In the Media
Subscribe to friends!
My new year’s resolution was to launch and maintain a youtube channel. There you will find video versions of new podcasts and saturday streams.
I’ve been busy elsewhere, with interviews an editorials. My article in Unherd warning of upcoming fights over state Disparate Impact laws:
What is strange about this Texas AI bill, which would undermine Trump’s moves at the federal level, is that it was tabled by Republican State Representative Giovanni Capriglione. It is less strange, though, when it is known that the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF), a think tank that received several government grants during the Biden administration, hosts a working group coordinating these bills with Capriglione on its steering committee. It received $1 million from the State Department, $500,000 from the National Science Foundation, and $200,000 from the Department of Energy. FPF operates a working group dominated by Democrats, trying to pass the same bill in Republican-led states. Until Thursday, its website read that it “intended to advance the National Strategy and [Biden] EO on AI” and “promote equity”. The website removed these phrases later that day.
TRAIGA is one of over 10 state bills introduced by members of FPF’s working group, though FPF’s CEO now denies drafting or supporting it. These bills, which are almost identical, would put the burden on all AI users — which they call “deployers” — to avoid disparate impact “harms” in large parts of the economy. Those working in education, hiring, finance, government, healthcare, law, and numerous other industries would be regulated by these proposed laws.
Another article in Unherd about the center-left reformer’s case for Curtis Yarvin:
The reason Yarvin cites for preferring [Monarchy] is that “having an effective government and an efficient government is better for people’s lives.” He believes that the government can only be as productive as a private company by becoming governed like a private company, citing Apple as an example of a “monarchy” under his definition. This idea comes at a time when a cottage industry of Left-wing think tanks, journalists, and policymakers has formed around the concept of “state capacity” — creating a system that can execute on large government projects.
…
After November’s defeat, Democrats must choose one of two desires: the desire to repeat the moral shibboleths of the 2010s, or the desire to win. If they choose the former, they will continue to lose ground in public opinion, government, and cultural institutions. If they choose the latter, they might have to consider Yarvin’s perspective in order to rebuild state capacity. The Democrats’ road back to power, and towards understanding what went wrong before, will require a reckoning with disenchantment.
A more policy-oriented version. And a more philosophical one.
An Interview with Razib Khan:
An interview with Richard Hanania: