the field. As with every enduring meme, the story persists for a reason. So today we ask: who is benefiting from the AI doomer shit?
The last, disastrous âexpertâ AI letter â in which the Future of Life Institute proposed a moratorium on AI development â famously included many fake signatures, from Sam Altman to Ja Rule. It then stealth edited the letterâs body after gathering names, and finally managed to attract its most ferocious criticism from two of my favorite AI doomers: Eliezer âbomb the data centersâ Yudkowsky, and Timnit ârobots are racistâ Gebru. This cast of characters locked in heated opposition over what is ostensibly their common cause is your first tell: most of this is just about attention.
AI is a booming space in need of doomsday thinkfluencers for appearances on CNN with shocking quotes to scare the sheeple, but there are only so many scrolling hours in the world for aspy neckbeards with apocalyptic predictions. Our âintellectualsâ therefore find themselves at odds in a zero sum game for a very specific kind of nerd god status, and the only way to attract attention in so crowded a space is to accelerate the doomer message. Gary Marcusâ proposal, finally picked apart by Congress, further and unfortunately proved it is actually riskier to suggest something actionable while terrifying people than it is to keep it all ambiguous. Tuesday, the Center for AI Safety therefore tweaked its message. This new âopen letter,â now signed by many actually important leaders in the field (the former really just included Musk), was a single sentence long. It read, simply:
âMitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.â
Naturally, the press picked the letter up, as it is admittedly shocking to hear the very people working on AI think it is on course to destroy the world, and a lot of people on the internet freaked out. But a handful of obvious questions follow:
How exactly might artificial intelligence destroy the world? What is the timeline here? How does prioritizing the risk posed by artificial intelligence actually mitigate the odds, given China doesnât seem to give a shit about popular American sentiment, or open letters? Then, what are you even proposing the governments of the world do? In what manner? Who is leading this effort? Which governments are we leaving out? Most importantly, why â if the stakes range from global extinction to literally endless human suffering in an immortal AI hell dimension â are you working on this technology at all? Should you not be doing everything you can to stop it, which surely includes a little more than op-eds and open letters? Is there perhaps some utopian upside to the technology? Might you consider describing that upside in similar, colorful detail as you often describe the various ways we might all die because of your lifeâs work? No?
Okay then, I guess Iâll just wait for the next letter.
I think whatâs happening is this: there are a small number of Bay Area rationalists who really do believe AI will probably kill us all, and a great many more who peacock the opinion because it denotes high status in the world of intellectuals online. But none of the AI doomers actually working on AI believe theyâre at any risk of destroying the world. For most, talking about such things simply makes them feel important. The public terror they evoke, to no discernible end, is just an unfortunate after effect. For a more clever few, this is marketing. Surely any company building something as powerful as an evil AI god is valuable, no? But for our very top students, from our very top companies, this is all, more clearly by the day, an attempt at regulatory capture.
Artificial intelligence is a serious and potentially (probably!) paradigm-altering technology. There are risks, here, which will become obvious, in a more concrete sense, as the technology matures. I only hope that when this day comes, after so many months of self-serving histrionics, thereâs someone left to listen when our technologists attempt to warn us.
-Solana
---
Welcome to AOCâs mall cop era â inevitable. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez logged onto Bluesky Tuesday afternoon and wondered âwhere the line is to leave the other place,â â which is to say Twitter â where the horrors of âunchecked disinfoâ are bringing our democracy to its knees.
AOCâs disinformation mall cop era was inevitable, and immediately attracted the approval of NBCâs chief âdisinformation expertâ Ben Collins. But upon closer examination the Congresswoman did have an actual grievance aside from the fate of our grand nation, and it was, in keeping with her beloved character, amazingly stupid.
Our pressing, national danger: Elon Musk laughed at an AOC parody account implying the Congresswoman had a crush on him. Nonetheless, weâre glad to see our politicians take up the important cause of disinformation online, and eagerly anticipate AOCâs reflections on her own fire takes, including such bangers as âRepublicans did a rapist rights bill,â and âthe Hunter Biden laptop story wasnât real.â
Debt Limit Groundhog Day grinds to a close. Members of Congress once again came together last night, across party lines, to remind America that money is a made up thing, and what is debt, anyway, but an abstract concept? An egregore imbued with power for belief in such things alone? My brothers and sisters, hear me: there is no monster in your closet, there is no goblin lurking in the dark. Money does, in fact, grow on trees. Itâs literally paper, people. Spend!
Pending a vote in the Senate (it will definitely pass), the deal will suspend our national debt ceiling for another two years. (NYT)
U.S. National debt currently stands around $31 trillion dollars, around $10 trillion more than 2018, and $26 trillion more than 2000. Sounds crazy, but Iâm sure itâs nothing. (Debt clock)
Target targeted: âwokeâ company loses $10 billion over Pride merch controversy. Vastly overestimating the number of their customers who are openly homosexual babies and/or well endowed transsexuals, the big box store came under fire from right-wing activists, facing boycotts last week, after rolling out a line of Pride merchandise including LGBT-centric childrenâs clothes and âtuck-friendlyâ womenâs bathing suits. The company responded by Rosa Parking the displays at the back of some stores in ole Dixie â spurring another untethered backlash from left-wing activists.Â
The controversy comes in the wake of Bud Lightâs disastrous sponsorship deal with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney, which devastated sales and Anheuser-Buschâs stock price. Target has long sold Pride merchandise, though mostly tacky, rainbow-splattered t-shirts for gay adults that nobody bought. If they really wanted to sell things gay people would actually wear to Pride, theyâd sell mesh tank tops for the fellas and orthopedic sandals for lesbians. Selling the other stuff always hit like more of a PR stunt than anything, but now it seems thereâs a limit on the amount of corporate virtue signaling the public is willing to accept. Next year, I suspect the six trans women who shop for bathing suits at Target will simply have to tape their hogs back a little tighter. (NY Post)
0 free articles left